An Atheist's Creed

[NLN]

I thought you folks might be interested in reading An Atheist's Creed, by physicist Mano Singham. It's an exceptional piece.

[freeztar]

I like it. It's very much a *pure* scientist's stand.

[James Putnam]

Such a vague, general statement, relying so heavily upon platitudes, does not move me, whether religious or otherwise.

 

The closing statement of the creed:

 

"I choose to live the dignified and exhilarating life of a free-thinker, able to go wherever knowledge and curiosity takes me, without fear of contradicting any dogma."

 

My comment:

 

Except, possibly, for the fear of contradicting his own dogma.

 

James

[REASON]

I don't need it to move me, I'm already there. I don't think it's intended to be inspiring, it's a statement of definition, orientation, and understanding.

 

While I have established that I am Agnostic, which I still think is a reasonable position, I find that I have argued in these forums almost entirely from the standpoint of this creed.

 

Not only do I find it profound, but it is important because I don't think a lot effort has been made throughout history to clearly define what it actually means to people to be Athiests, beyond just saying that it means you don't believe in god.

 

Because it is concise, it helps to strenghten the foundation of what has traditionally been a misunderstood and unpopular belief system throughout history.

 

It should not be feared, but embraced.....or at least considered.

[C1ay]

While I have established that I am Agnostic...

 

Are you an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist? If you lack an affirmative belief in God then you are an atheist, even if you lack an affirmative disbelief in God. If you also believe that man cannot know the truth about God then you are an agnostic atheist. OTOH, if you believe in God but also believe that man could never know the truth about God's existence then you are an agnostic theist.

[C1ay]

I see no need for an atheist's creed. Atheism is simply a description of those that are not theist, it is not dogma or a belief system. My own belief in science, nature, rationality, etc.. are born of my skepticism, not my atheism.

[modest]

I see no need for an atheist's creed. Atheism is simply a description of those that are not theist, it is not dogma or a belief system. My own belief in science, nature, rationality, etc.. are born of my skepticism, not my atheism.

 

I agree Clay,

Something about it seems a bit ridiculous - like a pledge of allegiance to atheism. If you took it a bit further you’d have something like the Unitarian Jihad joke. Actually, let's take it a but further:

My disbelief in a theistic power gives me strength. By denying god I can see the light of Science. Science brought me up out of the horrible pit of theism. Atheism lifts me out of the miry clay and it sets my feet on a rock. I can achieve all things through Atheism for its power compels me. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no god: for Science is with me.

 

No, there's no need for that.

 

-modest

[HydrogenBond]

It is a good change, where some atheists are secure enough in their position to live and let live. Some of the ethical tenets at least appear to imply that. The atheist inception from the primal ooze, used a negative contrast approach using religion to help set itself apart. This is when they couldn't see themselves or be seen by others without the contrast. Now they are learning to remove the training wheels and strike out on their own. It was good that he tried to integrate some of religion's greatest ethical hits.

 

The problem with standing distinct, without contrast, is marketing. It is easier to recruit if one can get people excited with some emotion from controversy, like outrage, rebellion, etc. The calm rational approach is not as entertaining and may limit future recruitment. The kids will look for new action elsewhere.

 

This differentiated approach also make one an easier target since one loses the best defense which is a good offense. Someone can now use them as a way to contrast themselves, being on the offensive, for their own marketing recruitment. By defining itself, one can just do the opposite. They can be anti-atheist who are not religious. This is new, so it is good marketing. The defense needed by the atheists will help get free publicity.

[Tormod]

It is a good change, where some atheists are secure enough in their position to live and let live.

 

Meaning what? That most atheists don't?

[REASON]

Are you an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist? If you lack an affirmative belief in God then you are an atheist, even if you lack an affirmative disbelief in God. If you also believe that man cannot know the truth about God then you are an agnostic atheist. OTOH, if you believe in God but also believe that man could never know the truth about God's existence then you are an agnostic theist.

 

Based on your description I would characterize myself as agnostic atheist. I tend to align myself with the philosophy of Bertrand Russell, particularly during the later part of his life. Although I have argued the merits of true agnosticism (if there is such a thing), when it boils down to it, I am atheist.

 

 

I see no need for an atheist's creed. Atheism is simply a description of those that are not theist, it is not dogma or a belief system. My own belief in science, nature, rationality, etc.. are born of my skepticism, not my atheism.

 

This is a great point.

 

What is it that may make someone feel that they need to find some way to either reconcile or defend their understanding or beliefs? Often, it's a feeling of insecurity. But sometimes its a feeling of being misunderstood. To me, this statement or "creed" if you will, is essentially just a summarization for clarification and understanding.

 

I don't think it should become an atheistic mantra either.

 

 

I agree Clay,

Something about it seems a bit ridiculous - like a pledge of allegiance to atheism. If you took it a bit further you’d have something like the Unitarian Jihad joke. Actually, let's take it a but further:

My disbelief in a theistic power gives me strength. By denying god I can see the light of Science. Science brought me up out of the horrible pit of theism. Atheism lifts me out of the miry clay and it sets my feet on a rock. I can achieve all things through Atheism for its power compels me. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no god: for Science is with me.

 

No, there's no need for that.

 

-modest

 

Another great point. You are wise beyond your years. :eek:

[Pyrotex]

It is a good change, where some atheists are secure enough in their position to live and let live. ....

It is NOT the atheists we must fear. There are other groups, fueled by passion, dogma and self-righteousness who are commited to depriving us of our freedom to live as we choose, and freely express our choice.

