The new Athiest Humanities downfall?

[PureX]

Agnosticism is a subset of atheism.

No it isn't. We just stated that the foundational premise from which theistic reasoning begins is that we don't know. Whether we choose theism or atheism we have to start from this basic truth. Are you claiming that you DO know that gods don't exist? If not, then agnosticism precedes your atheism, and my theism.

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

But requiring proof is a fundamentally gnostic position. As it presumes that if gods existed, it could be known/proven. Your atheism is based on gnosticism even as you are trying to claim you're agnostic. "If gods existed I/we would know it" is a fundamentally gnostic ideal. Can you see why this all looks so confused and disingenuous?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

First, a happy new year to you!

Second, I don't think religion is necessary for morality. If we act towards others with decency, respect and inclusion, in my view we've done what's morally important. Both forms of religion and forms of atheism have been known to be antagonistic to those aims. Both forms of religion and forms of atheism have been known to support those aims,

Our morality comes in no small part from our evolved tendencies as gregarious primates, living in cooperative groups. Those, like empathy and conscience, are part of the kit whether religion is or not.

As long as you don't claim this as true or whatever. But accept it as a belief system in the end, then okay.
But that is religion as per this definition:
"... Religion is the most comprehensive and intensive manner of valuing known to human beings. ..."
What is Religion?

 

[Revoltingest]

No it isn't.

So you must be claiming that dictionary.com is wrong.
Which dictionary are you quoting for superior lexicography?
Or are you using a personal definition?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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?

There is no strong objective universal stand for reason for all of the world. That is your dogmatic belief that your subjective reasoning is reasonable and mine is not, because it doesn't match yours.
You are in effect authoritarian, because you think that your reasoning is authoritative for all humans.

 

[PureX]

So you must be claiming that dictionary.com is wrong.
Which dictionary are you quoting for superior lexicography?
Or are you using a personal definition?

Dictionaries aren't right or wrong. They just are what they are.

I am noticing that you couldn't actually address the real point, though. That logically, agnosticism precedes both theism and atheism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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

Well, no, that is not the case. But since you only live by logic and evidence, there is something missing, because there is no theory/law of everything based on logic and evidence.

 

[Revoltingest]

Dictionaries aren't right or wrong. They just are what they are.

I am noticing that you couldn't actually address the real point, though. That logically, agnosticism precedes both theism and atheism.

I addressed it.
You just didn't notice.
Why the fixation on your narrow use of "atheism",
& ignoring what the rest of the world uses, which
is shown in definitions in so many dictionaries?
You've given no justification for your limited
definition being "The Truth".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So you must be claiming that dictionary.com is wrong.
Which dictionary are you quoting for superior lexicography?
Or are you using a personal definition?

There are no right or wrong definitions. There are different understandings of words. To demand evidence for the metaphysical requires that it can be done. But since all forms of metaphysics are without evidence, all positive claims are nothing but beliefs. And not just religious ones. And it also include naturalism.
So as an agnostic and skeptic, I claim no knowledge about all those variants including if the world is from God or is natural.
Evidence is an belief, that the world is natural as the standard Westen version when it comes to these debate. But whether the world is natural, is unknown. Hence the default is agnosticism for all positive versions of metaphysics.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I addressed it.
You just didn't notice.
Why the fixation on your narrow use of "atheism",
& ignoring what the rest of the world uses, which
is shown in definitions in so many dictionaries?
You've given no justification for your limited
definition being "The Truth".

I have given my view.

 

[joe1776]

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:

You have not yet demonstrated that you understood my comments. So, how could you possibly have demonstrated I was wrong?

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

Did you miss the limitation in bold? "... 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.

I don't know that that's untrue and I don't believe you do either. But it doesn't matter because I never made that claim and it's irrelevant anyway.

 

[Revoltingest]

There are no right or wrong definitions.

Tell that to the other guy.
Dictionaries are the best authority to represent common usage.
He's reasoning from his personal definition. It's "wrong" in the
sense that he causes confusion when his use conflicts with
what his audience reads.
Would you say that a dog is an animal that has gills, & lays eggs?
No. It's wrong because it doesn't reflect common usage.

Note:
To use "atheism" to mean claiming that God doesn't exist
is common among fundie Christians though. But RF is
more diverse than that singular audience.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have given my view.

OK.

 

[PureX]

There are no right or wrong definitions.

It doesn't matter. He's just tossing out an old tried and true bunny hole for the discussion to fall into because he can't logically hold up his end. It's a common tactic people use when they can't defend their own nonsensical pronouncements. It's yet another example of why I'm becoming more and more convinced that atheism is just a form of willful ignorance trying to hide behind bluster and phony "logic".

 

[Revoltingest]

It doesn't matter. He's just tossing out an old tried and true bunny hole for the discussion to fall into because he can't logically hold up his end. It's a common tactic people use when they can't defend their own nonsensical pronouncements. It's yet another example of why I'm becoming more and more convinced that atheism is just a form of willful ignorance trying to hide behind bluster and phony "logic".

I begin to sense some disrespect in my direction.
Your entire disagreement rests upon ignoring the
definitions commonly used for "atheism".
Try more to understand. Not to defeat & denigrate
others.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It doesn't matter. He's just tossing out an old tried and true bunny hole for the discussion to fall into because he can't logically hold up his end. It's a common tactic people use when they can't defend their own nonsensical pronouncements. It's yet another example of why I'm becoming more and more convinced that atheism is just a form of willful ignorance trying to hide behind bluster and phony "logic".

