The new Athiest Humanities downfall?

[PureX]

I think it's more of an issue of atheists being able to articulate problems with religion and belief in the modern age, and theists not really able to respond in an equally successful way.

None of this is about religion. It's about theology.

Religions are just collections of intellectual tools that their adherents can use to help them live their lives according to a chosen theological worldview. Once we choose our position regarding the question of "God", we can choose the religious tools that we think will best help us live according to that God-ideal.

That's it. That's religion. That's what religion is, and what religion is for. Religions don't determine what people believe about God, people do. And once they have made that determination, they choose the religion that enables their determination, best. And they also choose the degree to which they engage in the various religious "tools" that religion offers them.

If you want to discuss, debate, or argue with people about religion, that's fine. But religion is not theology, and atheism isn't about religion. It's an aspect of theology. So if you are an atheist, please stop trying to defend your atheism using your objections to religion. It's like blaming science for the misapplication of technology. How we apply or misapply technology is not the fault of science. They are different human endeavors involving different rules and standards.

 

[Sheldon]

Your points in this post seems to have little relevance to my posts.
My first post on the Marx issue was simply a response to the post I quoted asking if there was such a thing as a dangerous atheist thought and Marx's thought about religion as an opiate came to mind.

Yet you have failed to explain why the shortened quote you offered is sinister? I inferred you were implying it was a root cause for the establishment of an atheist state in the former Soviet Union, which of course it was not, as I explained.

 

[blü 2]

not knowing something to be so does not logically lead to the presumption that it isn't so.

But when one's aware of one's ignorance, one can make a reasoned decision on how to proceed in the light of what one doesn't know.

And since there isn't even a coherent concept of what a God with objective existence might actually be, and since God is instead described in wholly imaginary terms, one might wonder early on how the question of God's objective existence could even arise, no?

 

[Sheldon]

The problem is that IT'S NOT LOGICAL. You can call it logical and pretend it's logical all you want, but it's still not logical. Its not logical because not knowing something to be so does not logically lead to the presumption that it isn't so.

Except you are again misrepresenting atheism as a contrary claim or belief, when it need not be, many atheists as was demonstrated on here simply disbelieve the claim any deity exists. Do you generally believe things you can know nothing about? Disbelieving all unfalsifiable claims does not violate any principle of logic, but believing some would obviously be biased, and believing them all would inevitably violate the law of non contradiction.

 

[PureX]

Logic is rather irrelevant to religious reasoning.
Without "true" premises, there's nothing to reason from.

What is true is that we don't know. That is the "true premise" from which we must reason. And since we cannot reason from knowledge, if we wish to reason at all, we are going to have to do so based on something else. For most theists, that something else is subjective value. For most atheists, ... I don't know what it is. They don't seem to know, themselves.

 

[Sheldon]

Atheism is developing a fundamentalist streak akin to religious fundamentalism, based on blinding arrogance and profound dishonesty. It's not all atheists, or even most. But the poison is there, and it's spreading. And we need to talk about it.

I don't see it, and simply claiming it is insufficient? The broad comparison of people, like Professor Dawkins with religious fundamentalists is so absurd as to be risible. Writing a few books, and taking part in rational discourse and debate, compared to the actions and attitudes of say the Taliban, or ISIS, or the KKK, or the Westborough Baptist church, is just too laughable a comparison to take seriously. What is it they fear from Professor Dawkins that I have missed?

 

[Revoltingest]

Wiki offers a bit New Atheism - Wikipedia

Regards Tony

So it's one guy's label for 4 vocal atheists.
I see nothing really new at all.

 

[Revoltingest]

For most theists, that something else is subjective value. For most atheists, ... I don't know what it is. They don't seem to know, themselves.

Then you've not been carefully reading our posts.
Many of us have values, which have the ole "nature vs
nurture" origin. These values aren't "true" in the sense
of being inerrant or falsifiable. They're not handed to us
by some great authority...they're just what we have, &
no justification is needed.

It's analogous to taste. I like anchovies. Some people
hate them. Neither preference is "true", "right", or "wrong.
It's just a personal perspective. There is no logic to apply
to anchovytology (which is like ontology, but fishier tasting).

 

[PureX]

But when one's aware of one's ignorance, one can make a reasoned decision on how to proceed in the light of what one doesn't know.

Yes, one can. But not based on knowledge that one does not have. The reasoning will by necessity have to be based on something other then on knowledge.