 

I speak of none other than the Pentobaptifanatiluthercathevangofundicostalists.

[REASON]

Pentobaptifanatiluthercathevangofundicostalists.

 

:eek:

 

Now that's a "Great Word."

[Buffy]

Beware: the concept of "God" being used above is limited to the archetypal Pentobaptifanatiluthercathevangofundicostalists' God. There are others from more Pagan-like belief systems that exclude a role for God of "Approver-Judge-Punisher," one which not only is highly limited and anthropomorphic, but is just plain bad parenting if you're going to go around calling Him "Father" all the time....

 

It's not nice to fool Mother Nature, :eek:

Buffy

[Pyrotex]

...Pentobaptifanatiluthercathevangofundicostalists'...

It's not nice to fool Mother Nature, :(

Buffy

awwww... :lol:

 

I can't believe you're just trying to butter me up. :eek:

[James Putnam]

The subject of this message has nothing to do with the Book of Genesis.

 

From the introduction to the creed:

 

An important point of clarification is necessary. When the word 'believe' is used in the creed, it is in the scientific sense of the word. Scientists realize that almost all knowledge is tentative and that one knows very few things for certain. But based on credible evidence and logical reasoning, one can arrive at firm conclusions about, and hence 'believe', some things such as that the universe is billions of years old or that the force of gravity exists. It is in this sense that the word 'believe' is used in the creed below, as an implicit acknowledgment of our lack of absolute certainty.

 

His "credible evidence" for an ancient universe or for the force of gravity is also recognized by many theists. This evidence has nothing to say either for or against the existence of God. If someone believes it does, then please explain how it does.

 

The first statement of the creed:

 

I believe in a purely material universe that conforms to naturalistic laws and principles.

 

I read this to mean he believes there is "credible evidence" for "...a purely material universe..." Imbeded in his sentence is the implication that he can define what is "material" about the universe, and what there is about its nature that precludes the existence of God. Would someone who agrees with him please explain their understanding of this meaning of the word "material"? Please include the part that precludes the existence of God.

 

"...that conforms to naturalistic laws and principles." He also appears to believe that orderly, predictable activities and our ability to categorize these activities is proof that there is no God. What does the existence of orderliness have to do with proving or disproving the existence of God?

 

James

[REASON]

His "credible evidence" for an ancient universe or for the force of gravity is also recognized by many theists. This evidence has nothing to say either for or against the existence of God. If someone believes it does, then please explain how it does.

 

The examples he used in the introduction are not intended to have anything to say about the existance of god, they are intended to help define what he means by "believe" in his creed. It is not intended to suggest that only atheists believe in these things, but rather that these things can be believed because there is "credible evidence" that is testible to support them. This is different than belief in things that are not supported by empirical evidence such as purple unicorns.

 

 

The first statement of the creed:

 

I read this to mean he believes there is "credible evidence" for "...a purely material universe..." Imbeded in his sentence is the implication that he can define what is "material" about the universe, and what there is about its nature that precludes the existence of God. Would someone who agrees with him please explain their understanding of this meaning of the word "material"? Please include the part that precludes the existence of God.

 

Material meaning: Matter and energy that is substantive, real, obsrervable, testable, and falsifiable.

 

This refers to natural elements as opposed to supernatural entities. We can define what is material about the universe. We cannot define, other than through philosophy, the nature or existance of god. It is not that nature precludes god, it is that there is nothing about nature that implies god. Belief in god is based either on faith alone, or combined with events in nature that are credited to god out of ignorance.

 

 

"...that conforms to naturalistic laws and principles." He also appears to believe that orderly, predictable activities and our ability to categorize these activities is proof that there is no God. What does the existence of orderliness have to do with proving or disproving the existence of God?

 

categorizing predictable activities that conform to naturalistic laws and principles demonstrates that we can understand the nature of the universe. It's not that this disproves god. There is absolutely no way empirically to either prove or disprove god. There is no "credible evidence" in support of any supernatural being, so based on the Athiest's Creed and it's definition of "believe," there's no reason to believe in a God. The existance of God will remain unknown.

[James Putnam]

This is different than belief in things that are not supported by empirical evidence such as purple unicorns.

 

I am asking only about those things that are supported by empirical evidence.

 

Material meaning: Matter and energy that is substantive, real, obsrervable, testable, and falsifiable.

 

 

What you have are effects. Know one knows what causes these effects. No one can show that there is a thing such as "matter" that can create these effects instead of perhaps a God. If energy is substantive then where is it on display for the rest of us to see?

 

This refers to natural elements as opposed to supernatural entities. We can define what is material about the universe.

 

You can only theorize about what may be material about the universe. Empirical evidence does not support theories. Theories are imagined substitutes for that which we do not know. The illusion that any of them defines anything material about the universe results from the theorist meticulously fitting their chosen theory to known empirical evidence about effects.

 

categorizing predictable activities that conform to naturalistic laws and principles demonstrates that we can understand the nature of the universe.

 

No one understands the "nature [The quality or qualities that make something what it is.]" of the universe. What we have learned are many of the things that it does. No one knows why they occur. In other words we do not know what is cause. Substituting theory for cause tells us about the thoughts of scientists, but does not further our understanding of the nature of the universe.

 

I am happy to drop this whole matter. This thread is for those who choose to believe in atheism. I do not see this creed as a scientific statement. I see it as just another creed.

 

James