Well, it has nothing to do with atheism. It is the assumption that Western secual culture is the end of how to do knowledge, evidence, logic, rationality and all those words. In short some of my fellow atheists are good at the critique of religion, but they are not aware the cultural underpinnings of their own belief systems.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I begin to sense some disrespect in my direction.
Your entire disagreement rests upon ignoring the
definitions commonly used for "atheism".
Try more to understand. Not to defeat & denigrate
others.

If I found a definition of a word, like "God=the creator of the universe" you wouldn't accept it as correct. The only thing, a definition of word does, is to tell you its usage, and not if it corresponds to the world as such.

 

[Revoltingest]

If I found a definition of a word, like "God=the creator of the universe" you wouldn't accept it as correct.

Because "God" is a proper name.
Your "definition" is a description, not a definition
because it lacks completeness. It's analogous
to defining "dog" as a 4-legged mammal.

The only thing, a definition of word does, is to tell you its usage, and not if it corresponds to the world as such.

Commonality of usage is all.

 

[Augustus]

Marxism is an economic ideal that doesn't really work, it has little directly to do with atheism, which is simply a lack of belief in any deity.

Not according to Marx:

the criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism...

It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics.

The only liberation of Germany which is practically possible is liberation from the point of view of that theory which declares man to be the supreme being for man

Marx - A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right

For Marx it's similar to a fundamentalist Muslim rejecting all other 'false' religions. If religions are false, then their traditions and moral codes are based on lies and creators of a false consciousness. When there is 'One True Path' that leads to utopia, anything that takes you away from this is an abomination. (Marx: therefore it reaches the categorical imperative of overthrowing all relationships in which man is a degraded, enslaved, abandoned, contemptible being... The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness.)

The role of atheism in Marxism is similar to the role of God in classical monotheism On its own god belief means little, but take it away from the religion and it starts to collapse. As monotheism requires a God, Marxism requires no god: (Marx: The criticism of religion leads to the doctrine according to which man is, for man, the supreme being.")

While classical monotheist religions generally understood the impossibility of eradicating 'false' teachings, and the 'perfection' of humanity without divine intervention during the eschaton, Marxism considered this achievable via human endeavour. The eradication of religions and god-beliefs is thus a necessity.

Usual disclaimer: Obviously atheism is not "responsible" for Marxism and it doesn't make atheism "bad", but it was essential for Marxism.

The suppression of religion had more to do with trying to end the idea of divine right of kings, and of course Stalin's paranoia could not have allowed any organisation to rival the state machine, as he wanted absolute power.

Not according to Marxist-Leninst philosophy:

Lenin: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism"
Leon Trotsky: “We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life”.
Yemelyan Yaroslavsky: It is our duty to destroy every religious world-concept... If the destruction of ten million human beings, as happened in the last war, should be necessary for the triumph of one definite class, then that must be done and it will be done.
Nikolai Bukharin: Many weak-kneed communists reason as follows: 'Religion does not prevent my being a communist. I believe both in God and in communism. My faith in God does not hinder me from fighting for the cause of the proletarian revolution.'

This train of thought is radically false. Religion and communism are incompatible, both theoretically and practically.

Every communist must regard social phenomena (the relationships between human beings, revolutions, wars, etc.) as processes which occur in accordance with definite laws. The laws of social development have been fully established by scientific communism on the basis of the theory of historical materialism which we owe to our great teachers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. This theory explains that social development is not brought about by any kind of supernatural forces. Nay more. The same theory has demonstrated that the very idea of God and of supernatural powers arises at a definite stage in human history, and at another definite stage begins to disappear as a childish notion which finds no confirmation in practical life and in the struggle between man and nature...

Scientific communism, in its judgements concerning natural phenomena, is guided by the data of the natural sciences, which are in irreconcilable conflict with all religious imaginings.

When you believe you are creating a utopia, the ends justify the means. With a materialistic worldview and man as the 'supreme being' there was no sanctity of human life', just a ruthless utilitarian outlook where the greater good is whatever further the revolutionary cause.

"What violence would you not commit to exterminate violence?" (Bertolt Brecht)

Per religion, it's more than the destruction of their power bases though, it is their total eradication. They cannot exist in the final stage of Communism: "It is our duty to destroy every religious world-concept"

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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. And no matter how many times you claim it does, it still does not. The atheist can choose to believe whatever he wants about it. That is our right. But when he claims his beliefs are based on logic, and everyone else's isn't, he becomes a LIAR. Because it is not logical to claim an unfounded belief is based on logic. That's not logical, and it's not true. It's a lie.

And once people start accepting this lie as true, they have to start telling themselves more lies to maintain the first one. It happens with theists that lie to themselves about "knowing God" and it happens to atheists that lie to themselves about it being logical to assume that no gods exist based on no evidence. In both instances, the first lie leads to more and more supporting lies until the liars can't see the truth of anything. Even as they are constantly spewing to everyone what the truth is. 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 think you are quite incorrect about this. There are two ways to formulate the question that we are trying to be "logical" about:

1. Is there a God?
2. Is there any pursuasive evidence for a deity active in the world, modifying outcomes based on prayer, misdeeds, and so forth?

You are correct with regard to question 1, I cannot logically reason my way to any position on the matter, because there is no place to start.

However, on question 2, I have a whole world, and the observations of billions upon billions of people throughout history -- including my own. And for my part, I can say with considerable certainty that there is no such evidence, and therefore it is quite logical for me to behave as if the answer to the question were "no."

(Or perhaps in deference to something that @Revoltingest said several pages ago, I should rephrase that as it is quite rational for me to behave as if the answer the question were "no."

 

[Colt]

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.

We don’t know that living things evolved in a long insentient process. That’s a theory that leads to the claim that life invented itself.