🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <11JAN199312435909@utarlg.uta.edu>, b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
|> 
|> In article <1inonnINN112@fido.asd.sgi.com>, 
|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes
|> 
|> >Asking if someone is an atheist is problematic if you have a particular 
|> >meaning of the word in mind.
|> 
|> Ok. I asked understanding that "atheist" are different than "agnostics"
|> and likewise "skeptics." Likewise different from political activists
|> or intellectuals for whom atheism is merely faddish.
|> 
|> To me, atheist are people who express disbelief in GOD. Comparing this
|> with my own anarchist stance, I recognize that just as I think human
|> governments are mostly irrelevant, then atheist may consider GOD as
|> mostly irrelevant. So the question is perhaps better phrased, "what do 
|> atheist hold relevant?"  Or important?  Or essential to one's being?

I don't speak for all atheists.   That's why, instead of answering the
question "Are you an atheist" I told you what I was and let you answer
the question for yourself.

|> 
|> >I was told at an early age that I would have to make up my own
|> >mind about God and religion.   When I thought about it long 
|> >enough, I concluded that the burden of proof lay with those who 
|> >asserted the existence of God, and that, given that each culture 
|> >has produced a different relgion, and a different view of God, 
|> >it was at least slightly unlikely that we had it right.
|> 
|> From this I gather you hold "reason" and "choice" valuable.

If someone tells you they don't jump from high buildings because they
see no evidence that humans can fly, you might summarise that as "From
this I gather that you hold "walking" valuable".

|> 
|> >I'm not interested in "disproving" the existence of an entity
|> >for which there is no concrete evidence.  On the other hand, I
|> >don't carry around some strong "belief" in the non-existence
|> >of this supposed entity.    
|> 
|> ..and you have "no axe to grind."

I have many axes to grind.   But on this question, my position is as
I have summarised it above.     If someone produces a fallacious argument
for the existence of God, then I might refute it, but I don't see it as
an obligation on me to disprove God's existence.    Nor do I get wrapped
up in strong beliefs against God's existence.

|> 
|> > If I opened the paper tomorrow and
|> >read that concrete evidence of some non-human advanced entity 
|> >had been discovered - by scientists, I wouldn't give you twopence 
|> >for what some lying christian might claim - then it wouldn't 
|> >phase me in the least.   I would simply start wondering if we 
|> >had run across a powerful alien - and if so, what might their
|> >relgion be like? - or if there was some way in which we could 
|> >provoke this entity to demonstrate supernatural powers.
|> 
|> Nor would I believe such entity was GOD, expecting that any physical
|> encounter with GOD requires no intermediaries. But you've indicated
|> that you're interested in "comparative religion?" And demonstrable
|> supernatural events?

Well, now you have expressed a strong belief about the nature of God that
would, you say, cause you to believe that such an entity was *not* God.
I prefer to keep an open mind on the matter.

|> 
|> >I suspect that if that above scenario came to pass, Religion 
|> >itself would enter a phase of great confusion.   Much greater
|> >confusion than that experienced by any atheist.
|> 
|> Since religion is mostly impersonal to me, I would have said,
|> "Religionists would enter a phase of great confusion." Which 
|> sounds likely to me under the conditions given. As to atheist
|> not being confused, what would make you think so? A penchant for
|> reason? Hesitancy to jump to conclusions? Some other trait?

I would expect to see disagreement among the religious about the
significance of such an occurrance.   I would expect that some would
hail it as the second coming, some would think it satanic, some would
insist that you can't have physical evidence of God even in principle,
and so on.

Since an atheist doesn't usually bother about that stuff, I would 
expect the general atheist response to be "This is interesting, let's 
study it".

|> 
|> >So you tell me.   Am I an atheist?
|> 
|> You don't sound like an agnostic. And as to denying the existence
|> of GOD, no you don't sound like an atheist.  You seem skeptical to me, 
|> and strong "believer" in you own reason and perception of evidence??

No, an absense of belief in the value of religious inspiration does
not translate into a "strong belief" in reason and perception.   It's 
just that we have some evidence about what reason and perception get us.    
Without evidence to the contrary, I would guess that I have the same 
attitude towards reason an perception as you do.   

You balance a check book, I suppose?   What do you do, flick ink spots 
at it at random and hope that God will make them fall right?  I hope
not.   I hope that you make use of your reason and perception.   In
the same way, I do too.


|> 
|> Have I missed anything relevant?
|> 
|> You may have seen in other posts that I place no such confidence in
|> my own reason, or even sanity. So I could be reading into what your
|> saying. In fact, I'd bet on it. What have I mistaken??

Well, then.   Perhaps you had better hire an accountant to balance your
check book.

From Mr Tice's answers, I take it that his general method is to set up
a kind of dichotomoy between "reason" and "something else", and then
claim that choosing "something else" is a valid choice.    My usual
response to that is to ask how people run the rest of their lives, and
if they apply the "something else" choice consistently.  Of course, we
can turn this into a million line debate, but i think that's the guts of
it.

jon.