Why does Richard Dawkins sound like an Agnostic? (meaning, born, Buddhist)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, al sorts of possible factors. Probably a 'common sense' feeling that Church -going doesn't make sense; there is no sign of a god anywhere and it's all just imagination. That is not really an evidence -based or logical approach. I just argue that evidential and logical basis is sound, even if you don't know it.
Emotional???? How is atheism "emotional"? You will have to explain that one because I'm not seeing it......religion is what is emotional not atheism. Or irrational.
I don't think anyone is entirely objective and non-emotional and rational at all times. Even atheists.
And as I said, becoming an atheist can be quite an emotional experience.
That aside, we do have the more rational / objective point of view as a foundation.
No distracting from the central issue of this thread. We are NOT discussing what Theists KNOW or BELIEVE, Arq. We are discussing what atheists KNOW and BELIEVE . . . and why they obfuscate the issue by conflating the two. The very act of claiming a default on the issue belies your denial of my assertions. The simple and unadulterated truth for EITHER side is that "We do NOT KNOW." Atheists would like to pretend they hold the default ground AS IF they KNOW . . . just as theists pretend they KNOW because of revelations or personal experiences or both. There is no clear default, period . . . because "we do not know."
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
No, this seems your latest confusion. Technically we cannot be sure of anything. In practical terms, we can believe and be sure of many things - that the sun will appear to rise every day and that is because of the sun's rotation. The science that gives us those sureties gives us the other things we can credit or at least prefer to some other hypotheses with much less credibility. That is the default we either take as sure, credible or at least the better one than faith based claims without much else to support them.
Trying to force an untenable position on us is, as usual, a position the looks either like confusion or dishonesty and I still am never sure which it is with you faith -based believers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
It is the earth's rotation that gives the appearance of the Sun rising and setting, Arq . . . NOT the Sun's. We can believe and be sure of many things as you say . . . but the Source of life and everything that exists is NOT one of them. Yet you would claim that there is no Source because theists use the name God for it. You have no way to believe and be sure about that at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold
However, atheists are intellectually honest when being specific, in using the term agnostic atheist.
Can you even count on one hand how many identify with the term agnostic theist?
And come on, you know the default of any position is the one where there is no evidence for the positive claim.
You constantly discount the presence of more than intellectual knowledge in the theist camp . . . personal experiences. You can dismiss them and claim they are not evidence to anyone but the one experiencing them . . . but that does not mean theists are not being honest or that the experiences are not evidence to the theist. You pretend that atheists and theists have the same basis for believing or not believing . . . but we do not. Be honest . . . aren't there things you know and believe through experience that you have not established and validated through science. From whence comes that certainty absent the science???
What you say about the source (whether you call it God or not) is correct. That is why Dawkins, Mordant and I are all agnostics. We do not know. Therefore the logical position is disbelief - atheism. The illogical position is a claim that they absolutely do know for a reliable fact: Theism.
We are really comparing apples and oranges here, Arq. Atheists eschew the absolute claim because they cannot possibly support it. Theists have more information that they credit than do atheists so they tend not to eschew the certainty. It has nothing to do with logic . . . but information. Atheists do not credit any subjective information leaving them having to profess ignorance. Theists do not.
Quote:
The evidence for (and against) the existence of such a source (depending on how it is described - your Cosmic consciousness is pretty well sussed) is based on the things we can be sure of, the things we can credit and the things where the evidence points one way. Where those things are arguable, such as what causes the Mystical feeling or the ecstatic feeling in prayer or meditation is at best leaving us agnostic - which logically mandates disbelief in 'something more' than a mental effect and at worst with some of the evidence pointing away from it. That is the effect of the materialist or rationalist default, based on the body of data which we can be sure of, credit or take as the better explanation; see the discussion on dinosaur bones: were they deposited by dead animals and fossilized or planted by Satan or God? Was the bullet in the body fired from a gun or did Satan put it there? Occam's razor applies.
You can save yourself the trouble of sneering at 'The friar's dictum'. I have explained why it is valid and based on realities.
You can save yourself the trouble of trying to upset the the materialist default. I have explained why it is valid.
It does not matter whether you accept the explanations or not. We do and that means attempts to tell us otherwise are pointless.
You should save yourself the trouble of panning the fables and stories of the Bible and other such nonsensical narratives. We are far from discussing them. We are strictly limiting our discussion to the scientific plausibility of God based on extant information versus your materialist default. My Cosmic Consciousness has in no way been "sussed" and is at this juncture more plausible than your default . . . as Gaylen has so masterfully tried to educate you. It is consistent with consciousness and subjectivity as fundamental to our reality itself . . . your default is NOT.
That would be true if the credit that science has earned by demonstrating how things work without needing a god was not a matter to be considered, or if believers admitted that their faith proved nothing; but in fact sound evidence is dismissed as irrelevant and Faith is presented as proof. Thus Theism is irrational and atheism is not only rational, but is the only rational option where one does not know.
I don't think religion would be as popular as it has been if there wasn't some ring of truth to the idea of Theism. True, it has been used to control people, and, also, it has been (subconsciously) used to try to mold people by religious people who believe it themselves. So the religious people are partially controlled themselves by the delusion that they can mold and create other people in their "own image".
