Am 19.01.2014 23:08, schrieb andrel:

> I don't think I could base a morality on an agnostic point of view, so I
> stick to being an atheist if you don't mind.

I actually find it pretty easy:


* I can't tell for sure whether there is a supreme something or not, or 
what its nature is, and I suspect that it is impossible to known for 
sure. Therefore, whatever my personal current belief on this matter may 
be, it may be wrong.


something, nor try to prove what its nature is, neither to yourself nor 
to anyone else.


believe in a supreme something or not, or what they believe its nature 
to be.


fear ponder alone or discuss in groups whether there is a supreme 
something or not, or what its nature is, within the limits imposed by 



fear follow any rules they derive from their personal and current belief 
re the supreme something's existence or nature, within the limits 



I think these few rules, derived from what I consider the essence of the 
agnostic point of view, make for a formidable set of fundamental ethics.



currently think the supreme something's nature is:

* I believe (even though I can't prove it) that there is a supreme 
something; I believe (even though I can't prove it) that hints about its 
nature can be found scattered among all world views and all throughout 
the universe, including science; I believe (even though I can't prove 
it) that its nature is very witty and humorous, very forgiving (to such 
an extent that the word is actually meaningless, because there is 
nothing to forgive in the first place), and very benevolent.


humorous, forgiving and benevolent, and leave the rest.




Pretty much everything else in terms of moral springs from the 
"commandment" to be forgiving and benevolent.

Post a reply to this message

Am 20.01.2014 00:19, schrieb Warp:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> Am 19.01.2014 23:22, schrieb Warp:
>
>>> The test whether you are an atheist or a theist is rather simple:
>>>
>>> Would you say "I believe that a (theistic) god exists"?
>
>> No, that's not the test. The test actually is:
>
>> Would you say...
>
>> ( ) "I believe that a god exists" (=> You're a theist)
>> ( ) "I believe that no god exists" (=> You're an atheist)
>> ( ) "I have no strong conviction on that matter" (=> You're neither)
>
> Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. It doesn't matter how convinced
> you are.

"Writers disagree how best to define and classify atheism,[27] 
contesting what supernatural entities it applies to, whether it is an 
assertion in its own right or merely the absence of one, and whether it 
requires a conscious, explicit rejection. Atheism has been regarded as 
compatible with agnosticism,[28][29][30][31][32][33][34] and has also 
been contrasted with it.[35][36][37] A variety of categories have been 
used to distinguish the different forms of atheism."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

I interpret the term to require "a conscious, explicit rejection", 
because to me that appears to be closer to the typical use of the term 
in common English, i.e. when used neither colloquially, nor as a 
technical term of philosophy, nor as a technical term of conservative 
Christianism.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 23:08:19 +0100, andrel wrote:

> I think I said it before here, I am a true and religious atheist. After
> long and hard thinking about ethics I came to the conclusion that theism
> can not form a foundation for an ethics*. Basically because, unless you
> are the prophet, you have to rely on other people (i.e. prophets and
> disciples) to tell you what is right and wrong. There is no way you can
> check whether the prophet gives the right interpretation and it is clear
> that different prophets have taken opposite positions as to what the
> same god meant.

That's a very interesting argument.  I like it.

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On 1/19/2014 4:14 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 19.01.2014 23:22, schrieb Warp:
>
>> The test whether you are an atheist or a theist is rather simple:
>>
>> Would you say "I believe that a (theistic) god exists"?
>
> No, that's not the test. The test actually is:
>
> Would you say...
>
> ( ) "I believe that a god exists" (=> You're a theist)
> ( ) "I believe that no god exists" (=> You're an atheist)
> ( ) "I have no strong conviction on that matter" (=> You're neither)
>
Umm. No, because it is "still" possible to conclude that all "extant" 
definitions of such a god are absurd (i.e., existing religions), while 
**provisionally** discounting one that is not yet defined, *but* still 
allowing that one's own knowledge may be insufficient to draw a 
conclusion. This is pretty much the stance of even the supposed "strict 
atheists", I have ever had describe their position. Even the ones that 
don't hold it do so on the sole basis that its an unnecessary addition 
to existing theory, which has consistently shown no evidence, or reason 
to suppose one might find such evidence, of supernatural entities, 
including gods.

Its still a "provisional" stance, but, in the same sense that one would 
not reject, say, the law of gravity, without a significantly radical 
replacement, and the necessary evidence to show that it possessed 
attributes which explain things the current concept does not. I.e, as 
close as possible to impossible, as possible.

