Posts tagged ‘Atheism’

February 6th, 2009

Athesim and Science

Atheism display at Borders
Image by Colin Purrington via Flickr

There appears to be, in the minds of many theists, a determination to wed atheism and science, though
unnecessary and not supported.

An atheist is any non-believer in gods. There are atheists who think
crystals hold some sort of magical properties, those who see auras,
Mystics, Buddhists, all kinds of folks who only share in common a lack
of belief in gods. “All atheists worship science or have faith in
science” is as inaccurate as saying “all theists blindly follow their
leaders and know nothing of their own beliefs.”

Atheism does not espouse a set of morals, it does not determine what
else you do and don’t believe. It doesn’t endorse any political party
or manner of determining reality. An atheist can believe the scientific
explanation of the universe and reality or they can believe we were put
here by aliens, they might believe in ghosts and Earth spirits or they
may try to live by logic and reason. Atheists can be really smart and
abysmally stupid, and everywhere in between.

My humanistic attitudes are far more influential on my behavior and
belief system than my atheism. Atheism addresses a single disbelief
among hundreds I hold. It does give me the freedom of mind to
appreciate science while at the same time enjoying medieval polyphonic
motets, to learn from religion while not falling back under its spell,
to examine any claim and subject it to the standards I’ve adopted in my
life. It facilitates these things, but I do none of these things “in
the name” of atheism or even because of my atheism. I loved medieval
music as a Christian and I love it still.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

CategoryOpinion, Science | Comment12 Comments »

Tags:
January 27th, 2009

You’re an idiot

I moderate a debate forum that’s reasonably active, usually anywhere from 10-30 people logged in at any time. One of the members, one who has been around for a while and has posted frequently, posted the following comment to another member.

“HeyU, you’re an idiot.”

I’m not providing too much context because not much is necessary to grasp the inappropriateness of this comment. This was posted by an atheist directed toward a theist (religion is always a “hot” topic) in a privately owned forum open to registered users. Anyone can register, but all have to agree to a TOA that spells out the rules and structure of the forum. They have to agree to this in order to register. The first and second rules are: 1) No threats, personal insults or attacks. 2) Respect other opinions. I think #1 is rather self-explanatory.

You can’t call someone an idiot. You can think they’re an idiot. You can treat them like an idiot, explaining everything in small, short words in an overly-gratuitous manner. The British in the 30s and 40s perfected the art being outrageously disrespectful in the most gracious manner. But it’s a rare breed that can pull that attitude off successfully online. A textual environment is a context, and within different social contexts there are different rules, different expectations. Join a chatroom and immediately start hawking software for sale and see what happens. Do it on the street and the rules are different. Do it in front of a Fry’s and you’ll likely ring a few sales. forum

So the pertinent context is: uttering an insult in a private forum in violation of acknowledged rules. I sent the following warning.

What were you thinking? You know the rules. You know how to debate (I suspect). You know you can’t say this to another member.

This isn’t a bully pulpit, it’s a debate forum with rules and procedures. I don’t really care what you think of any other member of Volconvo. Your personal assessment of HeyU has no bearing on any debate here. Negative personal comments are always and completely off topic.

Your inability to be civil and participate within a defined structure is well understood by the mods and I would presume to you as well. At the moment your participation in the forum is more troublesome than constructive. I’d truly like to see that change. You have the potential to be a knowledgeable spokesman for your values, beliefs and opinions. In a live debate your style would be totally appropriate. But in this context it’s disruptive and distracting. I miss reading a lot of your content because I’m busy chuckling over your latest barb, some often deserved skewing of pomposity. But just because I get a laugh from these witticisms that doesn’t mean I don’t also realize they violate the rules. I have one blog I write just to have an outlet for the frustration and incredulity I feel after reading some of the threads here. However, those emotional reactions to gross irrationality belong there, not here.

