Athiests do not have the rational highground
Swiftspear
Custim tital Join Date: 2003-10-29 Member: 22097Members
Custim tital Join Date: 2003-10-29 Member: 22097Members
in Discussions
<b>Preface and termology:</b>
It's common practice for a philosophy author to include a terminology index at some point in their writing. The point of this is that it is argumentative fallacy to take what someone else has said, and then twist their intended meaning by using a different definition of the word. I'm aware that certain common words I'm using here are being used in a slightly different context then they often are, that is why I'm including this terminology index. Basically what I'm saying here is you're not allowed to change the definitions of my words on me because it allows you some illusion of rational discourse to do so. The words are being used in the way they are being used intentionally, so just accept that within this limited context word definitions may be slightly different then they normally would be. This is not to convolute the argument, it's simply because the alternative would be making up words, which is frankly more stupid then just choosing the next closest word in meaning and pointing out exactly how it is being used differently from normal.
Deduction: To show a line of reasoning to be true by logical necessity. If all men can fly, and joe is a man, joe can fly. If it IS indeed true that all men can fly, and that joe is a man, by deduction it's impossible that joe cannot fly.
Induction: To show the likelyhood of truth by chain of evidence. If joe was in bobs house at 10:00PM, and bob died at 10:00 PM, and this knife was used to kill bob, and joes finger prints are on the knife, then the evidence shows that most likely joe killed bob. It isn't PROVED, it is shown to be likely. Induction, by definition, can never prove.
Monotheism: the belief that only one god exists
Polytheism: the belief that many gods exist
Deism: the belief that some theistic being exists
Religion: Being more broad then Deism, which accurately covers any common "it does exist" belief, it is defined as any theistic belief
Belief: A strong assumption
Faith: The state in which a person is willing to refer to a belief as a truth
Ok, first of all I just wanted to say with no clear shame that there is an agenda here. Frankly I'm sick of the ignorance promoted by the atheistic propaganda machine. I'm not going to claim that it's uncalled for, ignorance gets promoted by alot of groups, and I get the sense alot of atheist sources that some of this ish is purely retaliatory. That being said, I think anyone who says "I'm in the rational right, and therefore you should believe my illogical assumption is true" deserves to be put in place. When the Christians do it no one shys away from criticizing them. Well, now it's your turn. The fact of the matter is that atheists are no more in the rational right then any other religious group, and while I really doubt this essay is going to change any more religious beliefs then any other, if it shuts up one ignorant propaganda mongler I'll be happy. NOW I can get to the point here
<b>Argument:</b>
Why atheism is not on the rational high ground: Atheism is a religion. Atheists hold a belief as to the existence of god, IE, they believe god does not exist. Simply put there is no way this belief can be objective, and therefore Atheism will always require faith, and is by definition A RELIGION. Theistic assumptions are all impossible to prove... Atheists would have you believe that the burden of proof belongs on the side of the theists. They quote the universal constant that it is impossible to prove that something does not exist, and this is valid. Scientifically there is no such thing as a "burden of proof" though. The atheistic burden of proof theory falls apart instantly when referring to sentient beings of any type, and falls apart exponentially quickly when referring to sentient beings more technologically capable then us, let alone omnipotent. If I postulate that George bush does not exist, and quote as my evidence that it is impossible for me to prove his existence that does not prove he does not exist, it proves that I'm either not smart enough, or don't have enough resources to find him. If someone postulates that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe there is no way we can possibly prove that true right now unless they decide to show us their existence, therefore intelligent life does not exist elsewhere in the universe? many very prestigious statisticians would disagree. If god or gods exist, they are by definition an intelligence somewhere else in the universe massively more advanced then our own. Therefore both proof is an impossibility for both sides, and therefore, philosophically the metaphorical burden of proof can't possibly rest on either side. The paradox does not allow the objective right stance to be awarded to either side through and scientific, and therefore, though any rational means.
