Profiling the atheist

Mostly, I find that atheists and I are not having an argument where the concepts are understood to be the same by both sides. I'm almost always confronted by #6:


But this God who allows such horrors is, apparently, now my God and I am confronted with examples of divine retribution from Leviticus or Deuteronomy. What is this fixation many atheists have with the Old Testament and how does it disprove the afterlife? Why am I expected to justify the actions of a capricious God that I don't believe in either? 

This is not some bogus charge against atheists, as fls would have it, because I guarantee that I am not the only one to have faced that argument head on. The impression that I am left with after such discussions is that there is at least a degree of truth to the characteristics described in points 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9. It is the security that many atheists feel that science is on their side and that science shines a light on superstition and shows it to be without substance. Then, of course, they feel free to list what they consider to be superstitions, claiming the authority of science as justification.

The vast majority of "god followers" identify with one of the major religions, and that argument is appropriate in those cases (i.e. the overwhelming majority). If your not a follower of an organised religion I really don't know why that argument would even bother you. 

Your god is niche and unusual (perhaps even personal). To expect anyone, atheist or otherwise, to fully grasp the subtleties of your notion of "spirituality in nature" or "mind-at-large" is unfair. By all means explain your view, point out the differences, and carry on the discussion, but there is an onus on your part to clarify before your mock the argument. Alternatively, let them carry on attacking "the church" (that's clearly not your battle).

The vast majority of "god followers" identify with one of the major religions, and that argument is appropriate in those cases (i.e. the overwhelming majority). If your not a follower of an organised religion I really don't know why that argument would even bother you. 

Your god is niche and unusual (perhaps even personal). To expect anyone, atheist or otherwise, to fully grasp the subtleties of your notion of "spirituality in nature" or "mind-at-large" is unfair. By all means explain your view, point out the differences, and carry on the discussion, but there is an onus on your part to clarify before your mock the argument. Alternatively, let them carry on attacking "the church" (that's clearly not your battle).

From Karmarling's past commentary it seems his disagreement is towards anyone or thing that pushes spirituality out of the picture. In this thread it's atheism tomorrow it could be fls, me or Larry Krauss.

From Karmarling's past commentary it seems his disagreement is towards anyone or thing that pushes spirituality out of the picture. In this thread it's atheism tomorrow it could be fls, me or Larry Krauss.

Interesting personal attack against Kamarling given this could be your autobiography -- just rearrange a few terms and replace a few names.

Interesting personal attack against Kamarling given this could be your autobiography -- just rearrange a few terms and replace a few names.

Aside from which it is stating the obvious. If I disagree with atheists and materialists it is precisely because they "push spirituality out of the picture". That is the nature of disagreement. What am I expected to do? Agree with them for the sake of appearing neutral?

What I object to with Steve is his constant use of naive premisses and non sequiturs. It makes discussion pointless.

As for my name, I have corrected him in the past but he seems determined to stick with his preferred version. Yes, childish but I would expect nothing else. Otherwise, David or Dave would do just as well.

The vast majority of "god followers" identify with one of the major religions, and that argument is appropriate in those cases (i.e. the overwhelming majority). If your not a follower of an organised religion I really don't know why that argument would even bother you. 

Your god is niche and unusual (perhaps even personal). To expect anyone, atheist or otherwise, to fully grasp the subtleties of your notion of "spirituality in nature" or "mind-at-large" is unfair. By all means explain your view, point out the differences, and carry on the discussion, but there is an onus on your part to clarify before your mock the argument. Alternatively, let them carry on attacking "the church" (that's clearly not your battle).

My view on god is not unusual, Malf, it is pretty much standard idealism which is rooted in philosophy rather than religion. Are you suggesting that it is unfair for atheists to consider any concept other than the old testament Yahweh or that atheists should be spared the confusion they might face by being confronted by a worldview other than the evangelical fundamentalists they have prepared their arguments for? Idealism is contrary to materialism and, as such, is an entirely appropriate and fair subject for discussion with materialists.

Aside from which it is stating the obvious. If I disagree with atheists and materialists it is precisely because they "push spirituality out of the picture". That is the nature of disagreement. What am I expected to do? Agree with them for the sake of appearing neutral?

What I object to with Steve is his constant use of naive premisses and non sequiturs. It makes discussion pointless.

As for my name, I have corrected him in the past but he seems determined to stick with his preferred version. Yes, childish but I would expect nothing else. Otherwise, David or Dave would do just as well.

What your supposed to do is acknowledge you could be wrong. I find your utter incapacity to acknowledge you could be wrong just as irritating.

