The Atheism Poll

[Luzwei]

Thank you for caring that English is my second language. I do know that you call shoes kicks as well! I used to get my kicks at kickz.com

[galanter]

It certainly substantiates my use of the phrase "trendy atheists" for the last few years, bless their soles.

[matthew]

...Matthew: You're MVP for this thread, thanks for weighing in after several pages of fapping.

...it's legitimate for those who study the history of ideas...

Phil: Sure. I agree.

Dave: In my case I'm not really interested in the history of ideas anymore, which is the direction this thread has swung...hence the reason I'm not saying much in this thread.

[Gramsci]

WANT!



Kickstarter, anyone?

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/149 ... eist-shoes

"During your times of trial and suffering, when you see only one set of footprints, it was then that I carried you."

"I'm hoping they could be like Grinder for atheists."

Mind
Blown.

[subprime]

Wait, does he mean grindr? The GPS cock finder for gay guys? Wow.

[Gramsci]

Wait, does he mean grindr? The GPS cock finder for gay guys? Wow.

Yup... Sorry for the miss-spell... I''m not overly familiar with the product...

[subprime]

Clearly we need an atheist version. "u h8 god? yea? omg dick pix!"

[turnbullac]

You guys are aware that if the universe is governed only by the laws of nature, and as these laws are irrefutable, then obviously there is no god, and also there can be no free will. Thus your entire life was predetermined from the moment you came about, actually even way way before you ever existed, and there is absolutely no way to change its course without changing natural law, which simply cannot be done.

Yeah, as humans we can fool ourselves into believing we have choices in life, but if nature is what it is, and as long as it its rules cannot be broken, then there really isn't any way to stem it's course, as it has been since the big bang and as it continues into whatever.

So therefore in the end, all of our efforts, all of our accomplishments, all art, music, society, all of our relationships are simply illusions that our selfish human brains have developed over the course of evolution to make things more comfortable. Nothing else but a simulacrum and no more real than a shadow. Actually when it comes down to it, even faker than a shadow, actually because at least shadows are a demonstrable result of physical and natural causes.

[Luzwei]

[Zorg]

yah, I have no idea what you're talking about, I refuse to accept that the Doritos Loco Taco is governed by nature's laws.

[jimmy two hands]

You guys are aware that if the universe is governed only by the laws of nature, and as these laws are irrefutable, then obviously there is no god, and also there can be no free will. Thus your entire life was predetermined from the moment you came about, actually even way way before you ever existed, and there is absolutely no way to change its course without changing natural law, which simply cannot be done.

If you subtitute "natural law" for "god", you got calvinism pretty well defined, which is the basis for the Presbyterian theology in which I was raised.

[Colonel Panic]

You guys are aware that if the universe is governed only by the laws of nature, and as these laws are irrefutable, then obviously there is no god, and also there can be no free will.

Ah, the old "Atheism=Determinism" argument. I was wondering when somebody was going to bring that one up. The problems are that it makes some pretty general, overly simplistic (and even unknowable) assumptions about the nature of consciousness, personality, intent, and even causality itself.

As the Empiricist philosopher David Hume pointed out, the entire notion of "free will" is self-contradictory no matter how you look at it. For one's "will" to be truly "free," it would by definition need to be indeterminate, unconnected to any outside influence at all. But we run into a similar dilemma in that case as well: if one's actions are indeed indeterminate—free of influence or causation from previous events—then they would by definition be totally random. If one's "will" is independent and one's actions random, then where does that leave the question of individuals' identity or personality? These are real, logical paradoxes that exist within philosophy. The questions of consciousness, personality, and intent have been debated for millennia, but we still have no definitive answers as such.

But as always, bringing a god into the equation does not resolve the contradiction but merely posits another logical contradiction to replace it. A reductio ad absurdum is a logical fallacy when the proposed solution is equally fallacious as the conundrum it's posited to fix.

Thus your entire life was predetermined from the moment you came about, actually even way way before you ever existed, and there is absolutely no way to change its course without changing natural law, which simply cannot be done.

No such conclusion logically follows from any premises of rational atheism.

Fatalism (the belief that all events are "predetermined") still presumes the existence of prediction and/or preordination, therefore some supernatural intelligence to have already done the determining. Atheists by definition dismiss all notions of such things.

Yeah, as humans we can fool ourselves into believing we have choices in life, but if nature is what it is, and as long as it its rules cannot be broken, then there really isn't any way to stem it's course, as it has been since the big bang and as it continues into whatever.

