General / Off-Topic To Atheists, which great Atheist thinker do you allign with ?

[FuzzySpider]

@FuzzySpider: Oh, I am well aware that I am quite limited. But if what I think (which is, I guess we can agree, what my brain thinks) is determined (rather than merely influenced) by chemistry or not, it still is what I do think.

And it is not choice in the sense that I can choose to eat a sandwich rather than a spaghetti. As I wrote above, it was reasoning rather than choosing which led me to that conclusion, the loss of meaning of the concepts of god and religion themselves.

Reasoning is still just brain chemistry. It is still just ultimately physics. You have no more control over your ability to reason than you have over your ability to not freeze if you are placed upon the surface of Pluto.

To some extent yes - to another extent other no.
That's why I called Buddhism "meds" .. and other meds, too.

You still do have the choice to expose yourself to such outside influences or not. You can build your resilience, you can reprogram your thinking actively to some extent.
Science now even linked "character traits" like introversion to things like dopamine reception in the brain. But even knowing you have certain physical limits does not mean you can't expand them trough practice and repetition.

The choice to reprogram your thinking also comes about because of brain chemistry. Active thinking is just the firing of neurons and chemical signals taking place. The decision to use practice and repetition to alter your patterns of thinking is merely the result of brain chemistry which is just physics - you were compelled by nature to do it - and the "choice" was an illusion.

As I say, it's easy enough to prove. Watch this video from a minute in. That mans behaviour is being determined by the condition of his brain, isn't that so? But would it be possible to simply resist the effect of the narcotics and not be so completely freaked out?

Of course not. But why? Because your brain is not the special place we all think it is. It is not removed from physics. Everything taking place in there right now is occuring because of cause and effect which, if sophisticated enough models could be devised, could be easily predicted. It's just as rigid, physical, corporal, and unyielding as stone. Much more complex, true, but no more able to alter its fate.

At least that's what the science says.

 

[Boomer Kay]

At least that's what the science says.

Neurological research is really just at the beginning.
Like I said, the correlation between character traits and a specific brain function and reception is something discovered rather recently.
Also methods to influence it.
It's most certainly physics, however the actual "wiring" might be way more complex than other systems. Predictability by mathematical models ends at the Higgs boson ("god particle") even for purely mechanical or electrical systems, as far as I'm aware of.

But would it be possible to simply resist the effect of the narcotics and not be so completely freaked out?

Maybe.
But not "simply".
Narcotics don't work the same on all humans. Not even something as mundane as weed or sleeping pills.

 

[Globusdiablo]

...

And now you ignore me. I can't say what I'm thinking without being truly insulting. So I'll assume we leave it at that.

 

[FuzzySpider]

Neurological research is really just at the beginning.
Like I said, the correlation between character traits and a specific brain function and reception is something discovered rather recently.
Also methods to influence it.
It's most certainly physics, however the actual "wiring" might be way more complex than other systems. Predictability by mathematical models ends at the Higgs boson ("god particle") even for purely mechanical or electrical systems, as far as I'm aware of.

Yes, it's complex, but it isn't independent of physics is it? This is getting overcomplicated, so let me simplify. Tell me which of these steps you disagree with.

1. Reasoning, and thought, are what takes place in the mind.

2. The mind is the brain, and thought process and reasoning are the outward expressions of the physical processes that occur within the brain.

3. The physical processes taking place within the brain are determined by the laws of physics and the physical universe, not by a soul or mystical spirit.

4. Ergo, there is absolutely no such thing as freedom of thought. EVERYTHING that goes on in your head, from your complex ideas about the possibility of god to whether you prefer blondes or brunettes, is purely a matter of matter, thus concepts of control, freedom etc are meaningless.

Maybe.
Narcotics don't work the same on all humans. Not even something as mundane as weed or sleeping pills.

That's true. But resistences to substances are based upon psychopharmacology, not on mystical willpower. Different sorts and different doses of anti-depressents work differently on different people because of diet, genetics, etc. It isn't ever because someone believes something differently.

Even were someone does overcome, for example, nicotine addiction through willpower, they're still acting according to the way their brain chemistry is demanding they act.

 

[Boomer Kay]

4. Ergo, there is absolutely no such thing as freedom of thought. EVERYTHING that goes on in your head, from your complex ideas about the possibility of god to whether you prefer blondes or brunettes, is purely a matter of matter, thus concepts of control, freedom etc are meaningless.

Not a disagreement, just an addition:

If you were an isolated being in an universe full of nothing with no input or output, steps 1-3 would work pretty well like you described.

"Meaning" is just a concept, too. It's not an universal one, either, so calling things "meaningless" is not wrong. But also not universal.

not on mystical willpower.

Mystical? No.
That's the sort of explanation they used when presenting "levitating" stuff on exhibitions back before science was part of everyday education:

 

[Adept]

Why are you linking to your own post? What am I missing? I repped you for that posts clarity. And why do you continue to belittle me? What's with the: -yawn- . You seem intelligent but act like a 5 year old. What is the matter?

