I am an atheist because I started outside religion, and I have never found a reason to go inside. Religion was a non-issue during my formative years, and over those same years and beyond I have never heard an argument for religion that ultimately did not reduce to “Because I/he/they said so” or something similar.
Those “profound” rituals that form a central part of so many people’s lives are only confusing or ridiculous to those of us looking in from the outside, just as the rituals of one religion look ridiculous to the followers of another. The “sense of community” that people find in their religious groups, I have found in my peers, coworkers, friends, and humanity at large. I have never found a need for religion in my life; I do not need nor want an imaginary friend in my life, I have enough real ones.
Finally, the petty tribalism that religion engenders, defining “us” and “them” based on what and how you worship, is a divisive force that our collective society, already shot through with divisions both real and imaginary, doesn’t need. If we truly seek cooperation instead of conflict between all the diverse members of humanity, we need to tear down or fill in every boundary we can. We need to act in this world, not waste our time in pointless pursuit of some imaginary next one.
Dave H.
Canada
Dave makes these arguments:
1. He has no reason to look inside religion.
(He is predisposed to ignorance)2. All arguments reduce to “X says so.”
(Not familiar with actual arguments)3. Rituals are ridiculous.
(Anti-ecclesiasticism)
4. Sense of community found elsewhere.
(Not relative)
5. No need of imaginary friend.
(ignorant of arguments, see #2)
6. Petty tribalism = divisive force.
(not relevant; Atheism is tribalist)7. Need to tear down boundaries.
(Why? Are there no reasons to discriminate against certain behaviors? Not relevant to the existence of a first cause)
8. Need to focus on material world, not an imaginary one.
(Philosophical Materialist).
Dave was born and raised Atheist. He is ignorant of real arguments for the existence of a first cause, and he is ignorant of what religion is and what believers actually believe. He claims that religion is a divisive force that needs to be torn down, presumably to be replaced by Atheism which is not divisive? Apparently he pays little attention to Atheists, too. He has made no logical or rational case for Atheism, nor has he invoked science or evidence of any kind.
13 comments:
1. He has no reason to look inside religion.
(He is predisposed to ignorance)
He states he found no reason to go inside a religion, not that he has no reason to examine religion. He has examined religion and does not find its arguments compelling.
2. All arguments reduce to “X says so.”
(Not familiar with actual arguments)
He's saying that the arguments he has heard are based on fallacies, he points out the arguments are most often arguments from authority and adds "or something similar" referring to other fallacies.
3. Rituals are ridiculous.
(Anti-ecclesiasticism)
So?
4. Sense of community found elsewhere.
(Not relative)
People are social animals. There is no question that people find a "sense of community" in religions. He says he finds it elsewhere. So?
5. No need of imaginary friend.
(ignorant of arguments, see #2)
If the gods not exist then they are imaginary. Even you must believe some people's gods are imaginary.
Dave was born and raised Atheist.
He was born an atheist as we all are. He does not say whether or not he was "raised Atheist".
He is ignorant of real arguments for the existence of a first cause
You can not possible know what arguments he has heard or examined.
he is ignorant of what religion is and what believers actually believe.
Believers believe a lot of things. A lot of contradictory things. He knows what some people believe. I will grant that, like you, he can not know what every believer believes but it's more likely that you are ignorant of what he knows about religion.
He has made no logical or rational case for Atheism, nor has he invoked science or evidence of any kind.
The evidence for theism not being compelling is a logical reason not to be a theist.
Nats,
1. "He has examined religion and does not find its arguments compelling."
The evidence (his words) say otherwise.
2. ” He's saying that the arguments he has heard are based on fallacies, he points out the arguments are most often arguments from authority and adds "or something similar" referring to other fallacies.”
Analysis remains: not familiar with actual arguments.
3. ”so?”
Not an argument against the existence of a first cause.
4. ”so?
Not an argument against the existence of a first cause.
5. ”some gods are imaginary”
Fallacy of False Association; Not relevant; Not an argument against the existence of a first cause.
” He was born an atheist as we all are. He does not say whether or not he was "raised Atheist".
We are born ignorant; that is the status you choose for Atheism? He says that religion was a non-issue during his formative years.
” You can not possible know what arguments he has heard or examined.”
Correct. I depend on his statement regarding arguments from authority being the major argument type he heard; his statement had no reference to any non-fallacious arguments or any counter argument against them. He presented no logic to refute any argument. His rejection of undefined arguments is not a “reason” to be an Atheist. It might be classified as an excuse, though.
”…but it's more likely that you are ignorant of what he knows about religion.”
Please share your probability equations with us.
The request was to give “reasons” for being an Atheist. If what he has given represents his knowledge, then we all know both his knowledge and reasons.
” The evidence for theism not being compelling is a logical reason not to be a theist.”
