I just finished a discussion with an Atheist that I found quite amusing. It was in response to the question “Is Atheism a Religion?” It seems quite obvious to me that this person was only interested in arguing semantics and I still have no idea what “lack of belief” means. Here is how it transpired…

My Reply:
Well, since it’s impossible to KNOW that there is no god one could only take that belief on faith, so I guess, yeah, it would be a religion.

There is no such thing as “lack of belief”. Either you believe or you don’t. If you aren’t sure then you are agnostic.

His Reply:
I have a lack of belief in unicorns. There has not been sufficient evidence, in my opinion, to warrant a belief in unicorns. I don’t have to have an active disbelief in them.

Agnostics are not the middle ground. Agnostics would simply state, you cannot know whether there is a god or not. It still does not answer whether they have a belief in a god based on available evidence.

My Reply:
I’m not sure I follow. How can you NOT have an active disbelief? That doesn’t make sense to me. If you don’t believe then by default you disbelieve. They are opposites – it’s either one way or the other there is no middle ground between the two.

I don’t see evidence for unicorns either so I choose to believe that they don’t exist. If I see sufficient evidence then I will change my disbelief to belief. Does that make sense?

His Reply:
If you show me a unicorn, and I refuse to accept that it is real. That is disbelief, an active action. If you tell me about the existence of unicorns, and I am unconvinced, I have a lack of belief.

My Reply:
I still don’t understand that concept. Why will you only make a decision about belief or disbelief if I SHOW you a unicorn? It seems a bit unrealistic. What if I presented evidence that unicorns exist but not an actual unicorn? Would you be able to make a decision then?

Based on your logic, it seems to me that you could just keep making excuses and stay “unconvinced” no matter what anyone said or did or no matter what evidence was presented to you.

To me, once you are introduced to a concept, whether it’s unicorns, god or the FSM you make a decision about it and can no longer have a “lack of belief”.

His Reply:
“Based on your logic, it seems to me that you could just keep making excuses and stay “unconvinced” no matter what anyone said or did or no matter what evidence was presented to you.”

Exactly, disbelief is active.

My Reply:
so you are actively remaining “unconvinced” yet you are not actively disbelieving? how convenient.

I don’t see the difference. actively remaining unconvinced so you don’t have to believe or make a decision seems like the same as choosing to not believe to me.

His Reply:
Okay. If you have proven something to me and I reject it. That is DISBELIEF. It is an action you take. It is conscious and willful.

If you have not proven something to me. I simply don’t BELIEVE you. I have a lack of BELIEF.

My Reply:
Ummm… no, if I prove something it no longer needs belief because it’s a fact. Fact = truth. Once something is proven you moves from belief to awareness. There is nothing to make a decision about belief since you would then be rejecting truth not evidence.

People have beliefs because we take the EVIDENCE we have and make a decision. We make decisions about whether or not we believe something because it isn’t fact yet.

His Reply:
“if I prove something it no longer needs belief because it’s a fact.”

If I still won’t accept it. That is DISBELIEF.

If I accept your facts and arguments. I have belief. You have created a belief. If I don’t agree with your facts or argument, you have not created a belief. I have a lack of belief.

My Reply:
I’m afraid not. What you are saying is simply not true. Christians don’t have proof of God yet they believe. The opposite of belief is disbelief. If you reject the idea of god you don’t have lack of belief you have disbelief.

As I said earlier, once you are introduced to a concept a decision is made about that concept even if it is to decide not to decide – either way, a position is taken. This is not the same as going back to a state of unawareness or lack of knowledge (lack of belief). To suspend belief on a subject is to hold off judgment until more information is acquired – this is not lack of belief.

Ya know I find it interesting that we don’t find atheism defined as “lack of belief” in the dictionary (at least not in the dictionary I use). Hmmmm…

His Reply:
“Christians don’t have proof of God yet they believe. The opposite of belief is disbelief.”

What you described is FAITH. By your own words, DISBELIEF is the opposite of FAITH.
If FAITH is belief in the absence of proof.
Then DISBELIEF, would be not believing in the face of evidence.

“once you are introduced to a concept a decision is made about that concept even if it is to decide not to decide – either way, a position is taken”

“All pit bulls are killers”.
“I don’t believe that.”
There is no position stated. I’ve simply stated I don’t have a belief in what you said.

“Ya know I find it interesting that we don’t find atheism defined as “lack of belief” in the dictionary (at least not in the dictionary I use). Hmmmm…”

Condescension isn’t an argument, or polite.

My Reply:
You are arguing semantics. Faith, belief, disbelief, lack of belief. The very definition of faith is “strong BELIEF in god…”.

Your analogy about pit bulls doesn’t fit. It’s easy to prove that not all pit bulls are killers. But either way you admit that you “don’t have a belief” in that, but then you say “there is no position stated”. You’ve just contradicted yourself. You’re playing a semantics game.