You cling to a dogmatic position where lack of faith is a "belief", and hence atheism is perfectly analogous to religious belief. This is categorically false. It tends to be the case that a person raised in a dogmatic system cannot fathom a mindset not based on dogma. To the religious mind atheim looks like a religion. This does not make it a fact.

 

[Monk]

You cling to a dogmatic position where lack of faith is a "belief", and hence atheism is perfectly analogous to religious belief. This is categorically false. It tends to be the case that a person raised in a dogmatic system cannot fathom a mindset not based on dogma. To the religious mind atheim looks like a religion. This does not make it a fact.

I would argue that a lot of reformed Catholics (like me) can't help but end up treating atheism like a religion. When I was a new atheist in my early 20s, atheism and its community slotted right into my empty "religion hole". It is an ingrained longing for a community wrapped around a singular purpose and held together through ritual. It is an addictive mixture of love and order.

I fought for atheism like I used to fight for Jesus, the self-righteousness felt the same either way.

Now, I've grown up a bit and calmed down a lot. Instead of beating the drum for atheism, I joined the Ethical Society. A community of humanists focused on celebrating and improving the human condition held together by the ritual of community service. That fills my religion hole now and I can step back and look at atheism for the philosophy that it is.

 

[Boomer Kay]

I would argue that a lot of reformed Catholics (like me) can't help but end up treating atheism like a religion. When I was a new atheist in my early 20s, atheism and its community slotted right into my empty "religion hole". It is an ingrained longing for a community wrapped around a singular purpose and held together through ritual. It is an addictive mixture of love and order.

I fought for atheism like I used to fight for Jesus, the self-righteousness felt the same either way.

Well, that brings us the the definition of "religious" I posted from Webster's:

"relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity "

Even the "Church of Apple" (as some Samsung fanboys call it) does qualify as "religious".

Maybe my religiousness shattered at 10, when I found out my friend was protestant while I was catholic and I did seriously ask myself if he can be my friend.

 

[Adept]

now and I can step back and look at atheism for the philosophy that it is.

It's not even that. In a deeply religious society like the US, being an Atheist is a big deal of course. In the Nordic Countries things have normalised, so that being truly religious is actually seen as something pretty strange. Atheism is just the lack of belief. The default state surely is not believing in some complicated story with invisible actors controlling reality.

 

[Monk]

It's not even that. In a deeply religious society like the US, being an Atheist is a big deal of course. In the Nordic Countries things have normalised, so that being truly religious is actually seen as something pretty strange. Atheism is just the lack of belief. The default state surely is not believing in some complicated story with invisible actors controlling reality.

It isn't a lack of a belief. It is the belief that there is no deity or higher power of any kind.

It is a claim that cannot be proven as much as any religion's creation story.

The default is not having formed an opinion of either, indifference.

ETA - More descriptively...I'd say the default is ignorance or not having any concept of a deity therefore not requiring one to claim atheism. Obviously, that breaks down once you turn on TV in the USA and some nut is tapping people on the forehead to give them seizures or something.

 

[TheAntitheist Crusader]

Atheism is not a religion, religions require some sort of indoctrination and order, and despite my list of favourite atheists, there is no leader or book that every atheist is required to read to be a "true atheist". If you want to say atheism is a religion, you might as well say.....gaming is a religion. Silly isn't it ?.....plus religion asks you to believe in unreasonable things, atheists tend to go with evidence.

 

[Boomer Kay]

If you want to say atheism is a religion, you might as well say.....gaming is a religion. Silly isn't it ?

Computer gaming?

"relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity "

Only if you devote yourself and see gaming as the be all, end all.
The "diety" part is optional.
Corporate brands have religious traits.
Sports clubs.

And yea.. theism and religion are not synonymous.

 

[TheAntitheist Crusader]

Computer gaming?

"relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity "

Only if you devote yourself and see gaming as the be all, end all.
The "diety" part is optional.
Corporate brands have religious traits.
Sports clubs.

And yea.. theism and religion are not synonymous.

Actually i used to go to the church of COD. Back when the cod games were good, i have since left the church and never looked back. (terrible joke but i have waited years to use it). Edit....sports clubs, i must admit that i'm a Liverpool fc fan, i guess that i "religiously" follow the club.

 

[Boomer Kay]

Actually i used to go to the church of COD. Back when the cod games were good, i have since left the church and never looked back. (terrible joke but i have waited years to use it). Edit....sports clubs, i must admit that i'm a Liverpool fc fan, i guess that i "religiously" follow the club.

End gaming:

The meaning might be culturally influenced, though - the german descriptions always goes to some obscure latin root of "religio" - "relegere" .. which I cannot properly translate into english, since it's more of a concept than a word - in the "careful consideration" or "minding" or "conscientiousness" sense. hmm
The romans did have those shrines to their ancestors (a bit like the chinese?), which would be considered 'religious service', but is not exactly theistic, 'just' 'supernatural'.

 

[Monk]

Atheism is not a religion, religions require some sort of indoctrination and order, and despite my list of favourite atheists, there is no leader or book that every atheist is required to read to be a "true atheist". If you want to say atheism is a religion, you might as well say.....gaming is a religion. Silly isn't it ?.....plus religion asks you to believe in unreasonable things, atheists tend to go with evidence.

