The new Athiest Humanities downfall?

[Revoltingest]

Then you have no need of atheism, and therefor logically would simply remain agnostic.

Agnosticism is a subset of atheism.
I'm an atheist.
I'm also an agnostic because the existence of gods is non-disprovable.

You're using too limited a definition of "atheism".
Check out usage #2...
Definition of atheism | Dictionary.com
1 the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2 disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

So I am detecting the whiff of dishonesty, here. Or at least some profound internal confusion.

I'm detecting a "whiff" of something too.
But RF's rules prevent me from elaborating.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Except logic requires true premises and facts. Religion and faith isn't based on facts, or reason, or logic. I'm sure you what to "see" that you do, which is exactly what faith is all about: telling yourself what you want to be true even if it isn't.

You can't do all of life based on true premisses and facts. There is no theory/law of everything based on that.

 

[Audie]

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?

Someone seems to think it's logical to
think god (s) are true because they are unknown.

 

[Sheldon]

I didn’t imply that life exists without mind. I’m saying mind is mind made, planed by the creator. Reproduction is obviously planned to perpetuate life.

You can say the moon is made of cheese, but unless you have something beyond the bare claim, I'm disinclined to believe it. Especially since we know all living things have evolved in a long continuous and insentient process. Reproduction has evolved in a wide variety of ways, there is no evidence within the overwhelming evidence for species evolution, that it was or needed to be planned.

 

[Sheldon]

Someone seems to think it's logical to
think god (s) are true because they are unknown.

I have heard the argument presented countless times that some belief or claim has some credence or is possible, because it cannot be disproved. As if beliefs people cherish are created to be unfalsifiable by accident. It is of course an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. Unfalsifiable beliefs are pretty meaningless, beyond letting philosophers indulge their penchant for contemplating the insolvable. They are in fact "not even wrong", most people fail to understand the significance of that statement.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So which of the new atheists has violently promoted atheism? Otherwise the only other descriptor is confrontational, and then you're just left with argumentative.

Those uppity atheists, and their relentlessly rational debate. They'll be building churches next and gathering in there to threaten all non atheists with an eternity of torture, some of them might decide to usurp their (non) deity's sovereignty of course, and kill a few right now.

Oh wait, I'm describing militant theists? All Dawkins and co have done is write some books offering a point of view, and maybe attend a few lectures?

Pitchforks...

Here is a transcript of him using the word militant atheism and he then goes on using a false description of religion.
Transcript of "Militant atheism"

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Rather like this ;-)

View attachment 58662

So if I can find an example of you making a mistake you would admit that and learn from it?

 

[Sheldon]

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.

My atheism is not a need, nor does it satisfy a need, it is simply my lack of belief in any deity or deities, do you need to disbelieve in Zeus or Apollo, or mermaids? As has been explained to you exhaustively, if the concept or belief is unfalsifiable, then I remain agnostic as well as an atheist. The only sophistry here is in your continued misrepresentation of what others do or do not believe, despite them doing you the courtesy of explaining it ad nauseam.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You can say the moon is made of cheese, but unless you have something beyond the bare claim, I'm disinclined to believe it. Especially since we know all living things have evolved in a long continuous and insentient process. Reproduction has evolved in a wide variety of ways, there is no evidence within the overwhelming evidence for species evolution, that it was or needed to be planned.

But that is not all of human life. There is more.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How many of the "new atheists" are there?
Reading the OP, it looks like 4 guys who've earned the ire of
believers. Are they new? Madalyn Murray O'Hair was first,
& as much a firebrand as any of them. So what is new here?
It appears that it's the term itself, ie, "new atheists", something
proffered by believers.

You want me to be honest. It is not new. It is old Classical philosophy in new words.

 

[Revoltingest]

Let us all be careful to not accuse others
of dishonesty. That is a rule violation.
BTW, to believe something in error isn't
dishonest.

 

[Sheldon]

They go to jail less

There is some longstanding research in the US that indicates atheists are underrepresented in prison populations. However we should be cautious in drawing a conclusion as there are other factors to consider. However it does at least make the oft used claim by theists that atheists are less moral than theists dubious at best.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We had long discussions about standards with other members. The simple default about standards is courts of law. There has to be compelling evidence that some proposition is true and reasonable to believe. Anyone with language ability can think. Thinking is not reasoning. Reasoning is skilled thinking, which means the thinking follows a process and avoids bias. It's not cut and dry. OJ was certainly guilty of two murders but the jury acquitted him. They had procedural reasons, but his guilt was pretty damn well established with facts.

So in logic, philosophy, law, debate, etc. standards of reason and evidence have been well established. Theists have a bad track record for arguing their beliefs. There is a reason for that.

Yeah, now do that for what matters to you. Only the methodology above.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But it does in religion.

And in general for how first person values work.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't know. Maybe.

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

Yes, because they are rational, use evidence and critical thinking and have better morality and ethics. So, yes, we should because that is their own standard.

 

[Sheldon]

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.

You described the idea as dangerous? It demonstrably does not stand on its own as that, as I have explained. Here again is the line from your post:

The poster asked for a dangerous atheist thought. I think Marx's thought qualifies.

If my inference about the comment leading to communism was incorrect I apologise, only you motioned precisely that? Here:

It is his thought on religion, as nothing more than an opiate for the masses, that should concern us in this thread. Marx, Lenin and Engels inspired the Communist Soviet state which included prohibitions against religion

Incidentally he didn't claim it was nothing more than an opiate for the masses, that is untrue.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But don't you know that you could win big prizes by demonstrating even one thing that is "unseen and unknown" and yet exists. Can you do that? Go to Oslo and collect your prize!

Meaning is unseen and unknown as objective in empirical terms. You can't see meaning and you can't know it, because it is not knowledge in your worldview.

 

[oldbadger]

It’s true that religion is tardy in reforms but we’ve seen societies that eradicated religion altogether.

Yes. Communist countries have, it's true. And some theocracies have tried to eradicate other religions.
We still have much to learn, I think.

 

[joe1776]

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?

Naturally, other opinions of Dawkins are biased, but yours is unbiased, obviously.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, the discussion is what you decided to post, and why.

Because some atheists in fact use in part for the world a false model of religion, morality/ethics, useful and what matters.