many accounts of religious conversion depict people wracked by doubt, very much aware of how little they know, often really uncertain of their own faith. — Wayfarer

Right, but in those cases belief in God has not caused the questioning, as you claim. It is doubt in God that causes the questioning.

And there are religious scientists - George Lemaître, as I'm sure you know, published the first paper on what came to be called 'big bang theory'. — Wayfarer

Yes, and there are atheist scientists. Your claim was "if you really did come to believe, I think it would provoke enormous questions; it might cause one to question many things that one previously assumed" So we're looking for questions actually "provoked" by belief, not questions which persist despite it, such as those about the material conditions which existed at the beginning of the universe.

I'm protesting the internet meme that believers are kind of swaddled in this sense that 'God provides all the answers — Wayfarer

Right. Which is not what you claimed, is it? You overreached. Yes, 'God did it' is not wielded as an answer to every question, but it is wielded as an answer to at least some questions, so unless we're talking about technical theological matters, the total level of existential questioning goes down on becoming religious. At least some of the questions everyone has are considered to be answered. Atheism, on the other had, does not in itself provide any answers at all, it simply rejects one possible answer as incoherent or insufficiently convincing. All questions remain open.

'What if, at the point of death, I were to discover that in some sense I am still conscious?' — Wayfarer

How is that not a question an atheist might ask? How is it that belief in some God is not an answer to that question, the vast majority of religions are quite clear about what happens after death? Assuaging fear of death is their main selling point.

What if the way I have lived my life is subjected to judgement, or has consequences in some way that I could never have anticipated — Wayfarer

Again, why would an atheist not ask this question? In what way is religion not an answer to this question? Most religions are also pretty clear on things like judgement and punishment, it's something of theme - hell, heaven, re-incarnation...

I'd recommend you look at the untenable Atheist thread OP. There are ton's of questions over there... — 3017amen

Yes there are. None of which are questions atheists do not ask, many of which are questions religions claim to answer. So I don't see how they demonstrate you point.

why do you feel the need to contribute anything on this subject matter — 3017amen

You claimed that atheism is untenable, I'm an atheist. I'm obviously concerned to check that my beliefs are not actually untenable. Did you not expect any atheists to reply?

my thought is if you were content, you would not be interested. But then the more I'm thinking about it, maybe it's your innate sense of wonder that's causing your curiosity — 3017amen

I think it's my innate sense of curiosity that's causing my curiosity.

For the umpteenth time - what has any of this got to do with atheism?

I just need the tiniest link you're trying to make between being curious about existential mysteries and deciding that God is somehow the answer to them (you could go on to explain exactly how 'God' is and answer to them too if you can, but answer the first question first...)

Why can I not be an atheist and yet still wonder about the existential mysteries which remain unanswered, while wondering for you, as a theist, remains consistent?

You will end up with women who claim that they don't need a man, because the government will give them money. — alcontali

I don't know if you've visited the 21st century at all, but women can earn money for themselves now...

I asked you what questions religious beliefs cause one to ask that were not present before. It's not a complicated request, it doesn't require preliminary research. Just give me an example of an existential question a religious person might ask, as a result of their becoming religious, that they would not have asked otherwise.

I personally think God is an ineffable, genderless electromagnetic force (i.e. EM fields of consciousness or light). — 3017amen

I personally think God isn't an ineffable, genderless electromagnetic force (i.e. EM fields of consciousness or light).

How is your statement any better supported than mine?

If all events must have a cause is true, what is the takeaway? — 3017amen

Literally anything. Atheism, theism, flying-spaghetti-monster-ism... Absolutely any view on God could derive from a synthetic judgment that all events have a cause. I might be atheist and believe in a beginning of time, I might be Christian and believe in Genesis. I might believe the whole universe is a figment of my imagination.... Anything.

The simple fact of experience that it appears all events have a cause does not necessarily lead anywhere.

What part of that is a question?

1a. All things that have order are things that have a designer — TheMadFool

But why would you even think that? Did you not cover statistics at school? The set of {all things which have order and we know to have a designer} is such an infinitesimally small subset of {all things which have order}, and is not even a properly stratified sample (they're all ordered by life on earth). It would be statistically invalid to draw any conclusions at all from such a tiny, unrepresentative sample.