A forum is an exchange. If you elicit emotional reactions to your points, their emotions will over-ride their meager critical thinking skills and the wall goes up, the lights go out. And if you attack emotionally you’ll reap offense, which starts a cycle of attack/offense that is longer debate. I should know, I’ve started threads like that before and a couple got closed. I’m not perfect, but I do try to have control over my emotions and argue opinions. I try my best to ignore who I’m responding to, preferring to quote the words and rebut only them.

So please, from someone who appreciates what you have to say but insists that it be said in accordance with the rules…chill. Write a blog about it. Get it out of your system. There are all kinds of places on the internet where you can say what you want any way you want, but this forum is the owner’s place on the web. His rules apply. We have to respect them, he has the means to enforce a rather final penalty on those who refuse to abide by them. And we agreed to abide with that when we registered. The TOA are a binding contract.

I’ve been a mod for quite a few years now on various forums. One of the first lessons I learned is that you cannot excuse rule violations just because you agree with the opinion expressed by the violator. I was a cop for a couple of years. I was a horrible cop, but the one way I was good was that I never took sides or offense when dealing with the public. Most of the encounters were emotional, and you had to over-ride emotion with reason and calmness. If you get excited, they become hysterical. It’s a pointless and sometimes dangerous escalation. And it’s counter-productive. So I learned not to do that. I release the frustration in some safe, legal way.

So: I may agree with most of what you say, but I’m not going to let that influence my enforcement of the rules any more than if I violently disagreed with you.

So what say you?

CategoryOpinion | Comment14 Comments »

Tags:
November 5th, 2008

“Atheists believe god doesn’t exist” (common theist misconception)

That in which I don’t believe cannot provide the basis for a belief system. If I believe in anything, it’s that which can withstand scrutiny and skepticism. The claim that gods exist and further, that any particular god exists, are extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence. None has been provided.

Faith requires me to look at reality, which makes sense viewed through my everyday perceptions, in a way that doesn’t make sense on so many levels. I choose to no longer accept the unsubstantiated presumption that gods exist.

If I say “god does not exist”, I’m not speaking in the same absolutist frame of mind common among those who presuppose a condition to be real based on nothing more than emotions and tradition. The possibility that gods exist, based on all that’s known about gods, and further that any particular god exists to the exclusion of all the others is so infinitesimally small it’s not worth admitting a possibility exists. The odds of my hitting the lottery are far better than the odds that the Christian god exists as portrayed by its followers. The chance that I’m a child of god is on a par with the chance that I’m a child of extraterrestrials.

I’ll never know so much I could ever rule out anything absolutely. Religious belief presumes the absolute existence of its deities. To allow that they might not exist is the first step to breaking free of the shackles of presumptive belief.

I’m willing to admit that there is, however small, a possibility that a god just like yours exists just as you personally perceive your god to be. I also admit the possibility that reality is a natural process unfolding within us and around us totally unmindful of our presence is far greater and able to withstand critical examination. Theists, true believers, cannot in good faith accept even the slightest possibility that their beliefs may be mis-perceptions of reality.

Who is free to consider all possibilities? Who can more accurately call themselves free thinkers?

Isn’t the non-existence of gods as much a presumption as the belief they exist? Sure, but it’s a presupposition that invites disproof. It’s a flexible presumption. The presumption that gods exist (not can exist but do exist in one form or another) is inflexible and discourages and ignores disproof.

CategoryFree Thought, Theology | CommentNo Comments »

Tags:
September 29th, 2008

Atheist & Frethinker’s Forum

Due to misuse by a few recent new “members” of the Frethink Forum, I’ve closed that forum and reopened the Atheist & Frethinker’s Forum. It’s all new and open to all free thinker’s, atheist, agnostics and skeptics. Theists are welcome to join, as long as they understand no religion is sacred or protected from skepticism and challenge there.

In order to keep the forum useful to all its legitimate members, spammers will have their accounts deleted as soon as I receive notice that they’ve joined.

Please join up and start a few discussions. It’s a place to share, question and enlighten.

CategoryFree Thought, On the Web, Politics, Society, Spirituality | CommentNo Comments »

Tags:
June 20th, 2008

My group thinks, therefore we are

It’s unfortunate that many people prefer to let their religion or their nationalism or any sort of group think community (any group, including rationalist and humanist groups) tell them what to think.

