Atheism and arrogance

[atanu]

The brainstates representing my thoughts (&c) are real enough....

Sir. Your brain states are real. But your consciousness that knows the brain states is perhaps unreal? According to you, consciousness is nothing but the brain states. And somehow you know that for sure. Your brain states mystically generate the power of cognition, like a steam engine generates movement, and bestow you (whoever that may be) with the power of knowing. Using that power of knowing you come to know the brain states and know that the brain states enable you to know the brain states.

 

[ChristineM]

Then why aren't atheists judged by their behaviour? When they misbehave, the reaction is usually as though they were not part of any group even though their ethical position is quite monolithic.

Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Nothing more, nothing less. Whatever you personally add to that is your own problem

 

[McBell]

Then why aren't atheists judged by their behaviour? When they misbehave, the reaction is usually as though they were not part of any group even though their ethical position is quite monolithic.

Then it should be rather easy for you to present examples of your above claim.

Given your posting history in this thread, I suspect you will be ignoring this post as well.

You seem awful absent in spite of all your claims of wanting to debate atheist arrogance.

 

[Assertive Outsider]

No smart theists posting in this thread, apparently.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Then why aren't atheists judged by their behaviour? When they misbehave, the reaction is usually as though they were not part of any group even though their ethical position is quite monolithic.

Excuse me, boy! But what, exactly, is my "ethical position" as an atheist? I happen to be strongly against a lot of evil things, including killing (and that includes the death penalty that Islam is so very, very fond of). Even Christians used to love burning people to death, and an awful lot of Christians in the United States loved lynching people for being the wrong colour, and still think very highly of putting people to death in prison. My ethical position on that is that, "since history shows we can be -- and all too frequently are -- wrong in our convictions, then killing people means likely killing the occasional innocent, and that has got to be wrong." That is just one of the reasons I am against the death penalty.

I am for wearing masks and social distancing during a pandemic -- because it saves lives. Simple enough, eh? How many Christians (and Muslims) around the world are not doing that voluntarily right this instant? How about their arrogance -- not to mention reckless disregard for the health and very lives of others!

You need to get your head together -- because clearly you are off on some tangent to make atheists into demons, and you do not have the slightest friggin' idea what you are talking about. It's time to start growing up.

 

[blü 2]

Sir. Your brain states are real. But your consciousness that knows the brain states is perhaps unreal? According to you, consciousness is nothing but the brain states. And somehow you know that for sure.

In science there are no absolutes ─ indeed "There are no absolutes outside this sentence" is a truth of universal application as far as I can tell. So no, in that sense I don't know it for sure.

But what I know in the ordinary sense of knowing is that there is no credible alternative to consciousness being 'nothing but the brain states'. If that's wrong, bring the real deal down to the lab and we can check it out.

Your brain states mystically generate the power of cognition

I don't want to sound narky, but by 'mystically' you seem to be invoking some equivalent of the God of the Gaps ─ science doesn't presently have a perfect description of the mechanism of consciousness, therefore consciousness must be caused by X, which by an unhappy chance can't be brought into the lab.

But if that's wrong, let's meet at the lab asap.

 

[Cooky]

Excuse me, boy! But what, exactly, is my "ethical position" as an atheist? I happen to be strongly against a lot of evil things, including killing (and that includes the death penalty that Islam is so very, very fond of). Even Christians used to love burning people to death, and an awful lot of Christians in the United States loved lynching people for being the wrong colour, and still think very highly of putting people to death in prison. My ethical position on that is that, "since history shows we can be -- and all too frequently are -- wrong in our convictions, then killing people means likely killing the occasional innocent, and that has got to be wrong." That is just one of the reasons I am against the death penalty.

I am for wearing masks and social distancing during a pandemic -- because it saves lives. Simple enough, eh? How many Christians (and Muslims) around the world are doing that voluntarily right this instant? How about their arrogance -- not to mention reckless disregard for the health and very lives of others!

You need to get your head together -- because clearly you are off on some tangent to make atheists into demons, and you do not have the slightest friggin' idea what you are talking about. It's time to start growing up.

How about the arrogance of the atheists among the Chinese communist party, or in North Korea? Since you've taken the topic personally, you must obviously consider yourself in communion with those prominantly atheist regimes.

...Or will you admit that there are different types of atheists, and some are down right horrid individuals while others not so much so.

 

[McBell]

How about the arrogance of the atheists among the Chinese communist party, or in North Korea? Since you've taken the topic personally, you must obviously consider yourself in communion with those prominantly atheist regimes.

...Or will you admit that there are different types of atheists, and some are down right horrid individuals while others not so much so.

Try reading the post you replied to for uderstanding instead of bullet points to strawmen?

 

[ChristineM]

This thread is really interesting - I have found most atheists (particularly those that identify with secular humanism) to be kind, decent and friendly humans willing far more than some theists (listen to sermon first and then you can eat) to help their fellow creatures in need. In fact at one point in my life I was very close to embracing them - what stopped me - if anyone is interested I can provide the answer - not sure it is relevant

Gonna say something that may offend - so apologies in advance

IMHO I find a portion of atheist outlook is very similar to the Hindu astika school of Samkhya - in that there is a portion of reliance on three principles of pratyakṣa (perception), anumāṇa (inference) and śabda (āptavacana, word/testimony of reliable sources)

From Wikipedia - The existence of God or a supreme being is not considered relevant by the Samkhya philosophers. Sāṃkhya denies the final cause of Ishvara (God)

My personal beliefs are different but I smile to myself when I see how close some of the atheist reasoning comes to what is enumerated above

That is just one layperson's POV - I do not claim any scholarly knowledge - just someone that picks up the shiny pebble on the internet and tries to study it with my limited intelligence and perception

[EDIT] My deepest apologies to OP for the off track post

If i could have given this 3 frubes, i would but alas i am limited to just 1

I also consider some Hindu (and Buddhist) schools close to atheism, atheism with spirituality thrown in. Having said that i know a few atheists who are deeply spiritual, not god but questioning what is beyond life.

