The new Athiest Humanities downfall?

[F1fan]

Mindbogglingly uneducated in religion. Just because you worship them and they sound pretty like a standup, that doesnt mean they are educated in religion. For being celebrities of the ignorant, and for hitting that big and convincing people like you that they are educated in religion, good actors, but surprisingly ignorant.

They are educated in other things. Not religion.

Hitchens is exceptionally well educated and informed. That a theist might have some fervent knowledge about their belief in their religious dogma does not translate to them being objective, rational, or able to defend their belief/faith against the arguments of atheists.

 

[Sheldon]

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

Sorry did you have anything to offer about what I actually posted beyond your straw man accusation, and unevidenced accusation that I'm biased?

Try again, and read it perhaps?

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?

 

[F1fan]

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.

Actually educated people DO know that evolution has happened and still happens. we know this because there is a huge collection of observations and pieces of evidence. Experiments in science has confirmed that evolution is a real phenomenon. The only people who reject the science are several categories of religious extremists. They reject science due to religious dogma, not better science.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It’s almost like life continuing itself was planed by a mind?

It might seem so to you, but it does not to me. Some study of biology tends to lead one to think in other directions.

 

[F1fan]

A completely different brain that evolved from a completely different evolutionary history.

The good and cooperative won't force an environmental stressor, so that leaves the bad and intolerant who would most likely kill off the good. This is why Nationalism is attractive to a certain segment of populations. Even if they eliminate their enemies they will need to find another group to be against to maintain their unity. That is the dilemma of unity being based on judgment and intolerance.

The more pertinent question is how do we create a world where diverse and divided peoples who may not like each other due to their differing values cooperate to a sufficient degree to avoid major problems and minimise outbreaks of violence.

I suggest it is how you teach children to be mature and rational beings, and not become indoctrinated in any sort of dogma.

 

[Sheldon]

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.

No it doesn't, what a preposterous straw man. Nothing in the scientific theory of evolution makes any assertions or assumptions about the origins of life, did you not know this?

 

[Sheldon]

Umm, your existence? LOL

Believing a deity created everything, then pointing to everything and claiming it is evidence for creation or that deity, is about as perfect an example of a circular reasoning fallacy as one could wish for.

Humans evolved, as did all living things, the evidence to support this is overwhelming, and spans multiple scientific disciplines and methodologies. There no objective evidence for design in nature, none.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Seems self evident to me, but God is so obvious he can be elusive.

That's tricky language. So, no evidence?

Umm, your existence? LOL

@Regiomontanus, that merely assumes as true the proposition that you are trying to prove. This is the logical error of "affirming the consequent."

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If you are referring to your married parents, have you had a DNA test to prove you came from them having sex? Or do you take their word for it?

I think that was uncalled for in this debate.

 

[F1fan]

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.

I suggest it's more accurate to say that religions are collections of rules and statements that adherents use to build meaning for themselves. This is an abstract and cognitive process. I don't see much that is intellectual unless a person does study theology for some reason. For the average believer religion isn't intellectual, it is just a conceptual framework they adopt from their social experience. It's all quite passive.

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.

How many really choose? When a child is exposed to religious belief in the family they won't have the cognitive development to think and reason the ideas. Bu the time they are old enough they have already adopted the ideas and integrated them into social and personal identity there is no functional way for them to examine the ideas objectively. This is how religions have spread and continue to be a large part of cultures and communities.

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.

Actually society determines what a person will think about God. This is why religion is largely a geographical phenomenon.

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.

You make a lot of broad claims here that would be great as separate threads.

Religion is not theology? Great question.

Is atheism an aspect of religion? Good question.

Can atheists defend their rejection of religion/theology by using their objections to religion? Good question.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

I deny that theology is even a valid area of study. It is NOT about "the study of any deity," it is, rather, the study of what people think about deities. It would be better if it were called theismology. I put it into the same category as demonology, because there are no demons to study -- only what people have conjured up in their fertile imaginations concerning demons. It would be like trying to establish a branch of science called "dragonology," to study the various fire-breathing species of flying reptiles -- which is impossible because there are none.

