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

The American Atheist
http://www.atheists.org
is an excellent place to learn more about atheism. Many thoughtful articles and links. Although it is a US organization, articles are included from other parts of the world, including "An Atheist's View" by Chapman Cohen (1868-1954), the third President of the National Secular Society of Great Britain,

Also online is the American Atheist Magazine at:
http://www.americanatheist.org

And another british author who appears in the American Atheist:"Life, the Universe, and Everything: An Interview with Douglas Adams", from The American Atheist Volume 37 No. 1
http://www.AmericanAtheist.org/win98-99/T2/silverman.html

And a speaker at the American Atheist Convention April 21-28, 2000 in San Francisco: Douglas Adams

}:=8

re : the Adams interview...

I notice that DNA, by his own admission, used to be a 'committed Christian' in younger days. Funny how the most committed always *remain* the most committed when they become disillusioned - they just go to the other extreme... Myself, I was lucky - I got a good rationalist education to begin with. So I'm happy just to be a 'wishy-washy' agnostic, so-called...

I'm Agnostic and I sit very comfortably on the fence when it comes to religion. Personally I would never dare to make a sweeping Atheist statement such as "I don't believe...". Too dangerous if you ask me.

Dangerous? How? Religion police going to strap you down in a chair and make you watch godly movies like they did to the guy in A Clockwork Orange?

I have reread the DNA interview and would like to comment on 'extremism/radicalism' and 'wishy-washy agnostics'. Not intended to be argumentative, just points for further discussion by interested parties. [Rather longish, sorry.]

I don't think DNA means that he is an extremist in the fanatical sense, just that he is 'serious' about his thoughts on religion. To quote the interview when asked if it is accurate to term him a 'radical atheist':
"It's easier to say that I am a radical Atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously. "

He isn't an extremist in the sense that he is going about trying to jam his beliefs down anyone's throat, nor does he believe he is one of a 'select few' who are going to be rewarded for their belief in some way. I see nothing 'extreme' in having a viewpoint that you have thought about a great deal and hold seriously. He is a well known public figure who speaks and writes eloquently, and who presents his point of view when asked. I don't think that makes him an 'extremist' either.

He goes on to say that he doesn't 'believe' there is no god; he is 'convinced' there is no god. This may seem to be a fine line to some, but it makes perfect sense to me.

If you 'believe' something it is an act of faith--much as any other religious belief is. He does not have faith or hope that there is no god, he is simply convinced of it [by logic, or HIS rational education possibly] It's like being convinced that gravity works. You don't have to 'believe' in gravity. It works whether or not you believe. But you can be convinced of the existence of gravity simply by jumping out of an airplane, or having an apple drop on your head.

In other words, belief is something you have to embrace without some kind of logical backup. Being convinced of something is based on some kind of scientific conclusion and thought process.

At least this is my interpretation of what he says in the interview.

His parenthetical comment regarding 'wishy-washy agnosticism':
"(If it turns out that I’ve been wrong all along, and there is in fact a god, and if it further turned out that this kind of legalistic, cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back, Clintonian hair-splitting impressed him, then I think I would chose not to worship him anyway.)"

I also have to agree with this point of view. The mental convolutions of many religions create a god who is extremely sadistic [or a lawyer] in their various 'rules and explanations', especially parts about who are the 'chosen'. If I were to find that there is a conscious, purposful, creator of this universe, I would only ask 'do you also like pulling wings off of flies?'. And if this creator chooses to scoop me up for 'salvation' because I hedged my bets and said 'wellllllll, maybe you're up there so don't be mad at me', I dont think I want any part of living in the petty universe he/she/it created.

Conscious creation implies a creator who appears to be an extremely jaded, vicious, practical joker, IMHO, and I find no solace in thinking that something with an intention actually started all this in motion. I think, as I believe DNA does, that the whole idea is ridiculous.

I welcome further discussion of the above or related issues.


blu
}:=8

Jeez, blu... carrying all that stuff around in your head, and here you've known all along about the perfect place to start just this type of conversation... *shakes head*

I've always been of the school of thought that the burden of proof does not lie with the atheist, but with the believer. They have to prove God exists, or else he doesn't. When I ask for it, all I get is a bunch of circular logic and dogmatic statements about forgetting what I know, and all that. So until I can see one credible shred of evidence for an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and caring creator, I stand firmly atheist. I think by callng himself a 'radical atheist' he calls up an image of a marauding, church-burning martyr-maker, which is clearly not what he means. I prefer to call myself a 'devout' atheist, since it conveys my conviction, and it's a delicious irony.

