h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Greetings to all y'all the FFFF. I look forward to wading through
your impressive reading list.

Not because I wanted to take issue with the name of your forum, but rather because I just wanted to write something, I wrote an article about being an atheist and how it involves faith.

http://www.h2g2.com/A378939

You may be interested. You may not.

A definitely Darwinian to one and all,

z3r
=================================
Jesus wuz just zis guy, you know?

*currently considering founding the "Freedom from Dogma Foundation" even though it is a bit hypocritical to be dogmatically opposed to dogma*

Would anyone be interested in joining?

Ummm... like... wouldn't it be a place where people could get together and discuss anti-dogma beliefs without fear of persecution? Something like... I dunno... this place, maybe?

Oh, I am sorry. You are too dogmatic to join.

I keep leaving bits off my posts...

that was a very dogmatic thing to say...

I am dogmatically opposed to dogma. And I *am* religious... just not dogmatically so. You should rename the foundation, if your aims are to oppose dogma say that. Faith doesn't have to be dogmatic. Some of your ideas here though, are.

Dogma:
1.Theology. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters
such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a
church.
2.An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion,
especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at
doctrine.
3.A principle or belief or a group of them: “The dogmas of the quiet
past are inadequate to the stormy present” (Abraham Lincoln).
(from www.dictionary.com)

well, (1) is definately out - we aren't a church (though we'd like the tax advantages...)
(2) is closer, but there are few of us who consider their beliefs absolutely true. True, perhaps (depending...), but absolutely true, no.
(3) is much better. We have principles, and we have beliefs. Ok, so we got dogma-3, but not dogma-2 or dogma-1.

for balance...
Faith:
1.Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person,
an idea, or a thing.
2.Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See
Synonyms at trust.
3.Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's
supporters.
4.Often Faith. Theology. The theological virtue defined as secure
belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5.The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6.A set of principles or beliefs.
(from www.dictionary.com)

Well, it's pretty similar, isn't it? Some of us have Faith-1, some don't. I don't think anyone has Faith-2. Faith-3 is irrelevant to the whole thing. Faith-4 is absent here, and we'd like to be free of it. Faith-5 also. Faith-6 is the same as Dogma-3, and I think everyone must plead guilty to that.

Wasn't that fun?

Indeed it was. And Atheism is a faith. It CANNOT be shown logically, it cannot be defended from that standpoint (this may burst your bubble but unfortunately it is true). By treating it like you can, it forms a narrow world view which blinds you. I don't believe you can argue rationally enough to continue this.

Thanks, you have just backed up my point more than I thought.

You haven't yet explained what you understand by the term 'Atheism'. What precisely is it that you think an Atheist is trying to prove, either by logical or other means? The non-existence of God? Think again... I don't think anyone on this forum would be arrogant enough to make any definitive statement one way or the other about the existence or otherwise of God - neither are any of us (as far as I'm aware) particularly interested in trying to prove, once and for all, that God doesn't exist. The argument that we have is with the extreme and unaccountable statement of faith that a believer has to make in order to pursue their doctrine.

Let me put it this way :- the Christian, in order to pursue their religion, has to take 'on trust' the notion that there is a God up there in the sky looking down at them, and that this God is rather like the portrayal that is given of 'Him' in The Bible. The Atheist needs make no such absolute statement - their position is "Okay, so prove it - and until such time as you provide evidence of God's existence, I will continue to treat 'Him' as a myth." The rational approach to the question, then, is to argue that the burden of proof lies with the believer, since the believer is the one who is making the statement of faith.

Don't ask an Atheist to prove the non-existence of God. Ask a believer to prove God's existence. Try showing *that* logically, my friend...

*raises eyebrows*

You obviously are showing faith in Christianity since you use it so often as your example. Some of your comments sounded like agnosticism more than atheism. I know there can't be proof either way at any point. I am not arguing that my worldview is right, I am arguing that it is a worldview of an equal standing as yours. No one can state either way, you take a cynical approach and require "evidence" to countermand your faith that there is no deity (and it is a faith, faith in the nonexistance of an indecidable concept is faith nonetheless) whereas my observations lead me to believe otherwise. I'm not saying I'm right, who am *I* to judge? I am simply saying that whichever world view you take, it is going to come up short against reality because we are too stupid to understand. Don't use logic on situations where logic CANNOT apply. Faith and belief is such a situation.

And in case you haven't realised, yes I baited you somewhat into this but you goaded yourselves too. *sighs and the mathematician wanders out*

I'm not really sure what your point in all this is, Joe. You come in here and mutter some things about dogma, and then say: " I am not arguing that my worldview is right, I am arguing that it is a worldview of an equal standing as yours." Well, what exactly IS your worldview? We can't agree that your worldview has merit if you won't even tell us what it is.