Imagine if I went to Australia for the first time, saw the sand on the beach and thereby concluded all of Australia was probably made entirely of sand.

The negation of 1a would be:

1b. Some things that have order are not things that have a designer.

We need just one instance to prove 1b. What is this instance? — TheMadFool

You're begging the question. If the apparent absence of a designer (I can't, see, hear, or in any other way detect one) is to be counted as insufficient evidence that there is not a designer, then you have, by design, made it impossible to disprove your hypothesis. It is impossible to find one thing that has order but does not have a designer if you close down any reasonable evidence that there isn't a designer.

Let's say it turns out that DNA doesn't have a designer. What could I possibly forward as evidence of that fact?

if they can't explain the nature of those mysteries ( and many other Existential phenomena) then how can they explain the nature of their belief (system) that a God doesn't exist (?). — 3017amen

If you can't explain the nature of those mysteries ( and many other Existential phenomena) then how can you explain the nature of your belief (system) that a God does exist (?).

Some Americans speak English — unenlightened

Well... They try.

precisely! Thanks for sharing Wayfarer... ! — 3017amen

Well, perhaps you can answer the question I put to Wayfarer then. What are these questions which a belief in God causes you to ask that were not there before? How many angels...?

I've never seen the scientific evidence for this, I hear it often but I'm sure it's a myth. — Hallucinogen

It's here.

a group of people defined by how related they are to each other compared to other groups. And haplogroups exist, which means race exists. People within that haplogroup will have more in common with each other genetically than they do with anybody from a different haplogroup. — Hallucinogen

In some respects, yes, but those characteristics will very unlikely be visually identifiable and most will be derivable from several unique alleles making distinction vague at best.

if you really did come to believe, I think it would provoke enormous questions; it might cause one to question many things that one previously assumed. So the idea that it’s an ‘end to questioning’ can only really be entertained on the basis of the assumption that it really doesn’t mean anything in the first place. — Wayfarer

That's an interesting thought. What kind of questions might arise out of a faith in some particular god, do you suppose, that weren't there before?

How is it that you and you alone managed to overcome the deception and manipulation that was visited upon you, and that nobody else in the world could overcome? — Bitter Crank

Because... God did it.

It's really much easier this theist philosophy. I don't know why I didn't convert earlier. I'm reviving Quetzalcoatlism... Zeus be damned!

Is that what your way of saying that your atheism is untenable?

I mean you didn't even answer any of my concerns. — 3017amen

What? Why would me pointing out that you have provided questions not answers have anything to do with my atheism? Is atheism a belief in discourse now?

Absolutely banno it's fine to say I don't know. But positive atheism doesn't say that. — 3017amen

It doesn't even mention it. Positive atheism is the belief that there is definitely no god. It doesn't say anything whatsoever about any of the 'mysteries' you've repeated. It doesn't answer them, doesn't deny them, doesn't say it knows the answers, doesn't say it doesn't know the answers. Doesn't say a bloody word about them because it's about belief in God and absolutely nothing else.

Anyway, to answer your your question, let me paraphrase a few from the OP:

... ?
... ?
... ?
... ?
... ?
... ? — 3017amen

I think you've gotten confused between an answer and a question. What you've provided here are a series of questions. The clue is in the little mark at the end of each one. Answers don't tend to have those.

My concern is that you haven't provided what your 'system of belief' consists of...for example what is the nature of your believe system?

I've told you mine. — 3017amen

No you haven't. Unless it consists of "god did it" written on the back of a copy of 'Watchtower'.

What are the deontologist rules on marriage and divorce? Do you know of anybody who has entered into a deontologist marriage? Without rules on marriage and divorce, a system of morality is incomplete, say, even crippled. — alcontali

Of course a deontologist has rules on marriage, its the same set of principles which govern all their other interactions, no reason why marriage need be any different. I know they can be frightening to the unititiated, but women are alright once you get to know them...promise, most people really don't need special rules for dealing with them any more.

he's asking for a philosophical ethics text that has had anywhere near the cultural impact on ethics--the ubiquity, pervasiveness, etc. of the Bible or Quran. — Terrapin Station

In the interest of some rhetorical comprehension help... I know that's what he was probably after, but he said "Is there one example of a documented, atheist system for morality with at least some followers" and in support of the claim "atheism does not build any system. Atheism only rejects religious systems, without building anything else instead". So, if he meant to qualify what counts as contrary evidence (must be high impact, many followers) then he'll have to similarly qualify the claim (atheism doesn't build anything high impact with many followers).