I also agree with the wishy-washy agnostic thing, but I still respect them, because at least they're open-minded enough to question. After all, proving there is no god is just as impossible as proving that there is. Since I see no burden of proof on the side of the disbeliever, I don't think it's necessary. But logically, the wishy-washy are correct.

As for the rest of it... I've got some good Twain quotes along those same lines, about how cruel god would have to be, but I don't have them handy. One of the guys at the Foundation produced a lengthy one in a forum entitled 'Alright, I'm taking down names.' You'd like it... it's the one where H2G2's God Almighty damns me to hell.

*hangs head shamefacedly*
I'm sorry, Gargleblaster. I know, I know; I should be over at the Freedom from Faith Foundation. I have actually tried to write a coupla posts for the forums there, but ended up not posting them. Please forgive me.
*clasps hands in prayerful pose, head bowed*

It is very hard for me to write about this subject with restraint. My posts either turn into rants, or disjointed ramblings, or both. I try to keep them more tightly focused if I actually post them. It took me two tries and quite a lot of editing to get the above to what I would call presentable.

I will check out the 'taking down names' thread. Thank you.
Mark Twain is one of my favorite people, too.


}:=8

PS on the burden of proof issue: it is sorta a non-issue to me, like a 'believer' trying to prove the existence of the Easter Bunny to me. while I will listen to new ideas, the belief in an Easter Bunny is to me so obviously a story for young children, I would discount any 'proof' that he actually exists. Again in DNA's words: 'All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.'

I am long past needing to hear 'proof' [either way] on the existence of god. I am somewhat curious as to how religion believers of all faiths come to their faith. Or why they cant get past needing to believe that there is a conscious 'something up there' watching over us.

I must say I slightly resent Adam's characterisation of Agnostics as 'wishy-washy' people who basically lack the nerve to make a full-blooded rejection of Christian and other religious doctrines. In a sense, the Agnostic needs more courage because s/he attempts to live without illusions - that is to say, the illusion of certainty. The Atheist is so 'certain' of something which can surely never be proved, not by logic anyway - ie, the non-existence of God - and this is why the Atheist, too, is living in an illusion. You might call it a sort of 'illusion-in-reverse', or something...

I can't help feeling that Atheism is something that is mainly for disillusioned ex-believers, who naturally feel more outrage at the absurdity of religion because they have had to struggle to emerge from a personal involvement with it. Speaking for myself, I don't really have such a background to 'kick' against - I never really grew up with Christian doctrine to begin with. And so, I can probably cheerfully go on being a sceptical-but-nevertheless-determinedly-uncertain type of person.

Of course, I might be wrong...

(Apologies for the hurried text. This is costing me money, here...)

We have MikeA, and you're worried about sounding like you're off on a rant...?

As I said, Lear, I have a healthier respect for the agnostic view than DNA appears to, but I'm curious to know why the existence of God should be proven at all. Oh, and for the record, I was brought up in a Christian family, but it wasn't particularly devout. Church attendances were rare, prayer was something you did on your own if you felt like it, etc. Basically, it's the same brand of xtianity that the 86% of Americans admitted to in that recent poll. They lean toward belief, but they don't prefer to have someone tell them how horrible they are every Sunday, especially during football season. So my personal atheism is not an angry response to horrible things done to me. I do have strong feelings about some of the things the churches have done, past and present (and I think it's hard for an educated non-believer to NOT have those sort of feelings), but something I've reasoned out logically, given all the evidence. It works like this:

Christianity is crap.
Judaism is crap.
Islam is crap.
Every religion, every supernatural being or force that has ever been worshipped, has been of the imaginings of men.
Life as we know it can be described as having been caused by completely natural means, although at the moment, there are still difficulties with the arguments. We must remain patient, however, since these theories have only been around for the last 150 years, whereas religion has been around since man learned to communicate, and it still interferes with scientific research.
The holes in these theories are daunting, but they nevertheless show promise that, even if they are wrong, there is still a better explanation than that of any god, unless you attribute the plan of the universe to some callous god of chaos, for that's the only type the evidence could support. But then again, there is order in the way the universe behaves, so there goes that one.

Ergo, there is no god.

I too am strongly atheist but was raised pretty secularly. My family still celebrated some Jewish festivals but I went to a Christian school as well. I was also taught about evolution and the big-bang theory from an early age. By the age of eleven I started rejecting the Jewish faith and did not have a barmitzva. Since then I was somewhere between agnostic and atheist but I have no decided to stick to the idea very similar to DNA's and to how bluDragon described it. I disagree that by saying "belief" you mean have faith in. The definitions of these words aren't exactly great. I say that faith does not rely on logic or evidence and is not easily changed. I believe there is no God, as portrayed in the current religions. That means that unless I see logic or evidence that there is a God then I will believe there is not one. I disfavour agnosticism similarly to DNA but they are much more favourable than christians or those who never bother to think about their beliefs at all. If one does not rule out the existance of God, I see it as fear from the deity's rath that keeps the semi-belief going - as if they will be forgiven unless they state he does not exist.

