Maybe you have a different understanding of what a worldview is than I do. I call myself an atheist, but secular humanism is my worldview. Some atheists' worldviews were Stalinism. If you believe that the stars rule the world or can read to predict the future rather than a god doing that, I'd call you an atheist, but call your worldview astrology.
My worldview encompasses a metaphysics, an epistemology, and an ethical system, all different from a Christian worldview, for example. We don't have a god in our metaphysics. so divine revelation, miracles, a supernatural realm and answered prayer aren't expected. We don't value faith as a path to truth about the world, just empiricism. And we don't believe in an absolute moral truth or received ethics. Secular humanists use rational ethics, the process of applying reason to empathy to determine the best way for ourselves to behave to embody reciprocal empathy, and the best way to structure society to promote freedom, economic opportunity, and social opportunity for the greatest number so that they may pursue happiness as they understand it.
Obviously, none of that describes other atheists like Stalinists except the metaphysics, which of course is why it is so disingenuous to conflate secular humanists with Stalinists by announcing how many people atheistic authoritarian regimes have murdered in an effort to tarnish all atheists. We don't share their world view. just their metaphysics. If atheism were a worldview, wouldn't all atheists have the same worldview?
Christianity is a worldview, but theism isn't, just as secular humanism is a worldview, but atheism isn't. What do you think?
Those skeptics aren't on RF, and they haven't "moved on." They're just not interested in discussing ideas with theists in a discussion board, or they are unaware that they exist.
Here, you will find the skeptics that like to discuss ideas, including faith, which is what skeptics reject for themselves, and not just faith in gods, but all faith, including climate deniers, election hoax believers, and vaccine-refusers - all doing severe damage to them and the people around them.
You'll see these same skeptics who reject theistic faith rejecting faith in all of those areas as well, because it really isn't about religion or believing, but believing by faith, that is, without sufficient evidentiary support.
Critical thinkers are skilled at evaluating evidence and argument, and enjoy practicing. They like to deconstruct fallacious arguments and identify the fallacies present by name. They like to invoke Hitchens' razor when others make unsupported claims. It's like going to the reason driving range and hitting a bucket of balls, or going to the gym, except mental rather than physical.
It seems like it's a very small minority of theists that can accurately describe how an atheist defines himself, or why he is here and what he hopes to accomplish. I would add that not only do I enjoy identifying the fallacies, but also enjoy practicing writing skills and composing cogent arguments.
It's also where I get a broad survey of the different kinds of atheists and theists, which is an indirect indicator of whether I've made the right decision choosing secular humanism. I see other critical thinkers and note that we all process information roughly the same way and come to similar sound conclusions. I see their ethics and character. I see their demeanor and values. And I use that as the control group for evaluating all theism and its effect on its adherents to determine the value or problem with religion of various types. And in my case, it serves as evidentiary support for my antitheism, or the belief that the net effect of religion upon people is harmful (some is benign, but I haven't seen a religion yet generate better people than secular humanism, and a lot generate horrible people). Isn't that worth having conversations with theists while reviewing the words of other secular humanists? Converting Christians or attacking their theology is of no interest to me and no benefit to anybody.
I don't see any atheists fighting at all to convince others that gods don't exist. I think most are like me. I don't care what others believe if it doesn't bleed into my life. If my neighbor believes that dancing around a tree at midnight under a full moon while shaking a stick with a chicken claw nailed to it at the sky in order to center himself and give his life meaning, why would I care, or want to take that away from him - unless he was doing it too loudly, and event then, I wouldn't get into his beliefs with him, just his noisiness.
Most critical thinkers have learned that there is no way to convince a faith-based thinker that anything he believes by faith is incorrect, and that trying is futile. The critical thinker has nothing to offer but evidence and reason, and if one didn't come to his present position using those, he can't be budged by them, either. Sam Harris expressed the sentiment well:
- "If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic? Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. What if someone says, "Well, that's not how I choose to think about water"? All we can do is appeal to scientific values. And if he doesn't share those values, the conversation is over."
Yours is a popular misconception. You see skeptics on RF as being here to attack religion or convert people to atheism. Neither of those appeal to me, as I've indicated.
What am I doing now? I've discussed what a worldview is with one poster, and here I'm disagreeing with your assessment of what atheists believe and what does and what doesn't motive them in a forum like this. And if you think about it, I'm generally not posting to the theists, even though those posts appear in the format of a reply to a theist's comments. The post to
@SalixIncendium was for him. I do expect that he can read those words dispassionately and open-mindedly, and willing to be convinced by a compelling argument.
I don't expect that with most believers. I don't expect responsive answers or answers to questions asked. Those just aren't their values or skills. I asked you, "
Can't you imagine a third position that some people might take that is neither of these? Multiple atheists have articulated that third position in this thread alone," and you didn't reply. That's what I expect.
I also wrote, "
But you don't understand what is being said, rendering your judgment of the quality of the claim irrelevant. You need to evaluate what is actually being said to be able to decide that it is tap dancing, not what you've changed it into." Did you even see that? If so, did you understand it? If so, did you find it unworthy of a response? Who knows, but it's par for the course in these "discussions."
Why do you suppose I wrote this post?