So it can be proven that deduction can't take place for either side, what about induction? Who here really wants to play the game of "hey, is this a miracle or not?" I'm not sure about the rest of you but I bet we could indefinitely sit here trading stories and arguing rationalities against said stories. Ultimately I doubt any miracle is ever going to be deductive evidence for the existence of God, however, there is certainly massive amounts of inductive evidence. There's also many many accounts of inductive evidence being proven nothing more then coincidental. It is worth noting that it is a nearly non existent in legal history for a trial to be decided on purely deductive. The fact of the matter is that induction really isn't the realm of the rational. There is ALWAYS the possibility that something inductively shown to be likely will turn out falsified. This was the case of newton's theories of gravity, and the earlier theories before that, and billions and billions of other scientific theories. While induction is necessary to survive, it doesn't show rational reality. Either way, the inductive argument hasn't even been marginally explored as far as I'm concerned.
Since one can't possibly know the reality of the existence of God, and the only objectively right stance is "I don't know" That means ALL RELIGIOUS BELIEF EXISTS FOR 1 OF 2 REASONS. Either the subject in question is deluded, or the subject in question wants to believe what they believe, and in any religious group, including atheism, you will find MANY that fit in both parties. The reality of the matter is that agnosticism is the only objectively rational choice.
<b>Expansion and Mentality:</b>
The question here is, how important is it really to be in safe waters from the overtly rational standpoint? As I said before, all religious assumption is either the result of delusion or desire. History is filled with examples of great great thinkers who understood this problem but still took a religious belief. Albert Einstein was a Deist, so was George Washington, Karl Marx an Athiest. Benjamin Franklin a Christian. The real question is it really that bad to want to believe or not believe in God? Is it really that bad to examine inductive evidence around you and decide to take on an irrational standpoint because you choose to? Certainly it can be clearly shown that irrational belief CAN cause people to undertake evil action, but I rarely here of an example of that undertaken by a person who's beliefs are secondary to their concept of morality. It's primarily those who are deluded in their beliefs, in such that they believe their beliefs ARE their morality. Is it wrong to want to believe that there is an objective sense of right and wrong in the world, and there is an entity vaugly guarding that sense in a manner you can't understand? Is it wrong to want to believe that we are masters of our own destiny and we are paving our own path into an unforeseeable future?
Personally I don't think it is. Ultimately as I see it the main cop out of agnosticism is a problem of human psychology, not one of rational righteousness. While agnostics are on the righteous totem from a purely rational state, humans by nature have to work towards some image of a goal. Simply saying "I won't even guess what the meaning of life is" erases any image of a goal. It's not a meaningless quest to search for the objective meaning of right and wrong on a universal sense in my opinion. Neither is it a meaningless quest to strive towards great human, or more accurately, great sentient progress.
Ultimately what I'm saying with this article essay thing, is I'm sick of atheists, Christians, or any other religion saying "Respect me because I am more rationally correct then you are." It's a bag of bullish. There is no religion that can be more rationally correct then any other religion, there is only agnosticism. I am not atheist, but I can fully respect the atheist who has a reason to believe what they do, and a reason why they hold that that belief will make the universe a better place. What I'm done with is those who say "What I believe allows me to do whatever I want because I don't believe there is consequences for my actions". Not understanding the consequences of your actions does not mean there will not be consequences for those actions, and not believing that there will be consequences for actions does not mean there will not be. People who use religion for a cop out to rationalize unwise actions entirely miss the point. It doesn't matter what your religion says. Being able to do what you want because you're religion is "right" is just stupid. Don't try to take rational high ground you don't have, just think though your actions, and the reality of your existence thoroughly please.
It's common practice for a philosophy author to include a terminology index at some point in their writing. The point of this is that it is argumentative fallacy to take what someone else has said, and then twist their intended meaning by using a different definition of the word. I'm aware that certain common words I'm using here are being used in a slightly different context then they often are, that is why I'm including this terminology index. Basically what I'm saying here is you're not allowed to change the definitions of my words on me because it allows you some illusion of rational discourse to do so. The words are being used in the way they are being used intentionally, so just accept that within this limited context word definitions may be slightly different then they normally would be. This is not to convolute the argument, it's simply because the alternative would be making up words, which is frankly more stupid then just choosing the next closest word in meaning and pointing out exactly how it is being used differently from normal.