Neither I nor atheism is a religion. I do not think that my particular point of view is superior to anyone else’s nor is it going to apply to anyone else. It has developed, evolved, over the course of my life in response to the experiences I’ve had. I am aware that I hold several contradictory opinions. I make no apology for them.

Telling others they should think as I do is as anathema to me telling them what they can and can’t think. None of us has the right to tell another what to think. We explain our point of view as best we can and leave it for them to ponder it or ignore.

I’ve had other atheists insinuate, and in one case come right out and say, that I’m not atheist enough. Their attitude is that there’s a right way and a wrong way to be atheistic. How absurd. I could disbelieve in gods but believe that stuffed teddy bears were alive and be an atheist. That’s one of the things that separates atheism from theism, the lack of a standard statement of belief. There’s no atheistic dogma to which we all pledge our allegiance.

Some atheists contend that a philosophy of life that doesn’t include gods alone is insufficient reason to be an atheist. A true atheist must also believe that Jesus was an allegory based on preceding models. A true atheist must also believe that it’s significant whether or not Hitler was a Catholic (and that it mattered to him). If you don’t present an argument every time you see a theist mention that Hitler was an atheist you’re not really “one of us”. And you have to mention that Einstein was at best a deist as were the founding fathers. I’m sure I’m missing a few other examples of the articles of the unfaith.

It wouldn’t matter a bit if it were discovered that Adolph was a raving atheist. It wouldn’t matter in the least if Alfred was an Orthodox Catholic. I don’t consider myself an ambassador for the non-existent Christ. It’s an interesting historical mystery, but in the overall scheme of things it matters not if Jesus was a guy who got the best postmortem PR of any man in history or if he was nothing more than another god-man story based on earlier mythology. My rejection of the arguments theology offers has nothing to do with whether Jesus existed or not. Was Moses real or myth? Who cares?

Do you see my point? Even atheism can turn into a system similar to theism if it starts to add point after point of commonality to the bare-bones definition of an atheist. Those who attempt to do this are being unreasonable. Atheism is the product of being able to think for yourself. I can say with near certainty that no one comes to the conclusion that they don’t believe in gods until they reach a point where they change their own minds about theology. They have started to think for themselves and are learning how to ignore the voices coming at them from every side trying to tell them what to think. It’s not easy and the rewards dubious. I recommend it, but with reservations.

Think for yourself. And I’m just saying that. You have to decide whether or not you’ll pay attention and give it some thought.

signature

CategoryFree Thought, Philosophy, Theology | Comment3 Comments »

Tags:
May 14th, 2008

Prove there is no god

It’s a challenge encountered by non-believers frequently. Believers think that the existence of their god is the default reality. Anyone suggesting otherwise had better explain themselves.

They fail to appreciate that we were all born atheists. To credit their intellectual honesty in at least this case, I’ve never heard a believer even try to say that we are born with an inherent belief in a particular god. They believe the newborn has a relationship with god, but it’s a one-way relationship. God supposedly knows the baby, but there’s no indication the baby is aware of god. So I can conclude that babies are born Tabula Rasa, with no concept of gods.

I’m at a loss to imagine how anyone can present positive proof of a thing’s nonexistence. How could I prove that Superman doesn’t exist, the unicorn, leprechauns? I’m pretty much stuck with if a god behaves the way its followers say it does, then it would have to have left physical evidence, having interacted in a physical way with humans in the past. The lack of evidence and lack of modern day contact would lead to a conclusion that either a god had existed but died, left town, whatever or that it never existed in the first place.

I don’t feel any more inclined to defend my non-belief to believers than I do my nonpartisan position to Dems, Repubs and Libs. I’m not making a positive claim, I’m not asking them to believe anything, not an alternative religion or anything else. All I’m asking them to do is examine their beliefs critically and, if they are to have a faith, have a faith that can withstand rigorous skepticism. I’m asking them to actually think about what they believe. I’m demanding nothing more of them than to use their god given brain. For that I don’t have to prove a thing.

