The Problem with Atheism: by Sam Harris

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
"Highly illogical. That we can't explain something doesn't indicate that God exists."

Yes it does. As long as we are careful to define "God" and "can't explain" in the way I mean. I will let (I can't believe I'm writing this) chezlaw elaborate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. we can make them synonyms.

luckyme

[David Sklansky]

It seems that you are saying that a person who lived five thousand years ago had just as good a reason to disbelieve in God as one who lives now. Is that right?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems that you are saying that a person who lived five thousand years ago had just as good a reason to disbelieve in God as one who lives now. Is that right?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a tipping point situation, or in your world perhaps a matter of significant places after the decimal point. So, in that sense, it is 'just as good a reason' if that is taken to mean .... When we run into the 'we don't know/understand/explain event X situations, we have no valid reason to make up one and expect it to be true.

I don't eat broccoli for just as good a reason as I don't eat cow pies. I may be more adamant about the latter but the reason is just as good for broccoli.

That's a bit of a misconstruction anyway. We don't need direct reasons to disbelieve, we need reasons to believe.

luckyme

[Lestat]

Ok, so perhaps this is where my philosophical skills will show some gaping holes. But humor me...



[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> But the bottom line is that there are a lot of atheists who have come to their beliefs.... </font>

Stop! Atheism is not a belief! Someone please put this in a FAQ. Ok, "strong" atheism might be a belief, but Harris is absolutely correct when he says we should stop calling ourselves atheists. The term shouldn't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like to be able to say I'm a non-swimmer, non-drinker, non-theist. what's the problem?
No, I don't mean the problem that ignorance of word usage causes, but that simply, it's a perfectly good word that describes an actual state of affairs in the universe.

The word should exist. It's existence confuses already confused people ... that's the problem.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]


Really? So if someone invites you swimming, would you excuse yourself by responding you're a non-swimmer? Or by informing the person you don't swim? The distinction may seem irrevelant, but I would argue it's anything but.

Non-swimmer (at least to me), implies a constant state of not swimming. Is not swimming an activity in which you are engaged in at this very moment? Perhaps, but it doesn't make sense to think of it that way. What will you do tomorrow? "I'll be going to work and I won't be swimming. By the way, I also won't be sky-diving, or knife throwing, or...".

Better to think of yourself as a person who doesn't swim, in my opinion. When the opportunity for swimming comes up, then you elect not to swim. When the opportunity for drinking comes up, you elect not to drink. But does it make sense to think of ourselves as non-alcoholics? Why should we think of ourselves as atheists? Again, "proper" atheism is NOT a belief! Even though it pertains to something we find no reason to believe.

When I come on this forum I ponder reasons both for and against the existence of gods. Catch me out drinking some night, or at the movies, etc., and I'm not engaged in any belief process about god one way or another. Just as I'm not engaged in believing anything one way or the other about pixies or ghosts, and just as I'm not engaged in the process of not swimming. A theist however, is at all times a believer. A big difference and distinction.

But I'm sure I've erred somewhere here. Maybe I've erred in a big way, because at least swimming and drinking are substantiative tangibles which to be non about. You can be a non-swimmer, because there is swimming to be had. You can be a non-drinker, because there are drinks to be had. So when the day arrives that there is sufficient reason for belief in gods to be had, we will need a term for non-belief. Until then, I submit we do not.

[Lestat]

There are no doubt idiots who are atheists, but that's neither here nor there. I ask again what is wrong with the following quote by David which I took to have been made in ridicule?

<font color="blue"> But the bottom line is that there are a lot of atheists who have come to their beliefs merely because there is no obvious evidence of God or because the God of most religions seems to have inconsistent or cruel aspects to him. </font>

What is wrong for these reasons and these reasons alone to assert being an atheist?

[David Sklansky]

"When we run into the 'we don't know/understand/explain event X situations, we have no valid reason to make up one and expect it to be true."