Deduction: To show a line of reasoning to be true by logical necessity. If all men can fly, and joe is a man, joe can fly. If it IS indeed true that all men can fly, and that joe is a man, by deduction it's impossible that joe cannot fly.
Induction: To show the likelyhood of truth by chain of evidence. If joe was in bobs house at 10:00PM, and bob died at 10:00 PM, and this knife was used to kill bob, and joes finger prints are on the knife, then the evidence shows that most likely joe killed bob. It isn't PROVED, it is shown to be likely. Induction, by definition, can never prove.
Monotheism: the belief that only one god exists
Polytheism: the belief that many gods exist
Deism: the belief that some theistic being exists
Religion: Being more broad then Deism, which accurately covers any common "it does exist" belief, it is defined as any theistic belief
Belief: A strong assumption
Faith: The state in which a person is willing to refer to a belief as a truth
Ok, first of all I just wanted to say with no clear shame that there is an agenda here. Frankly I'm sick of the ignorance promoted by the atheistic propaganda machine. I'm not going to claim that it's uncalled for, ignorance gets promoted by alot of groups, and I get the sense alot of atheist sources that some of this ish is purely retaliatory. That being said, I think anyone who says "I'm in the rational right, and therefore you should believe my illogical assumption is true" deserves to be put in place. When the Christians do it no one shys away from criticizing them. Well, now it's your turn. The fact of the matter is that atheists are no more in the rational right then any other religious group, and while I really doubt this essay is going to change any more religious beliefs then any other, if it shuts up one ignorant propaganda mongler I'll be happy. NOW I can get to the point here
<b>Argument:</b>
Why atheism is not on the rational high ground: Atheism is a religion. Atheists hold a belief as to the existence of god, IE, they believe god does not exist. Simply put there is no way this belief can be objective, and therefore Atheism will always require faith, and is by definition A RELIGION. Theistic assumptions are all impossible to prove... Atheists would have you believe that the burden of proof belongs on the side of the theists. They quote the universal constant that it is impossible to prove that something does not exist, and this is valid. Scientifically there is no such thing as a "burden of proof" though. The atheistic burden of proof theory falls apart instantly when referring to sentient beings of any type, and falls apart exponentially quickly when referring to sentient beings more technologically capable then us, let alone omnipotent. If I postulate that George bush does not exist, and quote as my evidence that it is impossible for me to prove his existence that does not prove he does not exist, it proves that I'm either not smart enough, or don't have enough resources to find him. If someone postulates that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe there is no way we can possibly prove that true right now unless they decide to show us their existence, therefore intelligent life does not exist elsewhere in the universe? many very prestigious statisticians would disagree. If god or gods exist, they are by definition an intelligence somewhere else in the universe massively more advanced then our own. Therefore both proof is an impossibility for both sides, and therefore, philosophically the metaphorical burden of proof can't possibly rest on either side. The paradox does not allow the objective right stance to be awarded to either side through and scientific, and therefore, though any rational means.
So it can be proven that deduction can't take place for either side, what about induction? Who here really wants to play the game of "hey, is this a miracle or not?" I'm not sure about the rest of you but I bet we could indefinitely sit here trading stories and arguing rationalities against said stories. Ultimately I doubt any miracle is ever going to be deductive evidence for the existence of God, however, there is certainly massive amounts of inductive evidence. There's also many many accounts of inductive evidence being proven nothing more then coincidental. It is worth noting that it is a nearly non existent in legal history for a trial to be decided on purely deductive. The fact of the matter is that induction really isn't the realm of the rational. There is ALWAYS the possibility that something inductively shown to be likely will turn out falsified. This was the case of newton's theories of gravity, and the earlier theories before that, and billions and billions of other scientific theories. While induction is necessary to survive, it doesn't show rational reality. Either way, the inductive argument hasn't even been marginally explored as far as I'm concerned.