Winning converts to atheism has no purpose. It provides no benefit to other atheists, it offers no reward, it isn’t celebrated. I do like socializing with atheists more than mixed groups or an all-believer group. I am often in mixed and all-believer groups. They don’t scare me and I’m not overly impressed with them. But when I’m around other atheists, just like when I’m around other geeks, other animal lovers (nothing kinky, mind you) or other gays/bi’s, then I’m totally relaxed and find the conversations far more stimulating. Note that every group I consider myself a part of does no proselytizing, doesn’t recruit and firmly believes that one is either born an animal lover, geek, gay and/or atheist (we’re all born atheists) or one is not. And no one is likely to wake up one morning to find themselves magically transformed into one. They’re expressions of our genetic profile. I can’t yet alter the genetic profile of others. That’s why I can’t even think about trying to convert others to atheism.

Theists, on the other hand…

Jack Eber Carlson

CategoryAtheism, Philosophy | Comment1 Comment »

Tags:
April 6th, 2008

On being open minded

There seems to be a lot of confusion about what constitutes an open mind.  Theists claim atheists aren’t open minded because we won’t accept the premise that gods exist.  Conspiracy believers accuse the skeptical of being closed minded when they question the conspiracy stories.  People who don’t believe in Big Foot or Nessy are called closed minded.

Being open minded does not require us to automatically accept every thought that enters our head, believe every notion floated by anyone, accept the possibility of even the most outlandish idea.

To be open minded is to be willing to be convinced.  It’s to be willing to set aside preconceived notions in the face of factual evidence to the contrary.  Being open minded means that a person is willing to change their mind when presented with an adequate reason to do so.

The evidence or argument that will sway an open minded person has to meet certain qualifications, though.  It obviously needs to be convincing and irrefutable.  It needs to be logical and consistent with the reality we know.  It must be practical, sensible, possible and rational.

To be closed minded is to presume an unfounded assumption and cling desperately to it even when provided sufficiently contrary evidence.

If you expect me to believe in gods or Big Foot based on your word or any other subjective opinion, I’m not being closed minded in refusing to do so.  I’m remaining open minded about the concept until adequate evidence is provided.  I’m more than willing to be convinced, but the evidence required to convince me has to be convincing.   The onus is on all those who want me to believe as they do to provide a reason for me to believe, and evidence sufficient to convince me.

Some will contend that agnosticism is the ultimate open mindedness.  That’s not true.  Huxley proposed agnosticism as a means to question perceptions, not as a position to maintain.

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, ‘Try all things, hold fast by that which is good’; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him. (Agnosticism,” 1889)

It does not imply that the most honest position to take is no position.  It means that you accept that for which, at this moment, you have sufficient evidence, while being willing to amend your position should convincing evidence contrary to yours appear.

I’m not an agnostic, I’m an atheist.  No theist, no believer in any god or gods, has provided sufficient evidence to convince me that their notions about gods are true.   I don’t believe in Big Foot or Nessy, but just like gods, I’m willing to be convinced.  Provide irrefutable evidence to support the idea that these creatures are real and I’ll accept that.  I’m not set against the idea of gods or the Loch Ness Monster.  I just see no reason to believe in them based on the current state of evidence put forth in their defense.

Jack Eber Carlson

CategoryFree Thought, Philosophy | Comment11 Comments »

Tags:
February 3rd, 2008

Positive or negative?

I been thinking lately.

Should I be satisfied with defining my beliefs in the negative (atheist), or should I make more of an effort to accentuate the positive aspects of my personal philosophy (free thinking)?

I don’t know that either viewpoint should be exclusive. But I am going to try to address my interests from a more positive than negative angle for a while and see what effect it has on my general disposition. Usually I’m a very happy person, I love humor and wit. Theology is such a silly concept, I should find it fairly easy to discuss it with less disdain. Instead, I want to emphasize the positive aspects of a life without religion, a world view free from superstition and mythology, the ability to think for one’s self.

signature

CategoryPhilosophy | CommentNo Comments »

Tags: