4 ms·

Saying "there is no God" instead of "I don't know whether or not God exists" presumes a certain understanding of cause and effect, of being and essence, of mean

Saying "there is no God" instead of "I don't know whether or not God exists" presumes a certain understanding of cause and effect, of being and essence, of meaning and purpose. After all, the atheist says "there is no need for another uncaused cause because ..." - that "because" serves the purpose of religion. I would argue that one cannot be an atheist without that "because". An agnostic can act in the fashion of an atheist (presumptive atheism), but an ill-considered atheist-in-act is not an atheist in intellect. In fact the branches of natural philosophy nominally used to make the determination "God cannot exist" by the atheist cannot speak to being and essence (because the sciences presuppose them) and cannot speak categorically to meaning and purpose (because those depend on what philosophy has determined about being and essence). Prescriptions on how to live (i. e. what the moral response to being must be) flow from the first two and therefore also cannot flow from science alone which presupposes whatever kind of universe the scientist finds himself existing in. "Can I derive 'ought' from 'is'" is presumed by the physicist and can only be addressed by the philosopher. To put it another way, one cannot be an atheist without a religion - one can only be agnostic. To put it a third way, Cicero says "religion consists in offering service and ceremonial rites to a superior nature that men call divine." The atheist says "there is none to serve" - but that is patently untrue, for in that case there would be no end to strive after and all atheists would perish by inaction. Therefore, all atheists have chosen to serve some superior nature, either themselves, or some ideal (Chaos, Order, Balance, etc.).

Retric 6y ago
You’re assuming people must hold beliefs based on rational evidence when religions aren’t based on rationality. Thus your argument is inherently flawed. An atheist with atheist parents hardly needs to deeply consider the matter. Not believing in a God(s) is no different than not believing in perfectly square pigs. It’s people that have a specific religious belief that put much importance on the subject. PS: Saying the universe or your life has no purpose is hardly a cause do nothing any more than it’s a cause to build churches.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Saying "there is no God" instead of "I don't know whether or not God exists" presumes a certain understanding of cause and effect No, it may just be grounded in an epistemological approach in which entities which are not necessary to explain observations are presumed not to exist. > To put it another way, one cannot be an atheist without a religion - one can only be agnostic. Many self-described atheists reject the atheist/agnostic distinction as meaningless, viewing the absence of belief as equivalent to unbelief in their epistemology. > To put it a third way, Cicero says "religion consists in offering service and ceremonial rites to a superior nature that men call divine." The atheist says "there is none to serve" - but that is patently untrue, for in that case there would be no end to strive after and all atheists would perish by inaction. That is fantastic illogic. The absence of a "superior nature" to which one might have a reason to offer "service and ceremonial rites" does not deny that there are goals that one might strive for. Maximizing one's own experienced utility, for instance, requires no assumption of a "superior nature", nor even a rejection of solipsism, but still provides an end to strive after and motivate action. > Therefore, all atheists have chosen to serve some superior nature, either themselves Serving yourself is not serving a "superior nature", since "superior" is meaningful only in comparison to something else, and in Cicero's statement it is clearly in comparison to the self.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
goto11 6y ago
Even if you say you don't believe in Santa Claus, you would still believe in Santa Claus. Because the gifts must be coming from somewhere, and if we call that somewhere Santa Claus, then everyone actually believe in Santa Claus despite their claim not to. Is that a fair representation of your viewpoint?

Retric 6y ago

You’re assuming people must hold beliefs based on rational evidence when religions aren’t based on rationality. Thus your argument is inherently flawed. An atheist with atheist parents hardly needs to deeply consider the matter. Not believing in a God(s) is no different than not believing in perfectly square pigs. It’s people that have a specific religious belief that put much importance on the subject. PS: Saying the universe or your life has no purpose is hardly a cause do nothing any more than it’s a cause to build churches.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Saying "there is no God" instead of "I don't know whether or not God exists" presumes a certain understanding of cause and effect No, it may just be grounded in an epistemological approach in which entities which are not necessary to explain observations are presumed not to exist. > To put it another way, one cannot be an atheist without a religion - one can only be agnostic. Many self-described atheists reject the atheist/agnostic distinction as meaningless, viewing the absence of belief as equivalent to unbelief in their epistemology. > To put it a third way, Cicero says "religion consists in offering service and ceremonial rites to a superior nature that men call divine." The atheist says "there is none to serve" - but that is patently untrue, for in that case there would be no end to strive after and all atheists would perish by inaction. That is fantastic illogic. The absence of a "superior nature" to which one might have a reason to offer "service and ceremonial rites" does not deny that there are goals that one might strive for. Maximizing one's own experienced utility, for instance, requires no assumption of a "superior nature", nor even a rejection of solipsism, but still provides an end to strive after and motivate action. > Therefore, all atheists have chosen to serve some superior nature, either themselves Serving yourself is not serving a "superior nature", since "superior" is meaningful only in comparison to something else, and in Cicero's statement it is clearly in comparison to the self.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

goto11 6y ago

Even if you say you don't believe in Santa Claus, you would still believe in Santa Claus. Because the gifts must be coming from somewhere, and if we call that somewhere Santa Claus, then everyone actually believe in Santa Claus despite their claim not to. Is that a fair representation of your viewpoint?