But the Deistic idea of a natural/rational belief in God is what I think is closer to the truth. The fact that people use it for their own selfish reasons does not make it untrue.
And I think there is nothing more irrational than to say that everything came from nothing.
You constantly discount the presence of more than intellectual knowledge in the theist camp . . . personal experiences. You can dismiss them and claim they are not evidence to anyone but the one experiencing them . . . but that does not mean theists are not being honest or that the experiences are not evidence to the theist. You pretend that atheists and theists have the same basis for believing or not believing . . . but we do not. Be honest . . . aren't there things you know and believe through experience that you have not established and validated through science. From whence comes that certainty absent the science???
Let me try to explain this to you once and for all. I have tried many times.
I do not discount the experience. It is real, I am convinced.
It could be what some claim it to be - communication with some outside entity Aka "God".
It might also be a mere product of the mind.
We have to be agnostic - we are not sure. Nio more than we are sure about the origins of the Universe or life. But in all those things, we are sure that science has provided answers before and so we are giving science some earned credit for being able to come up with answers in time.
We do look at the claims of believers - for example the argument for NEDs-OOB's, which we argue against but do not and cannot entirely discount. But we do not believe yet, because we do not know. And we cannot rule out that the effect is just a product of the brain and no more - which possibility the believers seem to discount.
We are really comparing apples and oranges here, Arq. Atheists eschew the absolute claim because they cannot possibly support it. Theists have more information that they credit than do atheists so they tend not to eschew the certainty. It has nothing to do with logic . . . but information. Atheists do not credit any subjective information leaving them having to profess ignorance. Theists do not.
You really are getting it back to front. It is Believers who reject anything other than their take being right. You are again trying to force the untenable position of absolute certainly on atheism. This is not the case and, if it were, we would be obliged to abandon it and adopt the rational agnostic -based position, which in fact IS the basis. I have explained this before, but you really do not seem to listen.
Quote:
You should save yourself the trouble of panning the fables and stories of the Bible and other such nonsensical narratives. We are far from discussing them. We are strictly limiting our discussion to the scientific plausibility of God based on extant information versus your materialist default. My Cosmic Consciousness has in no way been "sussed" and is at this juncture more plausible than your default . . . as Gaylen has so masterfully tried to educate you. It is consistent with consciousness and subjectivity as fundamental to our reality itself . . . your default is NOT.
I beg your pardon, I do not need you to tell me how to conduct my discussion. Application of Occam's razor is relevant. And I am pretty sure you and your Cosmic consciousness theory HAS been 'sussed' despite your denial. It is based on Faith in your experience being what your believe it is, and all the evidence is fished and fiddled to fit it.
I don't think religion would be as popular as it has been if there wasn't some ring of truth to the idea of Theism. True, it has been used to control people, and, also, it has been (subconsciously) used to try to mold people by religious people who believe it themselves. So the religious people are partially controlled themselves by the delusion that they can mold and create other people in their "own image".
But the Deistic idea of a natural/rational belief in God is what I think is closer to the truth. The fact that people use it for their own selfish reasons does not make it untrue.
And I think there is nothing more irrational than to say that everything came from nothing.
I don't discount the appeal of religion and I am currently thinking that religion is an evolved instinct with survival value. In an odd way, so is war, and xenophobia. But we are now rational beings and we can do better, and we have to do better.
I certainly am less certain about a deist or First -cause Creator. I do argue against the case for it as it is pretty much flawed and based on fiddled evidence. The best part of the case is what began it all. In a common -sense way everything from nothing seems absurd. There are many things that science has discovered that seem absurd, but they are true.
And I think there is nothing more irrational than to say that everything came from nothing.
How many times must it be explained that few, if any, use or mean, the literal 'nothing'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
. Be honest . . . aren't there things you know and believe through experience that you have not established and validated through science. From whence comes that certainty absent the science???
I'm trying to think of something but nothing is coming to mind.
I suppose there are a couple of things that might fit here, but even with those, I don't offer 100% belief.
Wait...nope....even they aren't from just personal, unshared, unaccounted for experience of some kind so back to trying to think of something.
Even though I tend to agree with Richard Dawkins and other atheists, I still find the word "atheist" confusing. I know that many religious people do also, most likely.
If the word Atheist doesn't accurately describe what they truly believe, then that causes a lack of communication. It's almost like a deliberate distortion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How is atheism "emotional"? You will have to explain that one because I'm not seeing it......religion is what is emotional not atheism. Or irrational.
Technically we cannot be sure of anything. In practical terms, we can believe and be sure of many things - that the sun will appear to rise every day and that is because of the sun's rotation. The science that gives us those sureties gives us the other things we can credit or at least prefer to some other hypotheses with much less credibility. That is the default we either take as sure, credible or at least the better one than faith based claims without much else to support them.
Application of Occam's razor is relevant. And I am pretty sure you and your Cosmic consciousness theory HAS been 'sussed' despite your denial. It is based on Faith in your experience being what your believe it is, and all the evidence is fished and fiddled to fit it.
