Ask an Atheist.

[nihilistic]

I grouped them in the basis of their evident unlikeliness and the weakness of the arguments supporting them, as well as the obvious self-serving process involved in defending them. Traits, I think, quite fitting to match our debating topic.

My point was, with that, to show that a person which don't belive in God is not necessarily someone unwilling to believe in the ludicrous.

I think you are misplacing the antecedent here. While theism may be an instance of irrationality, it does not neccesarily follow then that irrationality is an instance of theism. One can be sufficiently irrational in many many other ways than theistic. So while I do agree with your point, I'd like to point out that it is not pertinent to our discussion.

The difference is arbitrary and without method, I know. Still, the difference IS, it exists, for no better reason that enough people do think of these as different.

As I said, in a coherent line of thought, the same process that excludes one excludes the other. But my point of contemption is exactly that not necessarily will atheists have coherent POVs

That's because you are a lawyer and sometimes have a jury to care about . To me a million people can be just as dumb as one. Mathematically, if there is not a single quality that distinguishes one object from another, then the two objects are the same.

 

[azzaman333]

Here's my question: can any atheist speak for any atheistic point of view but his own?

It seems to me that there is not much to say about lack of belief, just about how one views beliefs that one doesn't have.

No, actually, no. Atheism, as any negative, lacks form, and because of that, lacks also conformity. An atheistic creed would undermine the idea, and that is why there is no expected common trait to atheists except not believing in God.

Regards .

I agree with that. (and what I was going to say wouldn't have sounded anywhere near as good as that )

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Of course, that makes "ask an atheist" kind of a difficult thread . . .

But I see what you mean. And the thread has borne this out: ask any 3 atheists about an issue related to religion or belief, and expect 4 different answers.

 

[FredLC]

I think you are misplacing the antecedent here. While theism may be an instance of irrationality, it does not neccesarily follow then that irrationality is an instance of theism. One can be sufficiently irrational in many many other ways than theistic. So while I do agree with your point, I'd like to point out that it is not pertinent to our discussion.

Well, I certainly don't mean to imply that religious people are irrational (though I do think that such particular believe is irrational). Nonetheless, I think that my point is pertinent as in it demonstrates that the lack of rigour that can explain someone that simultaneously denies God and believes in ghosts possibly exists.

I guess we don't actually disagree in general, than.

That's because you are a lawyer and sometimes have a jury to care about . To me a million people can be just as dumb as one. Mathematically, if there is not a single quality that distinguishes one object from another, then the two objects are the same.

Why should all distinctions that matter be mathematically quantifiable? Note that i'm not defending the distinction, I'm just acknowledging it.

Regards .

 

[nihilistic]

Of course, that makes "ask an atheist" kind of a difficult thread . . .

But I see what you mean. And the thread has borne this out: ask any 3 atheists about an issue related to religion or belief, and expect 4 different answers.

Well, I agree with FredLC in his characterization of atheism as a negative claim. An atheist, to me, means any person who is not committed to a supernatural outlook. Sure the atheist's opinions may contain many other kinds of absurdities, or be laughably naive or wrong in any of many distinct ways. As long as those absurdities cannot be clasified as theism, the person is still an atheist.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Yeah, and everyone else disagrees about everything else . . .

I am not criticizing, or anything. And I am glad this thread exists even if it won't describe all atheists.

 

[Yuri2356]

In other words, why is your morality not only logical but instinctive as well?

Because the ability to cooperate in large groups is an evolutionary advantage, and harming others of your species makes cooperation difficult. So, species with inhibitions towards internal violence will be more successful than those without.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Not always. In some species with a tendency towards internal cooperation, an individual with a willingness to use violence might end up better off. It all depends.

 

[Yuri2356]

Not always. In some species with a tendency towards internal cooperation, an individual with a willingness to use violence might end up better off. It all depends.

Establishing an alpha and being willing to fight with other groups also give a compendative edge, but there will ultimately be some who instinct will tag with 'do not kill'. These are the ones which that little voice in your head doesn't want you to hurt.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I think the evolution of behavior is fascinating, and it is my favorite way to look at economics (they are related, after all) - but it is not an inherently atheist thing, any more than any other branch of science is.

 

[nihilistic]

Why should all distinctions that matter be mathematically quantifiable? Note that i'm not defending the distinction, I'm just acknowledging it.

Ah, I'd have to read lawyer talk more closely next time.

Anyway, I think you may have misunderstood me too. I certainly did not mean "mathematically quantifiable", or rather I did not want to imply some of its implications. By distinguishable, I do not mean "distinguishable in SI units" or "provably different in terms of Second Order Logic". I just wanted a not-neccesarily-rigorous explanation of "A is different from B in that condition C is accepted by A but not B". Furthermore, I'd like to add that the argument of "there are 10000000 people accepting A != B" is a quality of the 10000000 people, not of A or B.

 

[Yuri2356]

I think the evolution of behavior is fascinating, and it is my favorite way to look at economics (they are related, after all) - but it is not an inherently atheist thing, any more than any other branch of science is.

Of course, all scientific knowledge can have a layer of spirituality added on top of it without conflict. However, the system can still operate independently of deities.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Indeed, which is why I consider my faith "arational".

It just bugs me that some people think that accepting reason means rejecting faith. Of course, perhaps I am fooling myself.

 

[El_Machinae]

But I see what you mean. And the thread has borne this out: ask any 3 atheists about an issue related to religion or belief, and expect 4 different answers.

Clearly! We have multiple atheist duelling about whether one can believe in ghosts and remain atheist.

Nihilistic: what distinguishes "materialist" and "atheist" (to you) as terms? The way you're using the terms, they seem to be interchangable.

 

[Swedishguy]

Ask the über-atheist [me] about stuff!

 

[HannibalBarka]

What would make you believe in a relgion?

Being exposed to a very "hard" experience in my life like losing one of my kids (God forbid )

 

[HannibalBarka]

What do you like about religion?

Help you deal with the "irrational" like death

 

[Veritass]

A soul.

Most representations of ghosts that I have seen present the ghost as the disembodied persona of an actual human, not just some random personality. For an atheist to believe in ghosts, and not just the cessation of consciousness at death, the atheist would believe that there is some part of you that lives on after the death of your body.

Now this is quite similar to the definition of a soul: the part of you that lives on after the death of your body, except that the soul is usually sent to heaven to rejoin with God, or sent to hell to be punished for eternity. Maybe it is like the movie "Ghost" where ghosts are just souls that have unfinished business here on Earth.

Anyway, I ask the atheist: do you believe in ghosts? do you believe in souls?

 

[El_Machinae]

I don't know of any atheists who believe in souls or ghosts, and I certainly don't.

 

[silver 2039]

Anyway, I ask the atheist: do you believe in ghosts? do you believe in souls?

No and no.