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message

On 1/19/2014 3:08 PM, andrel wrote:
> Then I found a way to found an ethics based on the assumption that god
> does not exist. And I have lived by that ever since and it has become a
> part of who I really am. If a god turns up my entire belief system will
> be in disarray. (luckily that won't happen)
>
Actually, my take would be much the same, I think, as that of PZ Myers. 
If a god did show up, and did things that seemed to defy natural laws, 
there would be a few moments of disconcert, then I would start thinking, 
"How exactly did they do that?" The default position would not be to 
presume that there was no explanation, or that the best explanation was 
that it was really god, but, rather, that they are doing something that 
is *possible* to achieve, and I just don't know exactly how yet.

This is, of course, the dead opposite of religious belief, where one 
"expects" to have some things only be possible if the god is the one 
doing it, and how they did it to be unexplainable, and unreproducible.

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message

On 1/19/2014 5:20 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 19.01.2014 23:08, schrieb andrel:
>
>> I don't think I could base a morality on an agnostic point of view, so I
>> stick to being an atheist if you don't mind.
>
> I actually find it pretty easy:
>
>
> * I can't tell for sure whether there is a supreme something or not, or
> what its nature is, and I suspect that it is impossible to known for
> sure. Therefore, whatever my personal current belief on this matter may
> be, it may be wrong.
>

> something, nor try to prove what its nature is, neither to yourself nor
> to anyone else.
>

> believe in a supreme something or not, or what they believe its nature
> to be.
>

> fear ponder alone or discuss in groups whether there is a supreme
> something or not, or what its nature is, within the limits imposed by

>

> fear follow any rules they derive from their personal and current belief
> re the supreme something's existence or nature, within the limits

>
>
> I think these few rules, derived from what I consider the essence of the
> agnostic point of view, make for a formidable set of fundamental ethics.
>

The problem, of course, is that the ones believing in supreme beings 
then tend to use that as justification for believing other vastly 
stupider things, and then imposing those things on other people. It this 
was avoidable, that would be one thing, but.. try being a woman, in a 
**huge**, and growing number, of US hospitals, who is in need to 
emergency services, to save her life, which the Catholic church doesn't 
like (i.e., anything that might threaten the life of an unborn child, 
even, stupidly, a non-viable one). If she is lucky, they ship her off to 
some place that will help, presuming there still is one, which the 
church hasn't bought out, and assuming she doesn't bleed to death, die 
of sepsis, or otherwise fail to make it to the other hospital in time.

There are consequences to other people's ideas, and, more to the point, 
if they are wrong about them. Sometimes, those consequences are not just 
that you have to listen to some fools talk about whether or not heaven 
has good Mexican food, from a nearby table. My "ethics", at least, imply 
that other people matter, and that magical thinking both a) doesn't tend 
to help people, b) often causes direct or indirect harm, c) its victim 
may be someone I know, and d), the inability to come to rational 
conclusions is rarely, if ever, exclusive to one single category of 
absurdities. Hence, the fact that a discussion about the 
existence/non-existence of a god **will not stop** before it gets into 
whether or not said god thinks its better to, say, infect millions of 
people with AIDS, rather than prevent a few pregnancies.

That it could be something as mild as whether or not, in complete 
contradiction to history, and reality, god "wants" baby boys to wear 
blue, and girls to wear pink. But.. if believing gets you to jump to a 
nonsense conclusion about the "truth" of that idea, what much worse 
things can they talk themselves into thinking are true, based on a game 
of, "What if this real god wants...."?

This is also why atheism devoid of critical thinking is, a bit of a 
problem itself. If you don't reach a logical conclusion via logic, there 
isn't going to be much to stop you from changing your mind, and reaching 
the dead opposite conclusion for just as illogical, poorly thought out, 
and invalid, reasons.

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message

On 1/19/2014 12:52 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 18:09:14 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Yeah, got one of those calling everyone else fools and claiming that
>> they just don't "see the truth", and quoting Ray Comfort, and AIG, etc.,
>> while never coming up with anything other than Bible quotes to support
>> his claims of the infallibility of the Bible, and the truth of god, over
>> here:
>>
>> http://yearwithoutgod.com/2014/01/02/am-i-doing-it-wrong
>>
>> What started out as a fairly sane discussion about someone "trying out"
>> atheism, and his comment on people telling him that doing so was a bit..
>> odd, if nor absurd, has turned into nothing but a back and forth between
>> a few ex-believers, and a full blown creationist. Unfortunately, I
>> decided to get involved as well, and.. haven't quite gotten around to
>> getting so completely fed up as to nuke the email updates for the
>> discussion, and let the rest just go at him.
>
> I think this guy is very misunderstood - I've been following him since
> about day 2 of his experiment, but my initial read (born out by his later
> posts) is that he didn't decide on January 1 to flip a switch - that the
> possibility of the universe not having a "god" is something that has been
> weighing on him for years, and he's decided to take the next step and
> stop acting like a Christian, but to start acting in a way that's
> consistent with what he's thinking.
>
Yes, the article writer certainly seems to be in that particular 
category. The guy I am talking about above is one of the clowns in the 
comment thread. But, there has definitely been a few people coming 
along, and, in connection with the original article, trying to tell some 
of the rest of us off for recommending books, as though, in fact, he 
really is someone who is just doing it as a lark, and we are trying to 
"convert him", or something.