It's disingenuous to make a broad claim, then later narrow it specifically so that contrary evidence can be discounted.

As I've long since lost any hope of engaging in meaningful discussions here, baiting idiots into making the outlandish claim we all knew lay behind their oh-so-meek initial interjection is all an asshole like me has left to get any pleasure out of from here.

I've reached my conclusion (leap of Faith) based on 'existential phenomena'. All you've said is 'God is incoherent' but could not explain why, let alone speak to any existential phenomena...

Make sense? — 3017amen

No. No sense at all. You've just done some vague hand-waiving along the lines of "I don't know what 'red' is... therefore God" which doesn't even make any sense. I've not even got round to providing reasons why I find the concept incoherent, nor what life experiences have lead me to atheism because so far I've just been trying to get you to understand the very simple fact that believing there are great mysteries in life has absolutely no necessary connection to believing that God is the answer to them. And atheism is about a lack of belief in God, absolutely nothing else.

What philosophy book has entire communities determining morality according to its text? — alcontali

I still don't understand the distinction you're looking for. You're obviously not seriously suggesting that there aren't any deontologists, that no one is a utilitarian... That would be absurd. So what is the distinction you're trying to make between people who have read, say, Kant, and try to follow his method, and people who have read, say, the Bible, and try to follow its methods?

Where is any of that documented? Where do these communities live, who actually implement it? — alcontali

Well, in the published works of the relevant philosophers, of course.

You're still not being clear here about what you mean. I'm trying to be as charitable as possible and assume that you're not so poorly educated that you don't even know that people have written books about ethics, but I'm really struggling to understand your question outside of that interpretation.

The Apophatic theologist would consider those existential questions as additional clues for a Deity or Creator or a First Cause. — 3017amen

How can a question possibly be a clue pointing to the existence of something? I can't even make enough sense of that expression to tell whether I disagree with it or not. A question is just a request for clarity, why would the fact that there are things about which we are yet to be clear have any bearing whatsoever on whether there is a God?

Surely that's one of the things about which some people are yet to be clear.

God doesn't exist just cause I say so — 3017amen

No one has said anything like that. The main reason given here for people's atheism has been that they find the idea of God incoherent and have not found enough compelling evidence to the contrary. That's not "cause I say so", it is the means by which absolutely every judgement we ever make is derived. How is your theism any different? The concept obviously feels right to you and you've not found overwhelming evidence to contradict it. Atheism feels right to me and I've not found overwhelming evidence to contradict it. The mere existence of questions I can't answer is entirely insufficient because I cannot think of any way in which my uncertainty could somehow be impossible to maintain in a world without a god.

Any belief system requires logic to support one's belief. I use clues from the natural world including my conscious experiences; then chose to make a leap of faith. — 3017amen

Yes, so does everyone, I think. The fact is that they reach different conclusions thereby because they have different dispositional starting points, different experiences and different capabilities. I'm not sure what any of that has to do with a concern you may have with my reasoning.

Is there one example of a documented, atheist system for morality with at least some followers? — alcontali

Well yes, but we're clearly not talking about the same thing because it's absolutely obvious that there are - several brands of deontology, utilitarianism (negative utilitarianism, motive utilitarianism... ), virtue ethics (in dozensof different forms). I mean the vast majority of ethical systems don't involve God. So what is it you're getting at?

This thread should be renamed, "Replies That Don't Follow". — Harry Hindu

Yes we are having unseasonably wet weather at the moment.

Two concerns with your reasoning:

1. The opposite of Theism is Atheism. — 3017amen

Yes, but theism isn't a quest for existential answers either, it's a belief in god(s). One might believe in a god whose nature is such that their existence answers no existential questions at all, they'd still be a theist. Your conflation of belief/non-belief in god with answering existential questions like those you have posed is simply an error. Just reform your questions and then there might be something to discuss.

2. Terrapin Station, although certainly not an expert in atheism, said that his atheism is, and I quote " belief". — 3017amen

Well atheism is a description of one's state of belief. I wouldn't say it was a belief itself, but I expect that disagreement is probably just a reading comprehension error on my part... It usually is. Not sure why this would be a concern with my reasoning though either way.