Since one can't possibly know the reality of the existence of God, and the only objectively right stance is "I don't know" That means ALL RELIGIOUS BELIEF EXISTS FOR 1 OF 2 REASONS. Either the subject in question is deluded, or the subject in question wants to believe what they believe, and in any religious group, including atheism, you will find MANY that fit in both parties. The reality of the matter is that agnosticism is the only objectively rational choice.
<b>Expansion and Mentality:</b>
The question here is, how important is it really to be in safe waters from the overtly rational standpoint? As I said before, all religious assumption is either the result of delusion or desire. History is filled with examples of great great thinkers who understood this problem but still took a religious belief. Albert Einstein was a Deist, so was George Washington, Karl Marx an Athiest. Benjamin Franklin a Christian. The real question is it really that bad to want to believe or not believe in God? Is it really that bad to examine inductive evidence around you and decide to take on an irrational standpoint because you choose to? Certainly it can be clearly shown that irrational belief CAN cause people to undertake evil action, but I rarely here of an example of that undertaken by a person who's beliefs are secondary to their concept of morality. It's primarily those who are deluded in their beliefs, in such that they believe their beliefs ARE their morality. Is it wrong to want to believe that there is an objective sense of right and wrong in the world, and there is an entity vaugly guarding that sense in a manner you can't understand? Is it wrong to want to believe that we are masters of our own destiny and we are paving our own path into an unforeseeable future?
Personally I don't think it is. Ultimately as I see it the main cop out of agnosticism is a problem of human psychology, not one of rational righteousness. While agnostics are on the righteous totem from a purely rational state, humans by nature have to work towards some image of a goal. Simply saying "I won't even guess what the meaning of life is" erases any image of a goal. It's not a meaningless quest to search for the objective meaning of right and wrong on a universal sense in my opinion. Neither is it a meaningless quest to strive towards great human, or more accurately, great sentient progress.
Ultimately what I'm saying with this article essay thing, is I'm sick of atheists, Christians, or any other religion saying "Respect me because I am more rationally correct then you are." It's a bag of bullish. There is no religion that can be more rationally correct then any other religion, there is only agnosticism. I am not atheist, but I can fully respect the atheist who has a reason to believe what they do, and a reason why they hold that that belief will make the universe a better place. What I'm done with is those who say "What I believe allows me to do whatever I want because I don't believe there is consequences for my actions". Not understanding the consequences of your actions does not mean there will not be consequences for those actions, and not believing that there will be consequences for actions does not mean there will not be. People who use religion for a cop out to rationalize unwise actions entirely miss the point. It doesn't matter what your religion says. Being able to do what you want because you're religion is "right" is just stupid. Don't try to take rational high ground you don't have, just think though your actions, and the reality of your existence thoroughly please.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The core of the matter is that atheists are not a homogenous group. Many who could be considered atheists are also agnostics and/or secularised christians, jews and what not. While the fanatical negative atheists (the ones who argue against the existance of whatever god people believe in at the moment) are the ones who most often debate their opinions in public and the ones most often referred to in the west, they can per definition not represent the concept of atheism and it's many frequently overlapping sub-groups as a whole.
Additionally, but somewhat unrelated, some major religions of the world such as Buddhism can be viewed as atheistic, since while retaining the idea of a spiritual world they denounce the concepts of deities. Likewise, Christians were considered atheists by the Romans, because they did not believe in the greeco-roman pantheum of gods.
<!--QuoteBegin-Tjosan+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tjosan)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I just can't find a reason to believe in any because doing that would be irrational.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is not this very sentence the whole point of what Swift was railing against? You consider it rational to be atheist and irrational to be theist, when in fact there is no compelling evidence to suggest atheism is any more rational than theism. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say there is no compelling evidence to suggest atheism is any <i>less irrational</i> than theism. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
In short, you fit Swift's definition of atheist perfectly, even if you also happen to fit another definition of atheist.
