How Are Atheists or Secularists Harming You, Your Kids or Your Country?

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

This is also complete rubbish. Since when are emotions unnatural, even assuming all atheists are hardcore materialists?

So then you have emotions as natural, which means you can measure emotions, like a social darwinist can.

But what you call emotions then aren't the genuine emotions, according to "religion" and common discourse.

You provided a place for goodness and badness as being measurable natural properties, but in common discourse, goodness and badness are not measurable.

 

[McBell]

....that the spirit chooses has been the standard definition since forever. As also known in philosophy, in the concept of free will in metaphysical libertarianism; the spirit or soul chooses. That it does the job of choosing is the definition of it. And the existence of the spirit or soul is established as a matter of faith and revelation, which is a form of opinion. And then when you are dead, your soul, which is you as being the owner of all your decisions, is judged by God. I can't believe you don't know this concept....it used to be a pretty popular concept.

Please define "spirit" in a useful and or meaningful way.

Until you do, you are merely hiding behind your refusal.

 

[McBell]

So then you have emotions as natural, which means you can measure emotions, like a social darwinist can.

But what you call emotions then aren't the genuine emotions, according to "religion" and common discourse.

You provided a place for goodness and badness as being measurable natural properties, but in common discourse, goodness and badness are not measurable.

You haven't really thought this through very well, have you?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

So then you have emotions as natural, which means you can measure emotions, like a social darwinist can.

Im finding it difficult to keep track of your false equivalencies. Are you now suggesting atheism is the same as reductionism? And do you still conflate atheism and secularism?

But what you call emotions then aren't the genuine emotions, according to "religion" and common discourse.

I'm assuming your also conflating 'common discourse' and 'your opinion'. I don't believe, nor desire to measure love. I know I love my daughters more than my dog, for example, but assuming you are talking about reductionism, for me it becomes a case of not seeing the woods for the trees. I have no idea hoe this fits into your internal dialogue, or what particular words you'll feel compelled to attribute to me next, so I'll be interested.

You provided a place for goodness and badness as being measurable natural properties, but in common discourse, goodness and badness are not measurable.

I have no clue what you're talking about, although I note with interest your use of 'common discourse' again. I never suggested good and bad are measureable natural properties, and the concept seems strange to me. Attacking strawmen is one thing, but I'd humbly request not attributing things to me I have never said. It confuses the lurkers.

 

[grainne]

It is the New Atheism aka Militant Atheists that bother me. They are as likely to try to save you from the belief in God as the Fundamentalists are by trying to get you to accept Jesus in your heart.

I was in a group of Unitarians, where these New Atheists also resided. One by one people with religious beliefs of some sort, left the Fellowship. The New Atheists are mostly left to pay the bills at the Fellowship. They mock people for believing, they spout people like Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawkings, and etc. You couldn't say anything religious or spiritual without negative comments or mocking. I left the group as I was very tired of listening to them putting others down, including myself.

That is when I found the book "Why Science Does Not Disprove God" by Amir Aczel. That is when I was able to identify what was happening in my own group. These are some of the people that they quote. And I learned how Dawkins and others are twisting science and people like Einstein in order to try to prove their own views. And they have a desire to destroy religion.

The author of this book is not saying that there is a God, just that it can't be proved either way. He is also a physicist that has a resume from Harvard and U.C. Berkeley. He takes on these Militant Atheists like no one else can.

 

[Bunyip]

It is the New Atheism aka Militant Atheists that bother me. They are as likely to try to save you from the belief in God as the Fundamentalists are by trying to get you to accept Jesus in your heart.

I was in a group of Unitarians, where these New Atheists also resided. One by one people with religious beliefs of some sort, left the Fellowship. The New Atheists are mostly left to pay the bills at the Fellowship. They mock people for believing, they spout people like Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawkings, and etc. You couldn't say anything religious or spiritual without negative comments or mocking. I left the group as I was very tired of listening to them putting others down, including myself.

That is when I found the book "Why Science Does Not Disprove God" by Amir Aczel. That is when I was able to identify what was happening in my own group. These are some of the people that they quote. And I learned how Dawkins and others are twisting science and people like Einstein in order to try to prove their own views. And they have a desire to destroy religion.

The author of this book is not saying that there is a God, just that it can't be proved either way. He is also a physicist that has a resume from Harvard and U.C. Berkeley. He takes on these Militant Atheists like no one else can.

Can you give an examole of science you believe Dawkins has twinsted?

 

[Altfish]

That is when I found the book "Why Science Does Not Disprove God" by Amir Aczel.

Great name for a book! Setting up a straw man to knock down.
Science doesn't claim to disprove god, in the same way it can't disprove that unicorns don't exist. But, the evidence and findings of science have continually made the need for a god less and less. Science has found no evidence that a god may exist.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Can you give an examole of science you believe Dawkins has twinsted?

He may not twist science, but he uses it to perpetuate feuds between the religious and non-religious. I've noticed many atheists do not really realize this (perhaps they lack the religious background to know of this) that everytime he mocks religion it ends up on some Chic Track like thing convincing religious people science is out to get them. In all reality, he pushes people away from science. Science minded people will read his books, but religious people will not because he is mean to them.