As for this: "faith in the nonexistance of an indecidable concept is faith nonetheless", I think you're being a little closed minded here. The definitions above for faith do not fit for an atheist's worldview. Atheism is a lack of faith in anything that cannot be observed through the senses or scientific experimentation, or proven logically. Just as cold is a lack of heat, as dark is merely lack of light, so atheism is lack of faith.

If you say that logic cannot apply to the question of faith, then you are making a special exception. The problem with that is exactly what we have seen... millions of seperate sects, each with their own dogma, and absolutely, beyond a shadow of doubt, convinced that theirs is the *true* way. Throw out logic, and you end up with gibberish.

*shrugs* You haven't convinced me that you are any more logical.

All you have convinced me of is that you like sensationalism.

*sighs* Why did I post now? Because a few things have happened recently and I always blow off steam by arguing. I will go now, if you wish.

Before I go, I *don't* believe in organised religion. Faith is something that is personal, and I dislike narrow minded interpretations. Perhaps you should rename your foundation Freedom From Organised Religion Foundation since you all seem some of the most faithful people I have ever seen.

Joe... Sellers has pre-empted much of my critique of your reply to my last posting, but just for the record (since I've typed it out, and since I don't want to be accused of rudeness), I may as well put it up here. I don't fell 'baited' here at all, by the way. I find these discussions help me to clarify my own thinking, so don't worry about that one...

>"You obviously are showing faith in Christianity since you use it so often as your example."

Errr... Christianity exists as a belief system, there are millions of people around the world who adhere to it, and I would be foolish to deny this fact. Obviously I use Christianity to illustrate my examples of the behaviour of a religious believer, since I grew up in a society in which it is the dominant religion. I hope that dispatches your first statement.

>"Some of your comments sounded like agnosticism more than atheism."

Let me explain my understanding of the difference between Atheism and Agnosticism. Agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible to prove one way or another the existence or otherwise of God. An Atheist (in my experience) sees no reason to make such an unequivocal statement. All they are saying is that there is, at present, insufficient evidence to establish the matter one way or the other - the evidence is unavailable. But reason is on the side of the sceptic rather than the believer because the latter has to make a 'leap of faith' in order to believe in God.

I think the Agnostic view falls down at the point where it begins to insist that there can *never* be proof of such matters either way - how do they know this? It seems to me that such a statement is a sweeping one with no evidence to substantiate it.

>"I know there can't be proof either way at any point."

Sounds to me like you're the Agnostic here! How do you *know* there can't be proof either way at any point? Why don't you try proving this?...

>"you take a cynical approach and require "evidence" to countermand your faith that there is no deity"

Here, you seem to demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of my previous posting. Let me quote from above :-

"The Atheist needs make no absolute statement - their position is "Okay, so prove it - and until such time as you provide evidence of God's existence, I will continue to treat 'Him' as a myth." The rational approach to the question, then, is to argue that the burden of proof lies with the believer, since the believer is the one who is making the statement of faith."

Therefore, I am *not* stating that there is no deity. I require evidence from the believer to prove *their* statement that there *is* a deity. I'm not making any statement either way - as I say, the burden of proof is with them...

>"I am not arguing that my worldview is right, I am arguing that it is a worldview of an equal standing as yours."

I notice you still haven't actually told us what your worldview is...

Yours, patiently awaiting enlightenment,

Lear.

And to further clarify my position on Lear's statement of "I'm not making any statement either way - as I say, the
burden of proof is with them..." - I am making a statement either way, as an atheist. I believe that, based on the available evidence, there is no logical reason to believe in God. Therefore, I do not believe he exists. I will, however, openly and criticially examine any new evidence which supports his existence. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. This is not faith, this is scientific method. Until the current theory can prove itself, I have no reason to believe it. I once was a believer, and only after dissecting all the Christian "evidences" and finding them lacking did I reach the reasonable conclusion, based on the available evidence, that there is no God.

Don't feel like you're being attacked here... while we will freely criticize your ideas, it isn't meant to be taken personally. We criticize each other all the time. That's a huge part of why we're here... we became nonbelievers in the popular mythology *because* we critically analyze things, and we have a difficult time discussing this sort of thing in certain company. Also, bear in mind that this Foundation has members that cover a wide spectrum of belief systems, so attempting to characterize us is doomed to failure. The title of this forum is more apt to draw atheists, since it purports to discuss atheism, but that is certainly not representative of the Foundation as a whole. Check out the latest Business Forum a few posts back, when a handful of us offered our own worldviews... it's quite a collage.