So atheism is not "an aspect of theology," it is rather the denial that theology is even a valid study.

 

[F1fan]

What is true is that we don't know. That is the "true premise" from which we must reason.

Since there are no true premises that can support a reasoned conclusion that any gods exist, how can any rational person end up believing any god exists?

Note that there are other reasons why humans believe in irrational or non-rational ideas, but we are talking about how a believer in god can conclude a god exists without there being any true premises.

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.

That "something else" still needs to be real. the social sciences identify emotions and the reward system as this real phenomenon. Can you accept that religious belief is driven by the good feelings it provides some human brains?

For most atheists, ... I don't know what it is. They don't seem to know, themselves.

Most atheists seem to lack this need for emotional security and reward. This gives them the freedom to examine religious concepts objectively.

 

[F1fan]

I deny that theology is even a valid area of study. It is NOT about "the study of any deity," it is, rather, the study of what people think about deities. It would be better if it were called theismology. I put it into the same category as demonology, because there are no demons to study -- only what people have conjured up in the fertile imaginations concerning demons. It would be like trying to establish a branch of science called "dragonology," to study the various fire-breathing species of flying reptiles -- which is impossible because there are none.

So atheism is not "an aspect of theology," it is rather the denial that theology is even a valid study.

This is a very good assessment and response. I find the claim that atheists don't have adequate knowledge of religion absurd. The more a thinker learns about religions the more capable their arguments against it. But even the basic claims of religion are easy pickings for an objective thinker of average intelligence.

When I see claims about theology being a study of God as if a person can actually learn about an actual God it suggests to me that the more likely use of theology is to reinforce irrational belief that a believer recognizes is weak.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Most atheists seem to lack this need for emotional security and reward. This gives them the freedom to examine religious concepts objectively.

^^^

So atheism is not "an aspect of theology," it is rather the denial that theology is even a valid study.

^^^
And people get Ph.Ds in Theology.

Religion is not theology? Great question.

Yes, F1fan, religion may not be theology. For example my flavor of Advaita is without any God or Goddess. Then there are Buddhists and Jains who are not into theology.
People with a background of Abrahamic religions may say that.

Nothing in the scientific theory of evolution makes any assertions or assumptions about the origins of life, did you not know this?

Sure, evolution does not study the origin of life, but other than RNA to DNA route there is no theory of origin of life. The only other option is God clapping his hands to create animals and vegetation, and making Adam from mud.

 

[F1fan]

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

But we can do life without religion.

 

[F1fan]

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

What false model of religion do atheists use?

Do yo mean atheists don't adopt the fervor and emotional reward of believers in how the ideas are argued against?

If not, then what, exactly? Give examples.

 

[F1fan]

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

This is a good summary.

IOW it means: I assume/believe God exists, therefor it exists.

And of course the justification is that a theist might claim they experience this God. They don't take into account that they are creating an illusory experience from ideas they adopt from other people.

 

[Colt]

Actually educated people DO know that evolution has happened and still happens. we know this because there is a huge collection of observations and pieces of evidence. Experiments in science has confirmed that evolution is a real phenomenon. The only people who reject the science are several categories of religious extremists. They reject science due to religious dogma, not better science.

We know evolution occurred, but that doesn’t explain how the life that evolved was created or that evolution wasn’t fostered by the beings that started it.

 

[F1fan]

No it isn't. We just stated that the foundational premise from which theistic reasoning begins is that we don't know.

So how can any theist end up with "I know"? Or even "I have a basis for deciding a God exists"?

The only rational conclusion to "We don't know" is "we don't know". The next step is to assess whether the ideas are consistent with what IS known, and that would be facts about the nature of the universe. Religious concepts are notoriously inconsistent with what we know of reality.

 

[Audie]

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.

We do higher class crimes and dont
get caught.