I'm not talking about making up "one". I'm talking about considering the whole gamut of entities that live in any one of the theoretically infinite number of spaces that mathmeticians think about. Entities that could overide our laws of physics.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
So, let me make my somewhat seditious proposal explicit: We should not call ourselves “atheists.” We should not call ourselves “secularists.” We should not call ourselves “humanists,” or “secular humanists,” or “naturalists,” or “skeptics,” or “anti-theists,” or “rationalists,” or “freethinkers,” or “brights.” We should not call ourselves anything. We should go under the radar—for the rest of our lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

After one takes a position on a controversial issue, pens two screeds decrying the state of affairs with respect to this issue, and organizes conferences with like-minded individuals, then the time for employing stealth technology has passed him by. It's goofy for Harris to eschew the label at this point. And anyway one doesn't reduce the radar signatures of planes by painting over their tail markings.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">That's a bit of a misconstruction anyway. We don't need direct reasons to disbelieve, we need reasons to believe.
</font>

Would a catastrophic tsunami on a picture perfect day, with nary a cloud in the sky, be a reason for someone who lived 5000 years ago to believe? I say it would. Or at least I'd easily forgive anyone who knew nothing about tectonic plates shifting hundreds of miles out at sea beneath the ocean floor for instead, thinking the gods were mad at the people of the earth.

I hope what David is saying is that there was a time when belief in gods was perhaps even a logical conclusion to arrive at. And that remains true today to some degree however uncomfortable it makes us atheists to admit it. Our continued ignorance about important matters of our universe leaves open the door for all kinds of possibilities that can't be ruled out.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, I also won't be sky-diving, or knife throwing, or...".

[/ QUOTE ]

You're making me consider taking the last one off the list.

[ QUOTE ]
So if someone invites you swimming, would you excuse yourself by responding you're a non-swimmer?

[/ QUOTE ]

Would a boat with a sign "non-swimmers not permitted on board" have no meaning for you?

My brother is a tennis player and a swimmer ... I'm not.

[ QUOTE ]
When I come on this forum I ponder reasons both for and against the existence of gods. Catch me out drinking some night, or at the movies, etc., and I'm not engaged in any belief process about god one way or another. Just as I'm not engaged in believing anything one way or the other about pixies or ghosts, and just as I'm not engaged in the process of not swimming. A theist however, is at all times a believer. A big difference and distinction.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't subscribe to the concept of 24/7 beliefs or non-beliefs so we half agree. As bunny once asked "is the pope an atheist a fair chunk of the time". In the strict sense, yes. In the way you characterize non-belief.

A looser, common, use of the terms implies "if we probed Liza right now, she'd likely respond X" and on that basis we'd call her an theist or an atheist, even though at the moment she's in the middle of an orgasm. ( and screwing with our mind by moaning an atheistic "oh, my god").

[ QUOTE ]
So when the day arrives that there is sufficient reason for belief in gods to be had, we will need a term for non-belief. Until then, I submit we do not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, no comprende. The evidence seems irrelevant when the question is " do you believe " either you do or you don't. Nice if we had words to express those stances.

luckyme

[Lestat]

Now that I've finally got Liza out of my mind, let me take one more stab...

The term atheism lends merit to theism. If I tell you I didn't beat my wife today, what impression does that leave you with? Suppose I've never laid a hand on my wife? What is accomplished by informing people of this fact?

I suppose you could call me a non-wife beater, but I wouldn't appreciate it. There is no reason for you to bring up the fact I don't hit my wife, because there is no reason for you to think I would ever do so in the first place. And how much worse if I am the one who makes issue of the fact that I went all day without hitting my wife once? Any comprende on this note?

Again, we don't need labels for those who "don't" engage in activities. We don't need a label for someone who doesn't beat his wife. We don't need a label for someone who doesn't swim. And we don't need a label for someone who doesn't believe in gods.

By the way, I am happy to report that I happen to be both a non-wife beater and non-alcoholic.