Anyway, my point is that criticizing each other's ideas is necessary. I wrote an article on Atheism, and it sparked a huge debate. Through the course of that argument, I came to see my own worldview in a somewhat different light. I'm actually considering writing a new article on the subject, one which reflects my new understandings of the term, but I'm fairly sure it will end up being too serious and get shot down by the editors. If you are unwilling to allow your ideas to be criticized, then you close your mind and stagnate, which is really no different than the dogmatic ones you dislike.

little to add, but...

Christianity is generally cited because it's the one I (and others) see most of. Just the same as if I wanted to give an example of a dull town, I'd name Hull (no offence to Hullians)... But yes, I would, if pushed, say that I'm a "church of england atheist" - C of E is the religion I know more than any other.

Thought I had recently - in the world of parasitology, they talk about "vertical" parasites, which spread by infecting their children, and "horizontal" parasites which spread from a plant to a neighboring plant. Now, vertical parasites are much more likely to be of some benefit to their host, compared to horizontal ones. (That's observation - evolutionists will immediately have an explanation, no doubt...) so Christianity is a horizontal and vertical parasite in that terminology, whereas the non-proseletysing religions are vertical only. Which may or may not prove anything... and OT anyway.
{all terminology dodgy}

However, for me personally, I say I am a "strong" atheist. The phrase I tend to use is - "if I know anything, then I know there is no God". My experience thus far has been that the universe is a logical place, and I have yet to find a religion that is logical. I accept that it could be that the universe is not logical, but feel that if I discover that it is not so, then the last question on my mind will be whether a God exists. I'll be dealing with much more immediate questions like "Will the sun rise tomorrow?" - in an illogical world, there's no reason to suppose it will.

I have a fondness for the worship of Lady Luck, though. Ms. Luck has been worshipped since soon after the invention of gambling, her church is pretty much universal, and has never been disproved. Been around longer than any other religion...

Hull is a dull town.

I have often made the point to anyone who will be bothered to listen to me rant that any statement about the existence or nonexistence of God is meaningless without an a priori definition of what is meant by the utterance of the word.

Atheism per se is not really a faith, but it you are correct in identifying its fideist elements as practised by many people. I think one thing that many atheists and theists have in common is a tendency to make sweeping generalizations about reality that showcases their lack of real thought about the matter. I myself try my best to shy away from BELIEVING in things and instead have opinions.

Look at it this way: we have a century behind us of unparralelled advancement in theoretical ontology. We have quantum physics and the uncertainty principle, special relativity, chaos theory, string theory, a host of astronomical discoveries, etc. etc. to occupy us now. I find it pretty funny when someone who hasn't given any of these topics any serious thought tries to convince me that he has some idea of how the universe REALLY works, especially when his theories revolve around the supposed existence of an invisible superbeing or a giant turtle or whatever.

Probably what unifies us here is not agreement on a single opinion or idea, but a common thirst for understanding, a willingness to continue to struggle with the ineffible rather than being satisfied with pat answers, and a shared desire to not continue to attempt to interpret the mysteries of the universe in the context of archaic cosmologies. Faith, in my view, reeks of stale conservatism and an unwillingness to see the world as it seems to be rather than as it ought to be. For my money, I enjoy few things as much as the act of destroying another person's faith in some unsupported, ill-considered notion.

I suppose that some atheists may be more fervent than others.

Personally, I don't use my atheism to illuminate anything on a day to day basis any more than I use my lack of belief in the allegations of Von Daniken or Immanuel Velikovsky to affect my daily thinking.

I *do* use my understanding of the world, as collected through my knowledge of science, as a means of developing my understanding of reality. It's just that given the complete lack of credible evidence for a deity, there is no need to constantly consider the possibility of a God or Gods as factors in any decision making.

If someone really wants to get pedantic, I suppose I can't *prove* the non-existence of a passive God who doesn't do anything worth noticing, any more than I can prove there aren't alien spaceships hiding on the other side of the Sun.

When it comes to analysing claims of *proof* for the existence of God, then I suppose I am an active atheist, but the vast majority of the time, I'm just a skeptic and non-beleiver, in the same sense as the one in which I'm a non-woman, non-football-player, non-child, non-reptile, non-venusian, etc

I don't get up every Sunday and spend the whole morning chanting 'God, who art not in heaven...', etc. Heck, even devout Christians are presumably non-Muslim, non-Hindu, non-Daoist etc. Life's just too short for us to spend it worrying too much about what we aren't. It wouldn't leave any time for proper arguments.

I can't see that *that* makes me have faith in atheism in anything like a religious sense. It's simply the default description of reality when faith, or any real possibility of faith, doesn't exist.