In the end, atheism does not build any system. Atheism only rejects religious systems, without building anything else instead. — alcontali

For the sake of discussion, I could skip over the error that's already been pointed out here (atheism is not a category of system, it is a disposition people have), and presume you mean that atheists don't tend to build other systems instead.

But if so, I still don't understand what you could possibly mean by this. To take morality (the system you alluded to) there's dozens of atheistic moral systems (moral systems which do not involve God), in fact probably more than there are religious ones. So why aren't these counting in your estimations?

And it's not because it doesn't work as an explanation... It's that it is far too successful. It explains everything; even stuff that ain't so. So as explanations go, it's of absolutely no use. One cannot do anything with it; nothing new comes out of it. — Banno

Yes, exactly. The correct response to "God did it", I think, is "So what?"

I thought Atheism was an alternative to Theism in the quest for those existential answers no? — 3017amen

This is the main reason why you're getting such incredulous responses. You've simply made a mistake here. Atheism is absolutely not "an alternative to Theism in the quest for those existential answers", and I don't think a single atheist would see it that way. Atheism (as the name specifies - the 'a' prefix) is the rejection of one means of explanation, not the provision of another. It's simply saying that we don't find 'God did it' a convincing explanation for the remaining mysteries, for whatever varying reason.

It's like trying to solve a murder - someone might say "Ms Scarlet did it", another might say "No, she has an alibi". In doing so they're not suggesting they know who did do it, only that the explanation offered is unsatisfactory for some reason.

It gets a bit rowdy on this ladder... — Banno

I like that expression.

He is one of those who thinks that anyone who disagrees with him or questions his reasoning is necessarily failing to understand what he has written and is thus displaying poor reading skills, or for some obscure reason, emotional problems and/or Asperger's. "Go figure", indeed!

Anyone who denies subconscious mental processes is, quite simply, a laughable fool. — Janus

Damn. I had just enrolled in some basic reading comprehension classes in the hope that I might one day agree with him understand what he's saying. Now you're suggesting me it's not just me...?

True, and yet... — jamalrob

The HDI is not a good measure relative to the things we're discussing here.

1. It heavily weights school enrolment (1/9th of the total score), this heavily favours countries with younger populations, making it look like developing countries are doing better), and making population growth alone and indicator of development.

2. It ignores income inequality in its GDP measures (1/3rd of the total score). Given that we know. Since the wealthiest 1% obtain around 15% of GDP, rises in this metric do not mean that the poor are any better off.

3. Trading GDP for life expectancy (1/3rd weighting each) has the statistical effect of suggesting that any extra year of life has the same value, and that this value is linked to GDP. Again, the effect is to make it look like developing countries are doing better than they arguably are.

4. Life expectancy and literacy are finite, GDP is not. Giving each an equal rating yet again favours developing countries (who can still realistically improve life expectancy and literacy) against developed countries (who can only improve GDP, effectively throttling their improvements to 1/3rd).

Basically, the net effect of all this is to make it look like growth is good, that developing countries (where growth is greatest) are doing better than they arguably are.

Furthermore, the data is highly ahistorical. It starts around 1870, and shows a steady increase since then. But a lot of extremely significant factors other than economic growth are correlated with that date range.

1. The discovery and distribution of antibiotics. Hugely correlated with a drop in death rates. (particularly infant mortality). One single discovery which had nothing whatsoever to do with economic growth.

2. The end of the colonial era. Colonialism was probably more responsible for rises in literacy rates than economic growth (and not really for good reasons). Schools were a means of freeing up women to do factory work and at the same time effect cultural change in the young. Education, measured by enrolment alone, is not always a good thing.

3. The end of mass urban immigration. A function of increasing mass production and enclosure of common land is to push mass urbanisation. This leads to tremendous health implications and coincides with the start of the graph. Take India for example. Ancient Ayurvedic texts from pre-colonial India refer to "Middle age" from 30-60, and odd thing to say if life expectancy was below 25.

It's easier for me to just re-post at this point.

More distraction because you can't answer the actual point.