The demand for evidence resolves to “material evidence” in most cases; and Dave H. is a Philosophical Materialist as is evidenced in his view of “this world”. In Dave’s material world, evidence would be material. So the demand for evidence is a Category Error, since theism relates to entities and events outside and beyond mass/energy and space/time. He presents no logic to support the Atheist position that there is no first cause, and he presents no evidence either. His position is without either logic for support or material evidence for support.
Rejection based on the adjective “compelling” is merely the assertion of an opinion and nothing more. It admits that evidence or arguments exist, and are not defeated, but they are merely not sufficiently “compelling” in the opinion of the author of the rejection. This is Radical Skepticism at work, where no counter argument is given, merely an unfounded rejectionist opinion. So it is an ideology based, in this case based on Philosophical Materialism and Radical Skepticism; but it is without logical support or material support.
Clearly this atheist became an atheist during his formative years (i.e. early teens). Hence his ignorance of actual theistic arguments and his ignorance of history (i.e. that atheism is not divisive).
I suspect he is a) not only unaware of arguments in favour of the existence of God, but likely would not understand them.
Hence he basks in ignorance but mistakes it for rational thought.
- Apollyon
"The request was to give “reasons” for being an Atheist."
Nope, this pz guy's question was "Why are you an atheist?". That's a slightly different request.
Dave says in the comments:
"...a different friend (a young earth creationist) and I would sit around and have debates, an experience which crystallized my atheism."
One more thing to add.
In the real world almost 100% of arguments for or about God (made by everyday theists) are arguments from authority - usually the Bible.
Watcher said,
"Nope, this pz guy's question was "Why are you an atheist?". That's a slightly different request."
When I ask, "why is there a new dent in my car door", I am asking for the reason that there is a new dent in my car door:
why adv :
1. for what reason or cause or purpose.
2. for which; on account of which.
why conj :
1. the cause, reason or purpose for which
2. for which; on account of which.
why n, pl whys :
REASON; CAUSE
Source: the Merriam Webster Dictionary, New Edition; pg 833; 2004.
I do love it when Atheists try to justify their positions by attempting to redefine words.
"In the real world almost 100% of arguments for or about God (made by everyday theists) are arguments from authority - usually the Bible."
First, I doubt your figures: please link us to your source for the claim of "almost 100%". We need EVIDENCE, not mere assertions.
Second, so what? The claim to worldviews based on logic and rational thought should be based logic and rational thought. The issue here is the lack of maturity of the Atheist claimants both emotionally and intellectually: (a)claiming to have something - logic and rationality - of which they have neither knowledge nor understanding, and (b) arrogance in the belief that they are the only ones to have it.
And then basking in that arrogance of ignorance, as if it were an asset.
Truly rational investigators would look into what actual theoreticals are involved in theism, and either refute those, or accept the arguments as inevitables. But that is not the manner in which even the expert Atheists behave; they resort to mechanisms of Radical Skepticism rather than to rational refutation, or to rejecting human ecclesiasticism, or authority in general.
Are these "reasons"? Yes. Are they rational reasons? No.
What we are looking for in these reasons for being an Atheist are rational reasons based in irrefutable logic. So far, none have been put forward.
Here's your chance, Stan.
1) Show me this great evidence or argument for theism that you think everyone's ignoring.
and
2) (More importantly) tell me how you know it's true
The first argument is the logical evidence that both Atheism and Philosophical Materialism are both false. This is beyond the reach of any Atheist or Philosophical Materialist counter argument. Yet that is no proof of anything other than that the question of non-material existence is a valid question, despite the Atheist effort to squelch it.
This blog goes no further than that, except to promote the intensive study of the discipline of logic and its application to rational thought.
Rational worldviews are not obtained by mere association with an ideology - especially false ideologies. For a worldview to be rational, and known to be rational, its tenets must be subjected to logical tests for valid argumentation, and its premises must be subjected to tests for grounding in order to avoid circular or infinite regress fallacies. Fallacies must be understood so that arguments are not derailed nor squelched falsely.
I urge everyone to educate themselves completely first, and then to analyze all propositions using the discipline of logical analysis, in order to find for themselves the set of propositions most likely to be true -under the disciplined scrutiny of actual analysis, to build their own worldviews around.
An interesting note: It appears that truth is never just "known". Truth is discerned. Only the first principles are self-evident. And they are tools for truth, not truth itself.
Let's see.
Your argument is theism is true because atheism is false? And let me guess, atheism is false because theism is true?
You have provided no logical reason for believing this. You have provided no evidence to support your assertion.
What are your rational and logical reasons for believing this is the case?
watcher,
Your argument is theism is true because atheism is false?
Stan explicitly said no: "Yet that is no proof of anything other than that the question of non-material existence is a valid question, despite the Atheist effort to squelch it."
If you do want a bit of positive evidence for theism, though, try this.
We've already dealt with cosmological argument years ago.
Dear Messrs Hume and Edwards,
Please support your claim with evidence rather than empty assertions.
Surely that should be an easy task for such distinguished "philosophers" such as yourselves.
Sincerely,
A Rational and Logical Thinker
Post a Comment