And since there isn't even a coherent concept of what a God with objective existence might actually be, and since God is instead described in wholly imaginary terms, one might wonder early on how the question of God's objective existence could even arise, no?

There are billions of semi-coherent concepts of what God might be. But they are other people's concepts. Which means they probably aren't going to be of much use to you. So the question is can YOU generate a coherent concept of what God might be for yourself? And if you did so, could you find a reasonable way of using in your life to your own advantage? I'm asking because a whole lot of humans beings are doing just that.

 

[joe1776]

Never mind the facts, you have made up your mind? I suspect before this discourse as well. I have seldom heard such a closed minded dismissive. However despite your vapid hand waving the facts do not support the claim that a) the statement was sinister, or b) that is was motivated by atheism. Just because any opinion is perceived by you as dismissive of your religious beliefs, is insufficient to determine it is sinister, that is risible bias.

He offered an observation that the pervasive belief in religions, of a rewarding afterlife, was a barrier to improving the general lot, and reducing the suffering of people in this life, and he quite demonstrably had a point. That this criticises an aspect of some religions doesn't make it sinister, nor motivated necessarily by atheism.

You're minimizing the dismissive quality of the comment. If it wasn't dismissive of religion, it wouldn't have been quoted so often. I think it's fair to assume that comments that are dismissive of religion are most likely made by atheists. If you don't, then we disagree.

 

[Audie]

But it does in religion.

Where else?

 

[PureX]

Then you've not been carefully reading our posts.
Many of us have values, which have the ole "nature vs
nurture" origin. These values aren't "true" in the sense
of being inerrant or falsifiable. They're not handed to us
by some great authority...they're just what we have, &
no justification is needed.

It's analogous to taste. I like anchovies. Some people
hate them. Neither preference is "true", "right", or "wrong.
It's just a personal perspective. There is no logic to apply
to anchovytology (which is like ontology, but fishier).

Then you have no need of atheism, and therefor logically would simply remain agnostic. But you didn't. Instead you decided to declare yourself an atheist. So I am detecting the whiff of dishonesty, here. Or at least some profound internal confusion.

 

[Sheldon]

So if you are an atheist, please stop trying to defend your atheism using your objections to religion. It's like blaming science for the misapplication of the technology. How we apply or misapply technology is not the fault of science. They are different human endeavors involving different rules and standards.

My atheism no more needs defending than my lack of belief in mermaids needs defending. Religions are created by humans, and they are the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. Theology is the study of the nature of God and religious belief. Since religions are ubiquitous globally, and as widely varied as the human cultures and societies they emerge from, and evolve in, an atheist can only discuss a belief as it is presented to them. Atheists of course are not an homogenous group, as they have primarily only one thing in common, the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities. Since atheism has no dogma or doctrine, then what an individual atheists does or does not believe beyond that is an entirely personal choice.

 

[Audie]

My existence proves my parents had sex.

Or do you think I'm the second coming, and that I know it?

No it doesnt

 

[Audie]

I don't know. Maybe.

Are we expecting atheists as an exceptionally large group to behave impeccably, better than theists?

They go to jail less

 

[joe1776]

Yet you have failed to explain why the shortened quote you offered is sinister? I inferred you were implying it was a root cause for the establishment of an atheist state in the former Soviet Union, which of course it was not, as I explained.

You inferred incorrectly. I said nothing about root cause. And I don't need to characterize the comment as "sinister" or anything else. It stands on its own.

 

[Revoltingest]

Where else?

Art.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

They go to jail less

That is not necessarily causation based on them being atheists. Correlation is not always causation. You know that since you are university trained, so apply it.

 

[Sheldon]

What is true is that we don't know. That is the "true premise" from which we must reason. And since we cannot reason from knowledge, if we wish to reason at all, we are going to have to do so based on something else. For most theists, that something else is subjective value. For most atheists, ... I don't know what it is. They don't seem to know, themselves.

Do you believe all unfalsifiable claims? Why would I believe a claim for which no objective evidence can be demonstrated? Beyond that humans have created or imagined a vast number of deities, so believing one over another without any objective evidence would have no rational basis. I find an absence of any objective evidence is epistemological sufficient for me to withhold belief.

If of course religions make falsifiable claims, where sufficient objective evidence or sound logical argument can falsify them, then I need not remain agnostic. Since theism is not a single belief, but a vast number of different beliefs in widely varying deities and religions, I am agnostic only about beliefs and claims that are unfalsifiable, I am not agnostic about for example, young earth creationism, or the Noah flood myth.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Doesnt work in business.

But business is not all of the world.