Usually, people will have an opinion of some sort about everything. We had this in the "meaning of life" thread. I think we're all in agreement that we don't objectively know what the meaning of life is, but that didn't prevent any of use from having our opinions about what it could be anyway.
Take magic, for example: Can we conclusively prove that magic doesn't exist? Nope. Do we go around chanting formulas, attempting to turn lead into gold and waving magic wands around? Also nope. Now, as we all know absence of proof is not proof of absence, but absence of proof IS <u>indication</u> of absence. With the complete lack of evidence for magic's existence, and without any proof in either direction the most logical assumption is that magic doesn't exist. We don't live in a world where we know everything, and so we are often forced to guess. But when we have to make a guess between two choices, the <u>rational</u> choice is to choose the most likely.
Should magic ever be shown to actually exist, the rational choice would of course be to accept its existence.
The same arguments apply to gods. No gods of any religion have yet proven their existence, even though it is supposedly fully within their capability to do so. In ancient times, gods like Thor of nordic mythology "proved" their existence by causing lightning and thunder. But it has since been shown that such weather phenomena do not require divine intervention.
SwiftSpear defines religion as "any theistic belief," and within that definition atheism is indeed religion. But that doesn't mean that the definition is correct, and in fact I contend that it isn't. If I am not allowed to change that definition, my post ends here and I believe that my point has been made as well as it can be. Stop reading.
_____________________________
Still with me I see. Good. So, what, in my own words, is religion?
Religion: Belief in a spiritual structuring of the universe.
As tjosan said, atheists are not a homogenous group, and the borders between atheism and agnosticism are not sharply defined. Some atheist are irrationally attached to their atheism - they're the ones who, even, when faced with evidence of the existence of a god, would still deny it.
The common atheist, I dare to claim, would accept the existence of a god (many, I dare say, happily) if only it were proven to them. However, they have taken absence of proof as indication of absence, and therefore believe that there are no gods.
SwiftSpear says that "Atheists would have you believe that the burden of proof belongs on the side of the theists." Whether it does or not depends entirely on the situation. Within religion, there is no burden of proof, since it is all based on faith. A hindu does not have to prove the existence of Shiva to the world to practice his religion. But once he demands that all the world must fast on Fridays to appease Laxmi, the burden of proof very much lies on him.
It's all a question of "live and let live." In order to interfere with the life of someone else, you must first prove that your interference is valid. If an atheists demands of you to give up your religion, demand proof against the existence of your god(s) from him. If a christian or muslim or hindu or other adherent of a religion demands of you to follow his religion, demand proof of the existence of his god(s) from him.
And if a bible-bashing nutcase says that "dem queer folks are not allowed to marry becuz God sez so," demand proof of God's existence from him.
There, I said it. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
So after that nice big disclaimer about definitions and such, the very first response is one that attempts to change all the definitions and muddy the waters...
Is not this very sentence the whole point of what Swift was railing against? You consider it rational to be atheist and irrational to be theist, when in fact there is no compelling evidence to suggest atheism is any more rational than theism. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say there is no compelling evidence to suggest atheism is any <i>less irrational</i> than theism. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
In short, you fit Swift's definition of atheist perfectly, even if you also happen to fit another definition of atheist.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Atheists are people who dont practice a religion, dont have a god. It's not a belief moreso than it's a (wellfounded) disbelief in the rational foundation of religions. Atheism is more rational because it makes no assumptions and hold them as true, without evidence, even though you try to attribute some to them.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wikipedia+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wikipedia)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Atheism entails the absence of belief in the existence of a deity or deities.[1] It is contrasted with theism, the belief in one or more gods. Atheism is commonly defined as the positive belief that deities do not exist, or as the deliberate rejection of theism.[2] But, others define atheism as the simple absence of belief in deities[3] (cf. nontheism). In recent years, some atheists have adopted the terms strong and weak atheism to clarify whether they consider their stance one of positive belief (strong atheism) or the mere absence of belief (weak atheism).[4]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd argue that the vast majority of atheist heralds under the second definition (weak atheism), and your argument only applies to the first. So yes, most atheist does have the rational highground.