ASA-David:

As a representative of the Atheist Foundation of Australia, through your style of communication you are portraying your membership as sadly deficient in interpersonal abilities. Your responses to Trav show that either you are deliberately ignoring my two previous posts in reply to yours or you tacitly concede defeat. Which is it: arrogant rudeness or surly surrender?

Your continued assertion that empiricism is the only channel for investigation of human life is simply plain wrong. And so is your assertion that something called “the god hypothesis” relies solely on “historical stories”.

I really don’t care whether you accept this or not. Just don’t continue in this forum pretending to be the model of reason if you won’t even consider other people’s viewpoints without prejudice and refuse to question the validity of your own.

If you don’t respond to this post, that’s fine. But if you do, don’t write a word until you have read and considered my earlier ones. I took the time and pains to compose succinct explanations of my point of view and with the limitation on posts per 24-hours the least you could do is to respect other people’s efforts to engage in reasoned discussion with you.

Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc:

<The AFA definition; ATHEISM is the acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural.>

Would you agree then that this puts you with the empiricist-positivist faith?
Why is scientific or "factual" (whatever that is) evidence more acceptable?
Do you see this scientistic stance as aloof from ruling ideologies--are you politically/ideologically free?
Do you think it "necessarily" correct to disparage humanity's "highly evolved" propensity to confabulate, or idealise phenomena?
How do you account for the human preoccupation with ideology/metaphysics?
Is it a cultural accident? Are we simply an eccentric species, and if so how do we account for that?
Alternatively, couldn't we see the (re)emergence of (human) ideology as evidence of meaning in the universe?

I realise these are virtually imponderables, but they amount to human experience/delusion and shouldn't be dismissed.
I agree they shouldn't be turned into articles of faith, but then neither should the evidence of our physical senses?

If you feel like tackling any of these big questions, that would be great.

I'm a big fan of Theravada Buddhism btw.

Squeers,

What relevance does 'faith' or ideology have to the AFA's definition of atheism? Or any of your questions?

There is some evidence that the human tendency to believe has an evolutionary explanation,so, what significance does that have for the existence of supernational phenomena? Absolutely no significance whatsoever.

Now, I'll ask all the theologians and philosophers posting on this site,to read the AFA's definition and then to answer the following question, "Is there any credible evidence"?

crabsy,

I am involved on a number of forums, personal contacts etc on a daily basis. That I have not responded to you is that I am busy.

I guess you are promoting that your god comes to you by revelation. Fine. Then this is very simple, as no one knows, not even you if this is not just a product of your own imagination, so don’t indoctrinate children with it or use it in politics as others have a variety of revelations. There is no way for anyone to work out whom, if anyone has a ‘real’ revelation or it is a delusion. Apparently, both are very similar but I am not convinced they are anything but delusion.

Only arguments or testimony based on logic and empirical data should be used to govern our society. Otherwise, we have a mishmash of subjective imperatives and the evidence is that that kind of thing is harmful for civilisation.

“”Your continued assertion that empiricism is the only channel for investigation of human life is simply plain wrong. Why is it wrong? Is guessing better?

I’m not pretending to be a model of reason. I require evidence that a plane won’t crash before I board one; so do you. Just because something is in your head, it should follow the same rule. Special pleading is erroneous-thinking.

I appreciate you taking the time but how about read what I am saying. I would appreciate that. I would also appreciate religious people taking the time to read beyond their own support base as I have. It is the height of arrogance to promote ideas, which have no other evidence than the words, not evidence, of various partisans.

Squeers, this answers your post as well, in a ballpark kind of way.

David

Mac and AF of A,

as it happens, I'm an atheist myself based on the same definition: I have no evidence of a God. So I'm playing devil's advocate. However, there are good philosophical reasons to doubt empiricism and human reason, period. Indeed empiricism is itself based on metaphysics, that is faith in the senses and a ludicrously tiny perspective. I agree that for practical purposes this is the only way we can experience the world--we'd be unwise not to flee from a predator--but that doesn't make it reliable, and no scientific method is verifiably untainted by human bias. Even less so is a scientific posture untainted by ideology.
Whether you like it or not, what you're unwittingly promoting is an ideology, with very definite political affiliations. Though it may be a superior ideology, it has much in common with religion: a priestly cast, a humble flock, heretics, and a cosy relationship with the incumbent power.
Scientism has been the instrument both of enhanced material life and its greatest threats. In this it has a distinct political bias: conservatism, or "liberal rationalism". Pure science takes no interest in ethical or existential questions, arrogantly presuming to dismiss these, or at least deeming them metaphysical, notwithstanding that they emanate from physical beings.
Being thus apolitical, science naturally finds itself the instrument of the prevailing power, whoever pays the research grants, however despicable.
Secularism is its religion and adherents celebrate its Saints and accomplishments, however dubious the methods or the merit of the product. Why is space travel so inspirational? Because such "transcendental" science is loaded with ideology, whether purists deign to confess it or not. However reasonable it is in its healthy scepticism, I'm concerned that liberal rationalism is capable of just as much atrocity as religion. It is certainly as sanctimonious and has just as much blood on its hands.
Techne is a powerful tool, but it's a dangerous ideology.

But back to God. I'm also an atheist due to want of evidence, but my mind is open, and not dogmatically limited to empiricism.

Sqeers
You state to the atheist foundation contributor, "Would you agree then that this puts you with the empiricist-positivist faith?"

Why is only accepting anything that is supported by adequately verified evidence classify anybody as a member of a faith?

No-one has ever been able to show that anything that is not supported by evidence has ever existed and we evaluate evidence by our senses, seeing, touching, smelling or by detecting instruments etc.

Read some of my earlier posts. Belief in the supernatural is faith but that faith is not supported by any measurable or testable evidence.