If someone presents the idea that all pit bulls are killers then you have one of three choices, you can believe it (theist) disbelieve it (atheist) or decline to make a decision until such time as you can come to a decision (agnostic). There are no other options.

My comment about the dictionary definition wasn’t meant as condescension. You taking that as condescending says more about you then it does me I’m afraid. That statement is a fact. Do you believe it or not? I’ve presented a concept to you, one that is easily refutable. Again you have the same choice presented above.

From the American Heritage Dictionary. Atheism: noun 1) Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. 2) The doctrine that there is no God or gods. I don’t see the phrase “lack of belief” in there. That’s not condescension that’s fact.

Another interesting word “doctrine”. Aren’t doctrines usually associated with religions? Perhaps that’s for another discussion.

His Reply:
An agnostic believes it is impossible to KNOW if there is a god. That does not answer the question of whether they have a belief in a god or not.

Theist/Atheist answers the question “Do you have a belief in a god”? I do not, therefore, I am an atheist. There is nothing else to it.

Atheism does not make any declarations, it takes no position. We do not have a belief in absence, we have an absence(lack) of belief.

It is a long way between, “I don’t have a belief in a god” and “I don’t believe there is a god”

Lets hear about atheist doctrines. I’m not familiar with any and happen to be an atheis so I’m curious

I would love to hear what the doctrines of atheism are.

My Reply:
No, the very definition of Agnostic is “a person who claims neither faith [belief] in or disbelief in god” That sounds very much like what you describe as “lack of belief”.

You wrote:
It is a long way between, “I don’t have a belief in a god” and “I don’t believe there is a god”

To me they are the same. I’m not sure what else to say that I haven’t already said to help you understand my position.

I don’t know what the doctrines of atheism are. I’m not an atheist. I just found it interesting that the dictionary would use that term. My dictionary defines doctrine as “a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group.” So my guess would be that the essential doctrine of atheism is that there is no god.

That was the end. I never heard back from him. As you can see, I never got a clear definition of what “lack of belief” means. It’s interesting to me that through out that entire conversation, he could never really tell me what it meant. Oh well, I guess I will keep searching.

Lack Belief lack of belief

By Sophia lee · Daily Trojan

Posted November 3, 2009 (2 days ago) at 11:25 pm in Featured, Film, Lifestyle

With nothing but a projector screen and folding chairs, the tiny Embassy Auditorium of the Davidson Conference Center is a far cry from the 50-foot-high IMAX theater where Darwin’s Dilemma was originally scheduled to be screened. Even though the California Science Center recently backed out of its contract to host the film’s Los Angeles premiere, the tensions created by the controversial documentary’s release followed the event to its new location.

As everyone settled into their seats, the room was already bustling with conflicting opinions on Darwin’s 150-year-old theory of evolution.

“I don’t believe in this intelligent design stuff,” one attendee whispered; another gently poked fun at the idea of humans popping out of a random interaction of atoms. Even in today’s modern world, the intimate room was a clear display of the debate raised since Darwin first published The Origin of Species in 1859: Who are we and where did we come from?

The night started off with a short clip from We Are Born of Stars, the first 3-D film created for IMAX projection. Choppy, rough and with limited black-and-white computer graphics, the film provided a structural view of our essential building block of life — DNA. Unfortunately, the film was in Japanese, and those who came without a basic scientific knowledge of DNA structures were left in the dark. But this brief prelude was meant to portray the deep mystery of DNA in living creatures, which is an integral component in Darwin’s theory of evolution.

Darwin’s Dilemma, screened shortly afterwards, was a much more modern and technologically sophisticated film in comparison. The final installment of Illustra Media’s long-planned Intelligent Design trilogy, this documentary brings to light the contradiction between the fossil record and Darwin’s theories. It focuses on the Cambrian explosion, a time period in the earth’s history in which there was a sudden “explosion” of complex species without any ancestral trace.

The film can be divided into three counterarguments.

First, it states that the Cambrian explosion heavily conflicts with Darwin’s theory. According to Darwin’s theory of natural selection, every organism requires a prior ancestral form. But even Darwin admits that the fossil record below the Cambrian strata is devoid of any evidence of such creatures. How, then, did these vast and inexplicably new species suddenly appear out of nowhere?

Darwin attributed it to an incomplete fossil record, but after 150 years, scientists are still searching to fill the gap. The film goes into depth on this point, giving several reasons and evidence on the lack of Precambrian fossils that are ancestral to modern phyla in the Cambrian strata.

Next, the film questions the truth of Darwin’s theory. The graph drawn according to Darwin’s theory is very much like a tree of life, stemming up from one common species and branching into many different groups of organisms. But the film turns this graph upside down, suggesting that a basic structural form for complex life existed first, which then evolved into the differing, elaborate details.

It also gives several reasons why a gene mutation cannot be transformed into a new species, mainly because DNA is actually not responsible for the blueprint of animal development. DNA by itself cannot assemble cells, tissues, muscles and body parts. The film uses these ideas to form its final proposal: intelligent design.