I brought you up on the point you were blatantly trying to make (that science is non- deterministic therefore can't be used to support non-free-will). You changed the subject to my apparent reading skills. I brought you up on the fact that you've no way of judging whether it's my reading skills or your writing skills at fault. So you change the subject again to comprehension testing.

Same thing happened on the hate speech thread when I brought you up on the hypocrisy of claiming to know what people are capable of tolerating whilst simultaneously claiming psychological theories were overblown. You changed the subject then too.

Now I've brought you up on your disingenuous argumentative tactics we'll get another sudden change of topic. Anything you can't answer, just change the topic. — Isaac

We can now add to that the fact that @Coben has brought you up on the fact that indeterminacy only yields randomness, and the fact that your claim about what the no-free-will crowd 'always do' is completely without support.

None of which you've answered, all of which you've just changed the subject or brushed of with unsubstantiated ad homs.

I'll just keep tab here of the list of issues you've ignored in case you ever get over yourself and want to have an intelligent discussion some time.

"Online forums like this" simply refers to this being an example of the sorts of forums I'm talking about. — Terrapin Station

Bollocks. The context was all about the mention of free will, here on this thread, in this forum, and then you say "forums like this...".

If the no-free-will crowd here do 'always' state that the whole of science is deterministic, then you should have no trouble finding a large number of quotes to that effect from the recent free-will threads.

If, however, the no-free-will crowd do not 'always' do that here, then the other places you claim to have heard this approach are obviously not "like this one" in at least one crucial aspect absolutely intrinsic to your statement, in that they don't do the one thing your whole sentence is about.

there are technological solutions, such as clean energy — jamalrob

I don't disagree with technology, but I do think there's a big problem in the "growth to solve" argument when it comes to unknowns.

Past development wasn't undertaken and promoted by people who didn't care a fig about the consequences. It was undertaken and promoted by people who were (almost) completely unaware of the consequences. They went ahead anyway, and here we are with a very serious social and environmental crisis on our hands.

So the solutions you talk about obviously seem like solutions now. We're in the same situation now as the early fossil-fuel enthusiasts were in 200 years ago. What happens when we find out the Indium in solar panels causes devastating damage to microbes, the disruption to air streams caused by wind power results in damaging weather pattern changes, the habitat loss from converting to biodiesel is worse than the fossil-fuel it's replacing... These are all real concerns by the way, just not well researched enough to provide any concrete worries yet. The point is our optimism about growth blinds us to the historic fact that virtually everything we thought was going to be some brilliant development turned out to be shit, in terms of some (usually long-term) undesirable consequences.

What makes you so confident that, unlike almost every development in the past, today's 'solutions' won't just end up being tomorrow's problems?

My position is that there have been associated problems, and that recent climate change and other environmental problems are caused by economic growth, but that the two things are not inevitably linked — jamalrob

Yes, I did get that, I just didn't paraphrase it very clearly, my mistake.

I believe that the primary aim of policy should be to improve people's lives and that the best way to do that while also solving the associated problems is more economic growth — jamalrob

I disagree with this, I don't see how, on the face of it, more of the same could possibly be a cure for the problems the previous growth caused.

if I'm going all-out to argue for this I'll have to do a lot more, but I'm not sure I want to get into one of those statistics-drenched debates, and I hadn't really intended to get into it when I first entered this discussion--so if I decide to chicken out, I apologize. — jamalrob

I think you're right. It's not really what this topic is about, and I'm not sure I've time for a full-throated attack on growth either.

The relevant part of what we've been discussing though is this...

capitalism might not be the best way to solve these problems, but so far it is the best way we've found to achieve quick growth — jamalrob

I think this is more myth-building. Its the only way we've found because it's the only way we've really tried. That's not much to commend it. For a start, economic growth does not seem at all to depend on how capitalist a country is. Some very socialist economies are doing very well, some extremely free-market economies have done very badly. If the degree, or proportion, of capitalism in an economy does not correlate well with human development, it seems, on the face of it, quite unlikely that its capitalism that's responsible.

"like this" doesn't literally say ONLY ON THIS MESSAGE BOARD AND ONLY IN THIS THREAD. — Terrapin Station

No, but it does mean that the behaviour is at least present here (that's a reasonable interpretation of what 'like' means in that context). I've read absolutely no such claim, ever. It's not a quibble about your use of "everyone", nor "always", I doubt you will find a single example here (I also doubt you've really had sufficient actual examples elsewhere, it's such a bizarre thing to claim, but that's not what I'm talking about right now).