 

[Revoltingest]

How about the arrogance of the atheists among the Chinese communist party, or in North Korea? Since you've taken the topic personally, you must obviously consider yourself in communion with those prominantly atheist regimes.

...Or will you admit that there are different types of atheists, and some are down right horrid individuals while others not so much so.

The fundamental problem with so many atheists is being human.
A large percentage of that species are complete jerks.
But not believing in sky fairies doesn't seem to affect this state
one way or the other. Chocolate & bacon help though.

 

[McBell]

The fundamental problem with so many atheists is being human.
A large percentage of that species are complete jerks.
But not believing in sky fairies doesn't seem to affect this state
one way or the other. Chocolate & bacon help though.

How to Make Chocolate-Covered Bacon

 

[ChristineM]

How about the arrogance of the atheists among the Chinese communist party, or in North Korea? Since you've taken the topic personally, you must obviously consider yourself in communion with those prominantly atheist regimes.

...Or will you admit that there are different types of atheists, and some are down right horrid individuals while others not so much so.

You have evidence that it is Atheism and not nationalism you are dissing?

 

[Cooky]

Try reading the post you replied to for uderstanding instead of bullet points to strawmen?

This is your opportunity to teach, yet you shirk that responsibility and choose snarkyness as a dog whistle for the others to begin chiming in similarly... In my view...

 

[Cooky]

You have evidence that it is Atheism and not nationalism you are dissing?

School me. Please. I'm begging for it.

 

[McBell]

This is your opportunity to teach, yet you shirk that responsibility and choose snarkyness as a dog whistle for the others to begin chiming in similarly... In my view...

You present yourself in this thread as someone who is still nursing a serious butthurt from the past.
Now since you are much more concerned with how many "digs" you can get in, even to the point of strawmaning replies simply to get digs in, I have serious doubts about you willingness to learn anything.

 

[ChristineM]

School me. Please. I'm begging for it.

You made the claim, surely you know about what you wrote?

 

[Cooky]

You made the claim, surely you know about what you wrote?

You're making me feel very uncomfortable. But no, I'm attempting to learn by engaging in dialogue. Are you willing to take part?

 

[Cooky]

You present yourself in this thread as someone who is still nursing a serious butthurt from the past.
Now since you are much more concerned with how many "digs" you can get in, even to the point of strawmaning replies simply to get digs in, I have serious doubts about you willingness to learn anything.

Your posts have not enlightened me at all in any way.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

How about the arrogance of the atheists among the Chinese communist party, or in North Korea? Since you've taken the topic personally, you must obviously consider yourself in communion with those prominantly atheist regimes.

...Or will you admit that there are different types of atheists, and some are down right horrid individuals while others not so much so.

I think it is always wrong to equate ideologies such as communism as merely "atheist." They are not, really. In China and North Korea, for example they are the only "political" parties, and brook no opposition. Their leaders are not elected (except possibly by a few inner members), and once they assume leadership, they are as infallible as the Pope. No opposition is brooked, and no other loyalties. Opposition leads to excommunication (in North Korea, excommunication happens at the business end of a cannon), and other claims on the minds of people are frowned upon, and worse. Think, for example, how well the Uygurs and Falun Gong are faring in China, and they are not political, or so they say.

No, such regimes are just as much "religions" as are Falun Gong and Buddhism -- not requiring a God, but with creeds and mandatory beliefs non-the-less. The theocracies of Saudi Arabia and Iran are not particularly worse than China, just because they have a God in the mix.

Now look at the United States, Canada, Britain and other such nations, with parliaments, official oppositions, and parties made up of every religion, gender and sort of person in those nations. They make no claims on the "souls" of men, only trying to earn their vote periodically -- and once achieving power, at least in part acting so as to get those votes again next time (and a next time is always mandatory).

 

[columbus]

Would you measure the validity of a physics or math concept by the behavior of their believers?
Bad behavior doesn't invalidate a fact, nor does good behavior support it.

No, of course not. Because science is based on objective data, not subjective human authority. The data is the authority, not the observer of the data. It doesn't matter who performs the experiment, finds the fossil, solves the equation, or whatever. It could be a saint or a child molester, the data remains the authority regardless.
That's the most fundamental difference between science and religion. Science is true for everyone, whether they like it or not, whether they know it or not. Because science isn't based on human authority. It's based on reality.

Frankly, the way I see it, science is based on God. It's the study of God through the study of God's Creation. Rigorous, open minded, objective, the truth is the Truth whether anybody's happy about it or not. Whether anybody knows about it or not.

That's the only real way to study The Great Mystery of Creation and the Creator.

Religious doctrine is an assertion of objective truth; fair game for criticism.

Not always.
More and more religious folks are coming to realize the entirely subjective nature of religious beliefs. That their religious truths aren't necessarily true for anybody else. Those truths are quite subjective.

That religion isn't about God, it's about humans. It's about humans and all their messy, subjective, needs and views and motivations. Religion is about humans, science is about God.

That's why the only objective way to judge a religion is by observations of the adherents.
Tom