My own recommendation was one a read recently about an ex-evangelicals 
similar journey from desperately trying to find sense, and some sort of 
real morality and purpose, in the whole "Bible Thumper" circuit, to 
finally concluding that it was all hollow, pointless, and a waste of time.

> He's been very generous, both in terms of his openness about his process
> and thinking, and also with the organizations he contracted to who
> decided that his "experiment," while interesting, was incompatible with
> teaching the courses he was teaching.  He's been generous because those
> organizations and employers are "faith-based," so he doesn't bear them
> ill will for discriminating against him - but I'm sure that experience
> has registered as perhaps a sample of the sort of discrimination that
> "out" atheists experience.
>
Yes, the author of the book I mention was fairly generous with most of 
the people he fell out with, over time, as well. They are stuck in a way 
of thinking that just can't allow for someone who doesn't fit, but for 
the most part don't intend any sort of malice.

I am not sure I could be quite so generous, but then, I am coming at it 
from the other direction, and whether or not you cause harm has very 
little to do, quite often, with whether or not it was "intended", and.. 
there is so much damage done, in the name of religion being "right", and 
other ideas being "wrong", that it really does, sometimes, matter far 
more that they *are* wrong, than whether or not they are nice about 
being so, nor is it so easy to forgive (since the later, to some extent, 
implies also leaving them to their folly, along with the consequence to 
bystanders).

> But kudos to the family and friends he has who are supporting him as
> well.  In that respect, he's had it easier than many.
>
Definitely.

> Jim
>


-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message

On 1/19/2014 11:12 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 19.01.2014 18:09, schrieb Patrick Elliott:
>
>> I don't. See, the problem is, if you define god as some "ineffable
>> something, we can't describe.", then you are correct, and that is
>> invariably the "fallback" position of believers (since they can always,
>> later, bait and switch back to the one they really do talk about all the
>> time). However, any "defined" version, like.. the most common form of
>> the Christian version, which performs miracles, reacts to prayers, etc.,
>> and thus has a tangible impact, of some kind, has "testable" attributes.
>
> No, it doesn't - because the Bible /explicitly/ denies this testability,
> saying we can't / shall not put God to the test. (And then there's
> plenty of scripture that can be interpreted to implicitly affirm this.)
>
Well, no, in point of fact, only when it was "convenient" for.. 
presumably the latest bunch of priests, dealing with some uppity 
parishioners, who wanted evidence, did it say that. There was some bit, 
I don't remember which part, where the guy did everything short of 
asking god to personal come down and buff his shoes, and god, quite 
happily, did them all, as "proof" that he really was god. Typically, 
believers pick the silly bit later, which says you shouldn't go around 
testing him, and gloss over the other earlier bit, where he was 
perfectly fine with it.

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message

On 1/19/2014 3:16 PM, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> However, any "defined" version, like.. the most common form of
>> the Christian version, which performs miracles, reacts to prayers, etc.,
>> and thus has a tangible impact, of some kind, has "testable" attributes.
>
> The problem with those "tests" is that they are based on no less than
> two logical fallacies. Those tests are fallacious because they are of
> the form:
>
> 1) If God exists, he answers to prayers and performs miracles.
> 2) Prayers get answered and miracles happen.
> 3) Therefore God exists.
>
> This is a textbook example of "affirming the consequent." The obvious
> objection to the logic is that even if premise 2 were true, it could
> have a source other than God. How does one know that the prayer answers
> and miracles are not coming from something else than a god? Without
> further evidence it's not possible to say.
>
> The other logical fallacy here is, of course, that the first premise
> is completely unjustified. Even if a god exists, we can't know if he
> answers prayers or performs miracles. This has not been demonstrated.
>
> Neither of the premises can be shown as being true, and even the
> conclusion is a logical fallacy. These "tests" fail miserably.
>
And not just because, when they conduct them the answer seems to be, "We 
got his answering machine, or something, so he didn't answer them."

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 20:11:02 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> The guy I am talking about above is one of the clowns in the comment
> thread.

Oh, yeah, there's a lot of asshattery in the comments - which is why I've 
not read them.  The discussions are generally going to be pretty 
predictable, anyways.  There will be those who support him, those who 
have ideas and suggestions for changes to his approach, and those who are 
going to tell him he's going to hell for even considering the idea that 
there is no God.

I've got enough going on in my life without reading over those same 
arguments again. :)

Jim
-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message