 

[Altfish]

He may not twist science, but he uses it to perpetuate feuds between the religious and non-religious. I've noticed many atheists do not really realize this (perhaps they lack the religious background to know of this) that everytime he mocks religion it ends up on some Chic Track like thing convincing religious people science is out to get them. In all reality, he pushes people away from science. Science minded people will read his books, but religious people will not because he is mean to them.

Is that any different from the way many religious preachers mock science to perpetuate their beliefs?

 

[LuisDantas]

everytime he mocks religion it ends up on some Chic Track like thing convincing religious people science is out to get them.

How is that Dawkins' fault? You know how dishonest Jack Chic is. So does anyone who reads his tracts with even half a critical mind. He is not a reason to avoid speaking one's mind.

In all reality, he pushes people away from science. Science minded people will read his books, but religious people will not because he is mean to them.

Again, that seems to me to tell more about how many religions have failed themselves than it does about Dawkins.[/COLOR]

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I don't believe, nor desire to measure love.

You said emotions are natural. Now we have unmeasurable natural things?

You create the conceptual problems by making a mess. The straightforward common sense understanding of what you say, that you provide no basis for what is good and evil, is the right interpretation from a common discourse point of view.

Don't you know how popular religion is??? Religion is in line with common discourse, on this issue.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Science doesn't claim to disprove god, in the same way it can't disprove that unicorns don't exist.

That is wrong, God is not asserted as a fantasyfigure.

The reason science can't deal with God is the same reason science can't talk about what ought, science can't talk about morality, say what is good and evil. It is a matter of opinion.

 

[McBell]

That is wrong, God is not asserted as a fantasyfigure.

Perhaps not by you...

 

[Valjean]

I think atheism is harmful because it is dishonest. Why do most atheists you ask say they are "good people" when they affirm no foundation for goodness? This shows bad character and sets a bad example for children.

Goodness or badness requires a frame of reference which is lacking from the naturalist world view.

But the goodness of the religious is a pre-packaged, one-size-fits-all set of external rules. Goodness is following the rules, not applying moral principles.
To play devil's advocate, the religious have no need to develop a capacity for moral reasoning or internalized principles. Like cripples, they cannot stand on their own and must rely on an external, religious crutch.
Our own bloody history illustrates just how effective religion has been in promoting peace and happiness in the world.

 

[Valjean]

I was in a group of Unitarians, where these New Atheists also resided. One by one people with religious beliefs of some sort, left the Fellowship. The New Atheists are mostly left to pay the bills at the Fellowship. They mock people for believing, they spout people like Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawkings, and etc. You couldn't say anything religious or spiritual without negative comments or mocking. I left the group as I was very tired of listening to them putting others down, including myself

Perhaps they left because, when forced to actually think about their religious views, they found them baseless.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

But the goodness of the religious is a pre-packaged, one-size-fits-all set of external rules. Goodness is following the rules, not applying moral principles.
To play devil's advocate, the religious have no need to develop a capacity for moral reasoning or internalized principles. Like cripples, they cannot stand on their own and must rely on an external, religious crutch.
Our own bloody history illustrates just how effective religion has been in promoting peace and happiness in the world.

We can see in history that nazism and communism were most bloody by far. Both of these ideologies provide no explicit room for subjectivity. Nazism regards emotional disposition of people as heritable and measurable, communism similarly asserts scientific certitude about higher stages of societal development.

We can be fairly confident that any bloody history is accompanied by some ideology in which emotions of people are ignored. And saying you can measure love and hate in the brain is also ignoring the real emotions which cannot be measured in any way.

We must be subjective in respect to what emotions people have in their heart, including your own emotions. That is the most effective strategy against violent ideology. Always repeating, look towards their heart, be subjective.

It is because making it a matter of opinion what emotions people have in their heart, then the one who makes the judgement is aware of taking a moral risk, when saying somebody is hateful. When somebody thinks it is just a matter of fact issue, then they are not aware of moral risk in making a judgement, they would only be aware of perhaps making a mistake.

 

[Valjean]

You see emotional reactions as essentially benevolent?
I see a danger in giving free reign to emotions. We are killer apes by Nature. Our Nature is violent and exploitative. It is unnatural for us to extend moral consideration to those outside our own tribe.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You see emotional reactions as essentially benevolent?
I see a danger in giving free reign to emotions. We are killer apes by Nature. Our Nature is violent and exploitative. It is unnatural for us to extend moral consideration to those outside our own tribe.

It's a good and healthy thing to focus on the love of your own family, and doing that will make you generous towards other people.

 

[Valjean]

But that hasn't been borne out by human history, Mohammad. There have always been in-groups and out-groups. People have always applied different moral rules to different groups.
The golden rule only seems to apply within one's own tribe, or even only within one's own, immediate family.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

But that hasn't been borne out by human history, Mohammad. There have always been in-groups and out-groups. People have always applied different moral rules to different groups.
The golden rule only seems to apply within one's own tribe, or even only within one's own, immediate family.

No, if you want serious evil, then your only recourse is to reject subjectivity. The rest of evil is just peanuts in comparison, by reasonable judgement.