Musings about different types of atheist! (page 17)

bohm

I believe certain humans have different sensory inputs than others (or just more developed).

cool. why?

I don't mean to breaik in to a very compelling dialogue but I'm interested in something. Cantleave, what is your doctorate in? You have probably stated before so pardon my laziness for not querying the board to find it. And Seraphim you write in an eloquent and compelling manner. I'm impressed by your moderate tone and willingness to at least appear to listen to the arguments of non-theists. You seem intelligent I will say one thing. Non-theists simply can't do anything with an argument from theists that begins or ends with "I feel" or "I believe." That pretty much ends the conversation.

And Seraphim non-theists have likely struggled at least for a while with ID and Abiogenesis, not to mention having already tore down the wall that has been in place since they were born. Non-theists rarely if ever just woke up one day and said "I'm now an athiest." It is likely all the non-theists on this board were born into a theist house and taught from birth that god existed and the bible (koran, torah, etc.) was his inerrant word. So it isn't as if there aren't topics to truly discuss. But lwhat you and Cantleave are doing is a cross between a discussion and a debate - you talk about beliefs, the possibilities of the supernatural or supernatural phenomemon and Cantleave and others like him talk about things that can be proven or suggested by the scientific model. That will always happen. As much as your strongly held beliefs mean to you and the other theists, they will almost always annoy a non-theist.

And there is no real way to mesh those 2 things in debate. It will always become circular or entrenched. I have also noticed that theists are more likely than non-theists to hijack these types of threads, which is very annoying. It makes me want to leave this site. Strength in numbers I suppose. I am in awe of Cantleave, Cofty and Adamah who have the patience to go on and on and on, over and over and over, with these types of discussions. I don't.

And here is something else to consider. As the science evolves and grows, non-theists - who are likely looking forward to better and more science and clarification on all issues - will almost certainly make the necessary changes in their understanding. Non-theists know that science isn't perfect. They are much less likely, if at all, to become entrenced in a viewpoint (other than the scientific method), which is something I hear theists wrongly accuse. On the other hand, theists aren't going to change their minds typically no matter what.

Again, the tone of your discussions is admirable and compelling. Thank you for entertaining me early in the a.m. when I should be sleeping. Well done both.

cantleave

I don't have a doctorate, my first degree is in Chemistry my Masters is in Business Studies - I was a crap Chemist, but OK at selling technical solutions!

prologos

back to different TYPES of atheists and their musings:

what kind of Atheist is

a person that does not believe in GOD but

sees evidence of a creator

as science becomes more accomplished, or

the one that feels there must be a creatrice

with co-operation winning over tooth&claw elimination of the loosers?

keep it simple,

in ABSTRACT form please.

cofty

Its a common misunderstanding thst evolution is only about who has the sharpest teeth.

Cooperation, symbiosis even empathy are important strategies for many species including ours.

It is not an indication of a designer.

cofty

This is a confusing thread because the title has no connection with the content.

Seraphim23

DJS thank you for your reasonable tone. You are the type of atheist I could have a good conversation with and leave the table as friends. You also make good and relevant points I partly agree with as with the `I feel and I believe` point. I try not to do that unless it is in the domain of cumulative anecdotal evidence of supernatural experience for example, and even then while trying to rationally rule out mental disorders and so on using scientific rational. I would say on the other hand that blanket or sarcastic statements also have a tendency to do the same from the mouths of some atheists when it comes to ending a conversation, so it happens on both sides in different ways.

I do sympathise however with the journey from theism to atheism, in a non-patronising way, because I have partly gone through some of the stages of such a journey. My mum is an emotionally damaged JW and she was raised in that faith, and my dad is and always was an atheist, so I was exposed to both views from day one. The older I have got, the more I have moved away from my mother’s world view towards my dad’s world view. I also looked at ID and Abiogenesis. In my case I rejected them on the grounds that God doesn’t have to tinker with something if he made it right the first time. However that on its own was not strong enough to convince me that God could not and definitely didnt exist because perhaps things are the way they should be or something else was at work I didn’t know about. I certainly realised that the bible is not inerrant but again I didn’t reject it outright and learnt a lot about the history of the doctrine of inspiration which was an eye opener for example. Enough about my journey but the point is I do have much in common with atheists and can empathise with them, like I do with my own Father.

I do think there are hard line atheists who at all costs reject even the possibility of God because science has been turned into scientism and atheism an ideology but also there are other, in my view, more rational atheists who are open minded enough to entertain the idea of a God in theory, as it were, although they don’t personally believe in one. This group is commonly called agnostic but the terminology in this area is a contradictory mine field, abused by both side to the exclusion of the other. This would be a topic in itself.

I think it is possible for constructive dialogue to be had between theists and non-theists but only between the types of theist and non-theist who understands that science has to be defined before it is discussed. Reasonable theists will accept the conclusions of science and its implications for certain theological frameworks, as I do. Reasonable non-theists will understand the limits of science. Science of course has evolved and is arguably still evolving, which is a key point. There is more than one definition because of its continuing history of change. This is a profound problem unless great care is taken to define which definition is being used in a discussion, or if people are willing to be more flexible and empathetic in discussions and debates on both sides which is often unfortunately not the case.

Science according to a common definition is limited to this universe, because only in this universe can predicative power of a theory be seen and tested by observation. The more abstract a theory is, the more its predictive power tends to fall, and predictive power is one of the definitions of science. This may mean that science is limited in the strict sense to this universe. If so it is possible for other realms to exist of course but be forever out of the reach of science, if defined as a methodology which it also often is.

However as science evolves it may well be defined differently in future, which may mean is goes into realms of metaphysics and increasingly into philosophical questions and even theology.

Another issue that arises are the tools of science because they are necessarily physical in nature, because we live in a physical universe. As such the very tools of science may affect in unknown ways the physical things being tested or studied, yielding results that may be skewed and thus not be the most accurate picture, leaving open mindedness a virtue when it comes to so called supernatural subjects for example. For instance, some atheists like to berate theists for believing in, as they call it, magic. However particles appearing out of what gets called nothing and disappearing again is not labelled in this way, yet is very much the same thing. There are areas of science that although they give useful results, are not intelligible because they go against common sense and common experience. They leave the realm of classical science leading to yet another definition of what is called science.

I think for all these reasons and more besides, a dialogue can be had between some categories of non-theist and theist. Dogmatics on both sides cause half the problems, and the real interesting stuff to talk about is lost in the noise. The dialogue doesn’t have to be circular or entrenched because I think there are some categories of non-theist and theist that have more in common and more to discuss than their own kin as it were. Being a theist that has changed his mind on many matters, both because of science, and about science itself, along with theological, metaphysical and philosophical views I think it is possible for both sides to sit down and eat bread together, but some will always oppose this due to their own insecurities and deficiencies.

Musings about different types of atheist!

bohm

DJS

cantleave

prologos

cofty

cofty

Seraphim23

paranoia agent

paranoia agent

Seraphim23

Share this