We have choices. We make choices every day of our lives, even when we don't realize we're making them. The choices we make (and the squishy, sparky mechanisms by which we make them) are just as much a part of the mechanics of the material Universe as a religious person might consider them part of the "Mind of God." Call that condition "free will" if you prefer, or chalk it up to the laws of nature doing their thing. It still doesn't necessarily require gods.

So therefore in the end, all of our efforts, all of our accomplishments, all art, music, society, all of our relationships are simply illusions that our selfish human brains have developed over the course of evolution to make things more comfortable.

Well when you put it like that, it sounds like a total bummer. Thanks a lot, man. I don't know how I can manage to go on being an atheist without being hopelessly depressed all the fucking time.

At least your faith keeps you from dwelling on depressing-ass shit like that. I mean, that idea would never have occurred to you if you'd never had any religious instruction, right?

Nothing else but a simulacrum and no more real than a shadow. Actually when it comes down to it, even faker than a shadow, actually because at least shadows are a demonstrable result of physical and natural causes.

At a basic, physical level, all forms of art are literally nonexistent until we apply our senses to them. "Illusion" is quite simply all they are. Subtract the sense of hearing, and what is music, really? Nothing more than just the air puffing out and vibrating in certain patterns. Without vision, a painting is merely a bunch of different substances stuck to a surface. It's our perception, our consciousness, our interpretation, that gives them meaning and brings the magic.

Yet our current understanding of consciousness is so very incomplete, we simply don't have answers to even the most fundamental questions. Most of what we know about consciousness has been gleaned little by little, from studying its effects on the patterns of physical activity within our brains. While that gap is admittedly rather large, history's shown that there's just no rational excuse for shoving our make-believe gods in there, as a placeholder in lieu of a justified explanation. As others have pointed out before, citing the fact that we don't know all the answers as a justification for jumping to the conclusion of "God did it" is an argument from ignorance.

[righthanded]

Reguarding free will:

Check out this Radiolab episode. There's a segment at the end i think where a woman has transient global amnesia. Totally awesome.

[subprime]

Radiolab is amazing. they should clearly do an episode about sound and go to electrical audio. I'd love to hear Jad obsess over the rooms.

[galanter]

It seems to me these issues are mostly unrelated.

There is no reason to believe that free will requires or rules out God. Or vice versa.

There is no reason to believe consciousness requires or rules out God. Or vice versa.

It's hard to imagine a definition of free will that wouldn't require consciousness. But consciousness doesn't require or rule out free will. (We might just observe our own behavior just as we observe everything else.)

As per Descartes, however, our *considering* issues of free will or God requires consciousness.

In other words the issues of free will and consciousness have no impact on the question of whether God exists.

[matthew]

...citing the fact that we don't know all the answers as a justification for jumping to the conclusion of "God did it" is an argument from ignorance.

In my mind that is the most common origin of "gods".

People want both answers to their questions and assurance* that things will (1) be OK or (2) play out in their favor. That's "human nature".

When answers and assurance are lacking...which they often are...people often create a god or gods who provide such...and sometimes propagate them. A lot of us do this or at least have done this at some point in our lives I think, in our own ways...it's just human.


*the plain dictionary definition, not the accounting or the odd Protestant theological definition

[subprime]

God of the gaps. Its a narcicistic theory more than anything. People can't, or don't want to, imagine anything but a god being more intelligent than them.

[turnbullac]

http://www.vice.com/read/hey-atheists-j ... e=vicefbus

[EmpireStateTroopers]

http://www.vice.com/read/hey-atheists-just-shut-up-please?utm_source=vicefbus

yeah, but I like the first comment more:

I agree that r/atheism is not the most articulate space on the internet devoted to the topic, but I'm not sure its worth using as an example of the atheist opinion in general. What else do you expect from Reddit? Plus no one is forcing anyone to visit a subreddit, but we are all "forced" to deal with legislation largely catered to Christian ideals (marriage inequality is the most prudent example). Is it possible some of these pictures and comics may be intended to NOT be taken so seriously? Yeah. Is it just as likely some of them are made by moron 15 year olds? Hell yes. I see what you're saying, I just don't think the dialog on /r/atheism is much of a reason to tell atheists to "shut the fuck up". If I were you I would unsubscribe to that subreddit so you don't see any posts on your front page.

[turnbullac]

Ha ha you read Vice comments...