[extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline

[Mike Lorrey]

--- Technotranscendence <neptune at superlink.net> wrote:
> 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?

I don't recall the incident you are speaking of. 

> 
> 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? 

Threatening is merely one form of intolerance, as you should know.

> 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?

Tolerable treatment includes a lack of mockery, disparagement and
insults. 

As for father christmas, I wouldn't expect the same treatment of
someone (other than children) because the claims made about St Nick are
testably untrue, as most every child learns by age 10 or 12.

While many claims made by many people about many gods of human
imagination are provably untrue, most such are rarely items of
consequence to core tenets of a religious persons faith. 

> 
> 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.)

Well, you seem to assert that people without belief are also atheists.
By your definition I am thus an atheist whose opinions are heterodox
with the militants here who insist on the non-existence of god.

> 
> > 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.

Likewise.

> 
> > 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.)

Here you are arguing my point. Even if a disbelief in god, or lack of
belief in a god, maps to reality, their lack of belief, disbelief, or
belief in a lack of existence of god is still a matter of faith,
specifically because of the impossibility of proving a negative.

> 
> However, since atheism in its negative form -- the lack of belief 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.)

THis is the problem with your equivocating. You may like to categorise
a christian as a norse atheist, but they would not appreciate the
label. Just because a person believes one theology and not another does
not make them an atheist in any sense, so your argumentation breaks
down. You wouldn't call an active Democrat apolitical just because they
didn't believe in the political views of Republicans, would you?

The proper term you need to use in these circumstances is 'infidel'.

> 
> 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.)

Some sects of Christianity rely on faith. Others do not.

> 
> 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.

The problem with your argument, once again, is you are relying on your
own definition of god. Your own definition, or the definition of other
humans, is truly immaterial wrt the Simulation Argument, If we are
intelligent entities in a sim, the creator/operator of the sim is truly
the creator of our universe and fits any or all the definitions of god
that matter: the ability to create or destroy this universe, perhaps
the ability to offer entities within this universe a chance at some
form of afterlife in either another sim or being uploaded into some
material entity in the creators meta-universe, and perhaps the ability
to inhabit or allow others to inhabit characters in this universe.

This is the key weakness of atheism: it starts off defining what god is
and is not, just like any religion, only in order to proclaim that gods
non-existence, like you did above in comparing christian god belief to
norse god belief. Belief in human mythologies of any brand are really
immaterial to the question at hand, and proclaiming the non-existence
of any particular human religious mythology (or all of them) in no way
is a declaration of the non-existence of what creator may be out there.
It is just as presumptuous of an atheist to proclaim any or all
previously defined gods don't exist as any theist to proclaim their
existence. Both stances demand faith.

Having a lack of belief in anything at all is, imho, an impossible
situation for any human being. No matter how much some try to hide it,
all humans believe in something.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com