Musings about different types of atheist!

by Seraphim23 304 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Seraphim23

  snare&racket I agree with you to a degree. I think the nearest analogues to good and bad in the physical world of biology, evolution and so on could be called harm and benefit. What is harm and benefit? Another word would be chaos and order. Earthquakes are fundamentally part of the process that makes life possible on earth and an example of chaos creating order. If a human and of course an animal is in the path of that earthquake they suffer and die which is chaos or disorder. So good and bad could be said to be the same thing from different points of view. Wouldn’t that mean they cancel each other out as concepts if their only foundation is based on what material processes do? The moral side of it comes in with humans, and perhaps as you allude to apes, dolphins and elephants. Even for animals that do not have any higher understanding, suffering is still a reality but evolution would not work without it. Does that mean evolution is bad? Some would say so if bad is defined by suffering, and good the lack thereof!

  If though you are right and good and bad are real and exist, they exist relative to the individuals inner world of the subjective and the ability to share those inner values and world with others who also have that inner subjective world. That world then is the basis for good and bad being real because chaos and order, destruction and creation have meaning to them which they don’t without the subjective world. The problem for a materialist viewpoint, of which some but not all atheists have, is that there is no empirical way to prove the realness of the inner subjective world. Science is limited to empirical methodology of physicality and forces, and thus it can only point to correlates of brain function and its effects on conscious experience, not the reality of conscious experience itself. So if science is pushed into an ideology that says science is the only truth and science only deals with physical entities and forces, it becomes the arm of materialism that cannot show the reality of the subjective and thus good and bad.
• 

  Xanthippe

  Could you put this into a sentence please I've had a long day at work?
• 

  adamah

  The problem for a materialist viewpoint, of which some but not all atheists have, is that there is no empirical way to prove the realness of the inner subjective world.

  Not a problem at all, since science doesn't even TRY to determine OBJECTIVE reality: that would be a pointless waste of time, and not even needed. Instead, science allows that whatever you and I may perceive as "that" (pointing to some object, say a whale), we will agree to call it a "whale". It turns out that the approach of reaching a consensus on aligning our perceptions (without squabbling over details of what it actually IS, in ABSOLUTE terms) works extremely well: you only have to look around you at the progress mankind has made.

  The BIGGEST fallacy there is arguably is that of ABSOLUTES: whether morals, or perceptions of reality, etc. Thinking in terms of absolutes is the hallmark of someone who's never considered various perceptions, states of reality, viewpoints, etc. Studying other living organisms, whether echinoderms, flatworms, canines, plants, trees, etc really forces you to do that, and allows you to realize that there's more beauty in the living world than most believers (who see everything in the World as theirs to dominate) haven't yet begun to imagine.

  Adam
• 

  Xanthippe

  If though you are right and good and bad are real and exist, they exist relative to the individuals inner world of the subjective and the ability to share those inner values and world with others who also have that inner subjective

  world. - Seraphim

  Thinking in terms of absolutes is the hallmark of someone who's never considered various perceptions, states of reality, viewpoints, etc. - Adam

  I think you two agree more than you realise.
• 

  70wksfyrs

  Hmmm ....could that not be said of any group? I have noticed with teachers, policeman, social workers, conservationists, politicians that many are caring and respectful and others are blunt and harsh, and also a little impatient.

  You make a fair comment cantleave, sadly in my experience I cannot say the same of those professionals they have been blunt, rude, liars, inconsiderate, damaging, abusive and extremely impatient with the exception of conservationists, which I have had no personal experiences with.

  But on your train of thought the same could be said of any forum, lets add solicitors to your list, that forum was awful in my experience. I will never go back there again

  I have read a lot of what you have written including your story, so I would like you to know that in my opinion I like a lot of what you post, its funny, easy to understand and you have shown yourself to be helpful and caring. One thing that really struck me was that when you were an elder you made a decision about a young boy and he was df'd and that you felt guilty for making that choice to affect his whole family's life. Please correct me if I have got it a bit wrong.

  To get back to topic now,

  I think that musings over different types of atheist is a good topic. My view is people are different, atheists are different too, many have always been atheists and many converted. During the process of conversion, many would have changing beliefs before they have arrived at a firm belief. Some may well believe in a higher power of sorts, but not God.

  Are there many commenting in this thread that have had changing beliefs until they arrived at a firm belief?
• 

  Seraphim23

  Xanthippe I think your right.
• 

  Xanthippe

  I left the JWs and became a Christian, then an agnostic then an atheist. I didn't convert to atheism I simply don't think anyone is in charge from logic and observation. I don't think a firm belief in anything is a good idea. Experience has taught me that when new facts come to light I may change my mind.
• 

  cofty

  Seraphim could you explain succinctly what the connection is between the thread title and what you have written so far?

  The OP contains lots of canards and strawman arguments and seems to have nothing to do with the title.

  On the other hand I agree with the implication of the thread title. Saying that somebody is an atheist tells us very little about them.
• 

  adamah

  70wkyrs asked-

  Are there many commenting in this thread that have had changing beliefs until they arrived at a firm belief?

  Why must one arrive at a "firm belief"? In my book, that's called being a dogmatic, obstinate, closed-minded bigot. There's ALWAYS new stuff to learn, and only fools allow themselves to rest on their laurels to stagnate in their self-satisfied smug contentment, daring to fool themselves into believing they have found "the Truth".

  But to directly answer your question, the fundamentals of my beliefs have been pretty solid and unchanging for the past 30-40 yrs or so, with my youth and young adult years a time of searching for answers to learn of how the World is KNOWN to work, not how I'd LIKE it to work. In the years since, there's ZERO doubt that Gods exist: there's just too much evidence against Abrahamic God, where he'd have to plant TONS of COUNTER-EVIDENCE (eg fossils, archaeological evidence) to lead all the fools who rely on their God-given intellect (having been "made in his image") to believe he doesn't exist (not even to mention, all the continuity errors in the Bible which point to it being the work of men, not inspired by Gods).

  Adam
• 

  cantleave

  One thing that really struck me was that when you were an elder you made a decision about a young boy and he was df'd and that you felt guilty for making that choice to affect his whole family's life. Please correct me if I have got it a bit wrong.

  That is correct. I have since managed to contact him and apologised for my actions.

  At the end of it all people are people and we are influenced by our parents, peers and place in society - but these things do not negate our personal responsibility for our actions.