Btw, you'd notice I spelled your name correctly if you stop being peevish by having me on your ignore list.

Interesting personal attack against Kamarling given this could be your autobiography -- just rearrange a few terms and replace a few names.

Not a personal attack, just the truth as Kamarling confirmed.

Not a personal attack, just the truth as Kamarling confirmed.

And do you think this is a reflection of your own self rather than just a charge you level against others?:

What you're supposed to do is acknowledge you could be wrong.

I think everyone is implicitly acknowledging they could be wrong, at least to some degree, in debates/dialectics.

I'm not sure why anyone has to explicitly state this in every conversation?

Regarding this question of the atheist...I think this merits the similar question of Venn Diagrams we can apply to proponents & materialists/physicalists. This "rotation" of expected axes leads to some questions:

What is a god exactly?
Is a Non-Dualist or Idealist who thinks it all comes down to non-reflexive/non-cognitive Awareness an atheist?
Is a polytheist an atheist? 

One might ask if a classical theist is an atheist by certain standards, since it isn't clear a Prime Mover nor a Universal Intellect need to akin to any scriptural god. Why the "God of Philosophers" distinction exists.

Are materialists by necessity atheists? I don't think so, in fact I recall past discussion on God being the First Emergent Consciousness just as Ra was the Being that arose from the waters of Chaos in Egyptian mythology.

In fact materialism doesn't even negate parapsychology, as there are a variety of matter-based explanations for Psi phenomenon published in ESP Vol 1 & 2 and the Parapsychology Handbook.

It seems the "closure" against God/Psi/Afterlife that skeptics desire is based on the following:

Non-conscious Matter, in accordance with Laws, gives rise to isolated incidences of Consciousnesses whose boundaries+existence are defined by certain bodies that are their only means of communication+action.


If one holds to the above then it follows any anecdote for God/Psi/Afterlife would be rejected, even if one accepts anecdotes for the existence of other things like crimes that were never witnessed.

OTOH, if someone rejects any of the bold then it seems reasonable to accept at least some of the phenomenon/entities falling under theology or parapsychology.

And Materialism without Laws can accept anything but God as Fundamental, since there aren't even Probability Laws to say what must happen. Psi is just a possible as the sun rising.

Regarding this question of the atheist...I think this merits the similar question of Venn Diagrams we can apply to proponents & materialists/physicalists. This "rotation" of expected axes leads to some questions:

What is a god exactly?
Is a Non-Dualist or Idealist who thinks it all comes down to non-reflexive/non-cognitive Awareness an atheist?
Is a polytheist an atheist? 

One might ask if a classical theist is an atheist by certain standards, since it isn't clear a Prime Mover nor a Universal Intellect need to akin to any scriptural god. Why the "God of Philosophers" distinction exists.

Are materialists by necessity atheists? I don't think so, in fact I recall past discussion on God being the First Emergent Consciousness just as Ra was the Being that arose from the waters of Chaos in Egyptian mythology.

In fact materialism doesn't even negate parapsychology, as there are a variety of matter-based explanations for Psi phenomenon published in ESP Vol 1 & 2 and the Parapsychology Handbook.

It seems the "closure" against God/Psi/Afterlife that skeptics desire is based on the following:

Non-conscious Matter, in accordance with Laws, gives rise to isolated incidences of Consciousnesses whose boundaries+existence are defined by certain bodies that are their only means of communication+action.


If one holds to the above then it follows any anecdote for God/Psi/Afterlife would be rejected, even if one accepts anecdotes for the existence of other things like crimes that were never witnessed.

OTOH, if someone rejects any of the bold then it seems reasonable to accept at least some of the phenomenon/entities falling under theology or parapsychology.

And Materialism without Laws can accept anything but God as Fundamental, since there aren't even Probability Laws to say what must happen. Psi is just a possible as the sun rising.

I think you may have introduced some outliers there, Sci. I have to admit that I struggle to follow some of the reasoning for inclusion/exclusion within the ambit of the atheist. It reminds me of my son who, half-teasingly, claims that I am every bit as much of an atheist as he is because I don't believe in a personal God. Yet for me, the term atheism has come to demand the exclusion of the spiritual and/or supernatural. So I go by what I consider to be a general understanding of the term, which is:

• No God/gods of any description, any concept.
  
• No supernatural entities such as angels, devils, souls, ghosts or spirits of any description.
  
• No spiritual dimensions such as heaven, hell, the astral plane or any kind afterlife environment.
  

As for atheists not being materialists, I have yet to meet one who isn't. I do not know of any materialists who seriously believe that a god consciousness may have emerged from the natural world. 

Perhaps the atheists here might like to comment?