Semi-belief is also semi-non-belief, remember...

Atheists tend to emphasise the 'belief' aspect of the agnostic position, as though we were... sort of... doing okay... but haven't quite managed to pull completely away from that nasty superstition as yet... But the agnostic is really characterised chiefly by the most thoroughgoing scepticism available on the market - s/he is even prepared to doubt her own doubt. If you see what I mean...

Or if I see what I mean, even...

I doubt that . But I do doubt my own doubt as well. But I don't not say "I don't believe" and so am not...lost it. Let's try again. What I find is that the only reason people will not state they do not believe is because they are afraid of G.O.D.. Why not take the non-existance of God as a ground zero and try and disprove it. If you can't disprove it, then you can stick to it until something better comes along.

I'm an agnostic (which I just decided a couple of days ago btw) simply because I want more. I don't want to die and then just rot in the ground. I'm not an agnostic because God might actually exist and I don't want to end up going to hell. If there is a God and a hell, I won't go there for the simple reason that I don't believe I deserve to. But I really don't care what happens to me when I die, whether I'm reincarnated or whatever, I just want to keep on going. If it turns out that there isn't a god and I'm just dead, I'll be very disapointed.

But you don't have to be agnostic to believe in reincarnation. I said I do not believe in G.O.D.. I never said I don't believe in the non-material! .
That's one area I'm not sure about. I can't see a point to life and therefore whether we are reusable or one-use-disposable beings doesn't really matter to me .

Ok, lets go back to the beginning. The first question is belief or non-belief in a more powerful being. Did a conscious force create [and does it direct] the physical world we know, or not?

you can say yes and develop some system of thought describing and defining the 'conscious force' and it's purpose. You then have a religion.

you can say 'maybe' and retain some doubt about your ability to describe what is 'running things'. you then may call yourself an agnostic

you can say 'no' and simply deal with what is; without needing to attribute it to any external consciousness or purpose. you then are an atheist

All other issues are extraneous. If you first go mucking it about with worrying about what happens after death, or being afraid of a more powerful being that might be out there and 'punish you' if you decide 'wrong', it obscures the basic issue to belief/non-belief, which is:
is something in charge, or not?

I say: not.

}:=8

PS I quit needing to struggle to overcome my religious background about 40 years ago. It isn't an issue for me. Because I dealt with the basic issue first, without letting secondary factors enter into the conclusion. See above.

Yes, but people normally don't make such a clear decision. Choice of belief is normally clouded with other factors such as worrying about rath and so on. I personally have thought about it for so long and had so many debates and arguments with atheists, agnostics and the religious that I am convinced there is no almighty being. There might be non-physical 'realms' (sorry for using the r-word there) but that doesn't matter. I do not believe in fate, I do not believe in a universal conciousness, I don't believe in a G.O.D.. All seem non-sensical and make life seem more pointless than it already is. The only use in G.O.D. is he's a quick way for explaining things we don't understand. Once the tide could have been blamed on G.O.D. but even x-tians wouldn't believe that any more. G.O.D. is just an object made up to provide religious leaders power and keep the masses idle, ignorant and content.

I'm not struggling to overcome my religious background. And I'm not *worried* about what will happen when I die. I WANT to go on in some way or another, but it doesn't keep me up at night. The only reason I mentioned it was to give a reason for my being an agnostic. I'm an agnostic because I want there to be a higher power, but, I don't *know* that there is one.

But if you just want a yes/no/maybe answer then I'm a maybe.

And if the question is belief vs non-belief, why did I get the idea that this was an atheist vs agnostic debate?

GR

bluDragon-Was your post directed towards me? It seems like it was, since I was 'mucking it about' by 'worrying about life after death' and so on. If it was, I am hurt by it, and I'm sorry for upsetting you.

I have a methodist background, but frankly the whole idea of religion repels me not so much because of the half-assedness of it all... wait... no, that is the reason

We have to tackle the belief vs non-belief question to get to the atheist vs agnostic debate as an atheist is a total non-believer and an agnostic is an unsure believer (or unsure non-believer). Therefore by having the belief argument you reach the question: Should one totally not believe or remain in question? I think it is best to distance yourself from faith totally and only if a situation arises where you see evidence or logic in a God to believe in one. (I'm not promoting believing in God btw ).

Organized religion is a crock. I figured that out a long time ago.