Yeah...the only space they share is that they are both philosophies on the nature of the Universe.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

It isn't a lack of a belief. It is the belief that there is no deity or higher power of any kind.

It is a claim that cannot be proven as much as any religion's creation story.

The default is not having formed an opinion of either, indifference.

ETA - More descriptively...I'd say the default is ignorance or not having any concept of a deity therefore not requiring one to claim atheism. Obviously, that breaks down once you turn on TV in the USA and some nut is tapping people on the forehead to give them seizures or something.

atheist (n.)

1570s, "godless person, one who denies the existence of a supreme, intelligent being to whom moral obligation is due," from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" (see a- (3)) + theos "a god" (see theo-).

The existence of a world without God seems to me less absurd than the presence of a God, existing in all his perfection, creating an imperfect man in order to make him run the risk of Hell. [Armand Salacrou, "Certitudes et incertitudes," 1943]

For me the word atheist always meant 'lack of belief in any God or Gods'. You are either theist, or you are a-theist. (Or you could be one of those middle-of-the-road people).

I see no evidence that a God or Gods exist, therefore I simply lack a belief in such Invisible Gaseous Super-Entities. There is also of course that slippery word "faith", in which people have 'faith' that there is such a super-entity. I do not have faith in my lack of observation of evidence of a God or Gods. I simply and objectively do not observe any evidence of such. Ergo, I am a-theist.

 

[Monk]

For me the word atheist always meant 'lack of belief in any God or Gods'. You are either theist, or you are a-theist. (Or you could be one of those middle-of-the-road people).

I see no evidence that a God or Gods exist, therefore I simply lack a belief in such Invisible Gaseous Super-Entities. There is also of course that slippery word "faith", in which people have 'faith' that there is such a super-entity. I do not have faith in my lack of observation of evidence of a God or Gods. I simply and objectively do not observe any evidence of such. Ergo, I am a-theist.

I just have an issue with the terminiology.

It is a negative belief opposed to the positive belief

In my eyes, that is believing in something. Believing that the evidence is sound and leads to the conclusion that there is no god.

Evidence is nothing if no one believes it, no matter how logically ironclad it might be towards a particular conlusion.

Further, the definition quoted says it is one who denies existence of a supreme being. Denial requires belief in or acceptance of some position or argument.

A society must buy into to science, we must be convinced to believe that what science produces is true. We must believe that the evidence is true and not manufactured.


I guess my point is...never assume moral or logical authority. You are a flawed human just like me. We all need a little convincing

 

[Boomer Kay]

A society must buy into to science, we must be convinced to believe that what science produces is true. We must believe that the evidence is true and not manufactured.

Best way to do so (in my opinion of course) is to become a scientist yourself.
That's what I like about our school system over here - science is a big part of it and it's not just reading books with formulas you don't understand, it's quite some hands-on science over here.
There's little denying magnetism, mechanics, thermodynamics if you yourself perform the experiments. (ok, it does take a special kind of nerd to actually enjoy psychics, math and chemistry, but the lesson works for all).

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

I just have an issue with the terminiology.

It is a negative belief opposed to the positive belief

In my eyes, that is believing in something. Believing that the evidence is sound and leads to the conclusion that there is no god.

Evidence is nothing if no one believes it, no matter how logically ironclad it might be towards a particular conlusion.

Further, the definition quoted says it is one who denies existence of a supreme being. Denial requires belief in or acceptance of some position or argument.

A society must buy into to science, we must be convinced to believe that what science produces is true. We must believe that the evidence is true and not manufactured.


I guess my point is...never assume moral or logical authority. You are a flawed human just like me. We all need a little convincing

I think it's important that a proper distinction should be made of the use of the word 'belief' in order to have a proper conversation on this subject.

Theism is a belief system in the sense of religious belief. It's the hope that there will be some benevolent super-being looking after you in life and after life, as long as you follow The Rules.

A-theism is not a belief system in the above sense, because there is nothing to believe. You don't hope or pray that God doesn't exist. One doesn't go to the Church of Atheism. It's a simple concept to get one's head around.

As for science - I don't believe in science in exactly the same way I don't believe in a God. Science exists as a method of gaining knowledge and technology. The scientific research or model for something either works, or it does not.

However, I observe that science exists. Observing a Thing does require a non-religious belief in one's own senses - because our own senses are all we have in order to perceive the universe in which we inhabit, otherwise we might as well just give up on the whole thing.

But I think there is a difference in that word 'belief' between 'believing' that a scientific discovery is true (i.e. can this scientific research be repeated in an objectively observable way?), and the word 'belief' as in 'religious belief' (i.e. faith that despite a lack of objective evidence, that a God or Gods do in fact exist and they should be worshipped lest Bad Things happen).

 

[Boomer Kay]

However, I observe that science exists.

I'd call it "certain rules exist and science and scientists are able to extrapolate and explain them".
Guys like Newton, Heisenberg, Ohm, Bohr, Nobel and thousands more. They found some fundamental non-transcendent (is there a word for that? 'physical'?) explanation for how the 'verse works.