Oh, I'm glad you know that better than I do. Next time I wonder what exactly I'm claiming I'll check with you. — Terrapin Station

I'm not suggesting I actually know your intentions better than you do, I'm suggesting you're making it up to wriggle out of your error. You're the one who started including the personality of interlocutors. I don't think you're being honest.

The reason I brought that up is because it's what the "no free will crowd" always relies on (that's not literally saying 100% of the time, etc.). The reason we keep going over it is because you can't read and you want to bicker. — Terrapin Station

Yes, and I don't think they do "always" rely on it, even with the most generous interpretation of "always". So if that's just me wanting to "bicker" you're basically suggesting simply disagreeing with you constitutes 'bickering'.

Good to know you've followed my interaction with all manner of different people for the past 40 years. — Terrapin Station

Can't believe you're still trying to fudge this. You said...

In online forums like this — Terrapin Station

So it's not a claim about anything within your personal interactions. It's a claim about this forum. Where on this forum are the arguments from "everyone [in the no-free-will crowd]" which make anything like a claim that all of science is deterministic, not just specifically those aspects related to free will?

"Free will obtains via the fact that the world is not strongly deterministic" is my philosophical view. It's not claiming to be based on some scientific view. — Terrapin Station

Yeah right, that's why you've been banging on about how the scientific consensus view is definitely not deterministic, because you don't care what the scientific consensus is.

not everything is treated deterministically (a random process isn't deterministic). Hence science isn't strongly deterministic and hasn't been for over 150 years, so one can't appeal to the sciences being strongly deterministic. — Terrapin Station

Yes, and as has been repeatedly pointed out to you. No one in the no-free-will crowd has said anything like a claim that it is. Everyone acknowledges that some models in science use stochastic equations, everyone acknowledges that quantum mechanics is not convincingly deterministic.

Your claim, as @Coben, has literally spelled out to you, was that "Free will obtains via the fact that the world is not strongly deterministic", and, as I have pointed out to you that "The idea is rather than the "there is no free will" crowd always wants to appeal to it being a standard view or implication of the sciences that there is no free will. That's wrong, though.".

These are direct quotes. Both specifically reference using the deterministic (or non-deterministic) nature of science to support/deny free-will. Not just as an isolated summary of the state of science, as a deliberate support for theories about free will.

Will is something that happens in the brain. The brain is a classical object, therefore the non-deterministic parts of science are irrelevant to it. The no-free-will crowd know this perfectly well, which is why they don't mention the non-deterministic parts of science. It's only you who are making the error of thinking they're relevant.

OK, I get where you're coming from. Your third example is really what I'm thinking about, where some other factor in inextricably linked and so to ignore it in any judgement of 'improvement' would be perverse.

You're saying that the preference of the householder for having a washing machine has been shown (and so is a reasonable factor to include in the judgement), but the associated environmental and social problems have not (and so it is reasonable to exclude them from the judgment)?

I think that the case for environmental problems associated with mass production of white goods is almost unarguable. I grant it's not 100%, but then neither is the preference of the householder (do they really prefer it, how do we know what they really think, etc...). There's always room for doubt, but that goes both ways.

So I get what you're trying to say, but I disagree that problems are not inextricably linked to the benefits. I think they are, and I think the prevailing scientific opinion backs me up on that. The world simply has a finite supply of energy, materials and social resources (people who are prepared to do stuff you don't want to). Any benefit which relies on those thing, beyond the rate at which they can be replenished, is de facto coming along with a cost which cannot reasonably be ignored.

Assuming you're an atheist, you consider there is no mystery in the world, — 3017amen

Eh? Where are you getting that link from? Atheism is the belief that no gods exist, not the belief that no mysteries exist, that would be amysterism.

you're reading "always" like an Aspie. When people write "always" in sentences like that, they're not literally saying that in 100% of cases, with no exceptions, such and such is the case. — Terrapin Station

I'm not talking about a few exceptions. I can't recall a single anti-free-will argument where there's anything like an explicit proposition that all of science (including outside of brains) is deterministic. Why would there be? I can't think why people talking about brains would start making propositions related to the actions of Brownian reactions or neutrinos.