[extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline

[Technotranscendence]

On Sunday, March 06, 2005 10:02 AM Mike Lorrey mlorrey at yahoo.com wrote:
> I suppose it was too much to expect a bunch
> of orthodox atheists to cease being intolerant
> for a day.

Define what you mean by "intolerant."  I'm willing to entertain the
possibility of a supreme being, but I've presented reasons previously
why I think the notion is untenable.  Recall in 2001 when you refused to
even read a paper on fire safety regulations because you found the
abstract to contain a "a faulty premise."  Were you being intolerant?

On the wider issue of tolerance, since no one here, AFAIK (I don't read
every last post), has threatened you for your beliefs, how is it that
you are being treated intolerantly?  What would be your criterion or
criteria for tolerable treatment?  Would you apply the same standard to
someone who told you they believed in Father Christmas in the sense of
an omniscient red-coated dude who lives at the North Pole and drives a
flying reindeer driven sled on Christmas Eve delivering presents?

Since you use "orthodox atheists" above, what would you mean by
"heterodox atheists?"  (Not sarcasm.  I'm curious if you believe there
are any and who the term would cover.)

> You can find it funny, entertaining, and you can
> invent fancy theological pedigrees as you wish.

Mike, you really know very little about me, especially about my
knowledge of religion or theology.

> Atheism is as much a faith as any
> other, and you can't escape it.

I disagree, but we've gone over this before and you've basically ignored
the distinctions I've made between belief and justification.  For the
others who might be reading, atheism (and theism both) has (have) to do
with beliefs.  An atheist lacks a belief in a God or gods.  A theist has
a belief in God or gods.

Faith, in this context, is about justification -- i.e., why someone
believes in something.  Someone can have faith in any belief -- even one
that maps onto reality, such as the Earth being round.  (Yes, people can
believe that on faith.)

However, since atheism in its negative form -- the lack of believe as
opposed to a positive stance of disbelief -- can be had by anyone who
isn't even aware of the concept of God or gods, then little children,
before they learn about God/gods from their parents, etc. are already
atheists.  Do they believe atheism on faith?  No.  They merely lack a
belief -- just as you might be totally ignorant of Norse mythology.
It's not that you have faith that Odin and Thor don't exist, but that
you just don't have any belief in them.  (I'm not saying you actually
are ignorant of Norse mythology, just using this as an example.
Substitute someone in that example who is ignorant of such and you
should understand my point.)

Now, of course, there may be and probably are atheists who base their
position on faith, but that says nothing about atheism as such.  (Nor
does it say anything about theism as such.  After all, a lot of people
believe in God or gods because they believe they have ample,
non-faith-based reasons.  (However, certain religions, such as
Christianity, rely on faith.)  This doesn't mean their reasons are
valid, but they're different than believe against the evidence.)

The Simulation Argument here is meaningless too.  A being building a
simulation is not a God.  Such a being would be metaphysically no
different than someone playing Sim City, subject to limits and natural
laws.  Even if you were living in a simulation, this would not make such
a being God, but merely more powerful than you.  So, as has been pointed
out earlier by others (probably most eloquently by Damien) and me, the
Simulation Argument does not even speak to the matter of atheism/theism.

Regards,

Dan
http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/