Though unmistakably pro-intelligent design, Darwin’s Dilemma takes on a purposefully secular stance. The word “God” is never mentioned. Instead, less threatening euphamisms like “information source” and “designer” are used. In fact, post-screening panelist and anti-evolution activist Jonathan Wells emphasized that intelligent design is not creationism or natural theology.

“Intelligent design is not a random, convenient solution to evolution,” Wells said. “In fact, it actually opens more doors to scientific research and investigation.”

This, according to Wells, is because a lot of scientific claims come from from a preconceived “story” (Darwin’s theory), in which the scientists just plug in the “plot” (or whatever fossil they happen to find) to make the story work.

Darwin’s Dilemma is indeed an eye-opener, but it does so in an analytical and scientific way. It addresses many key points and counterarguments, providing ample evidence and support with the help of cutting-edge computer graphics and interviews from several leading scientists, some of whom are not even proponents of intelligent design.

It challenges a lot of conventional scientific ideas about evolution, including information from educational textbooks.

But does it leave the viewer with a definite conclusion to this evolution debate? The film ends appropriately with a quote from Darwin: “I can give no satisfactory answer.”

This being a controversial and emotionally charged subject, the large number and varying types of questions thrown by the audience to the post-screening panelists was not surprising. David Berlinski, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and author of numerous books such as The Devil’s Delusion, touched upon the social implications of evolution.

“Discussion and debate over evolution is not just limited to scientific issues,” he said. “It is a conflicting view of the nature of human beings, and the society that we humans want to build.”

Will the debate ever come to an end? Will we ever reach a satisfactory answer to the origins of life?

Berlinski answers, “Maybe, but probably not.”

And thus, the dilemma goes on.

Article found at: http://dailytrojan.com/2009/11/03/film-uses-science-not-religion-to-debate-darwin/

Science Darwin, Intelligent Design, Science

Uncategorized Does Evil Exist, Does God Exist

all religions are based on stories by elderly men and to explain natural occurences like comets, thunder…etc.

I think this one stands on it’s own as far as fallacies go – Admin

Emails Received

Although the animated version of the classic Dr. Seuss book ‘Horton Hears a Who’ is but a children’s movie, it presents some deep philosophical and political quandaries.

In short, there is a lone voice, that of the Kangaroo and self proclaimed “law maker” in the jungle, who cries out “if you can’t see it, hear it, or feel it, it isn’t real!” when Horton the elephant tries to share his discovery of a “talking speck” which he surmizes must contain people since “specks can’t talk”. The Kangaroo suceeds in convincing the entire jungle population that Horton is crazy for believing such nonsense and manipulates the jungle population to destroy the flower that contains the speck with talking people.

The Kangaroo plays an antagonist role in an attempt to prevent Horton from spreading his so called “lie” in order to keep the other animals from believing Horton’s rediculous claim that people live in a speck.

When the Kangaroo convinces the mob to gather up against Horton, the argument that his belief in the people who live in the speck must be ended and the speck destroyed is a familiar one: “Think about the children!” This is voiced by the closed minded Kangaroo who convinces every last animal in the forest.

When all other logical arguments against the belief in the unknown fail in real life, of course, this is precisely what happens. “The children are rhetorically nationalized by the demagogue and anyone who disagrees is painted as an enemy of virtuous childhood.”

The even more important message is the closed minded, opinionated belief of the Kangaroo herself. She is so convinced in her mind that nothing exists but what she can see, feel, and hear that she refuses to open her mind to the evidence that is right in front of her face. She attacks Horton instead of listening to his evidence and presenting the philosophical difficulties behind Horton’s evidence. In refusing to believe what Horton believes she shows her own belief, the belief that the Whos don’t exist.

This is what I see all the time in my dealings with atheists. Most atheists I meet are the Kangaroo in this story. They dogmatically vocalize their beliefs or lack of beliefs and manipulate others to follow their lead. They are vocal, boistrus and sing a chorus of ad hominems so loud that people blindly follow their fallacies. As Hitlar once said “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually [people] will believe it.”

Well, in the end Kangaroo’s son eventually hears the Who’s yelling and succeeds in convincing the other animals that Horton is right which squelches the vocal objections of Kangaroo. Kangaroo is seen sulking in the final scene as she realizes that she has failed in her efforts to debunk Horton’s beliefs.

If you haven’t seen the movie I would encourage you to watch it. The movie presents many other philosophical issues that are worth exploring and discussing. The movie’s messages are vague enough to allow for varying interpretations, but there are those, such as myself, who hear a religious message is the script. It’s one that could have a significant impact on the younger generation if we are careful to help the young ones understand it.

All references to the movie Horton Hears a Who are the property of Horton Hears a Who by Ted Geisel (aka Dr. Seuss) Copyright 1954.

Philosophy