The new Athiest Humanities downfall?

[Audie]

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.

Religionology ?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

Commonality of usage is all.

Yeah, but you see here is one, which is actually also a normative rule in a sense and connected to philosophy, yet some people don't know that.
For reality as "the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them" that is a form of metaphysics and ontology, yet to some people that is what is real, but that is a rule, because "real" has no objective referent, when you check.
The same with "atheism", it is imbedded in metaphysics, ontology and epistemology, yet most people learn it as a word they just use, but doesn't check for its connection to a cultural worldview.
That is the point. Some of us check how words are imbedded in a worldview.

 

[John D. Brey]

And that give you the right to abuse atheism does it? You could note my signature. Spend your nothing wisely

"I started life with nothing and i still have most of it left."

Your signature is too perfect. Atheism started with nothing and still has most of it left. That's my argument.

Fwiw, I respect atheism. It's certain atheists I don't necessarily respect as much as I should. Which doesn't include anyone but the one I initially responded too. I targeted my statement in a manner that wouldn't transgress the rules and which, though not explicitly, subtly implied the target.



John

 

[We Never Know]

I think that was uncalled for in this debate.

Its showing we do take some thing's on faith, by word, without question.

 

[joe1776]

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?

Please explain how what I wrote could possibly qualify as a strawman. I doubt you understand the fallacy.

I don't need evidence to prove common knowledge: everyone who has an opinion on Richard Dawkins or anyone else prominent on either side of the atheism vs. religion debate is viewed with bias in both directions by most people. My opinion of Dawkins is biased: To me there's a kind of creepy arrogance about the man. It's the same feeling I get when I see one of those televangelists on TV.

 

[ChristineM]

Your signature is too perfect. Atheism started with nothing and still has most of it left. That's my argument.

Fwiw, I respect atheism. It's certain atheists I don't necessarily respect as much as I should. Which doesn't include anyone but the one I initially responded too. I targeted my statement in a manner that wouldn't transgress the rules and which, though not explicitly, subtly implied the target.



John

You obviously are ignorant of what atheism is. I am not in the least surprised though, it seems to be the way of many religious folk.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

In the video for instance, an example is given about going for a run, and a person might use the excuse that they can't go run because they are afraid of being robbed. Critical thinking is to approach such situation by for instance looking at how much crime have actually been reported in the area etc. and whether that give a reasonable excuse or whether one should see it as a bad excuse.
...

So could there be more at play than just that? Critical thinking is also to doubt the framing used above and check if there is something more at play?
As for reasonable here is how that works for all cases of all humans for all aspects of the everyday life.
I am the universal standard for what is reasonable and you are not, so I decide for you what you ought to do as reasonable. Now in some cases you wouldn't accept that, because you know what is reasonable to me, might not be that for you. Yet you claim a first person methodology which can decide that for other humans. That is authoritarian thinking.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You obviously are ignorant of what atheism is. I am not in the least surprised though, it seems to be the way of many religious folk.

So should we check, if you are ignorant about, what religion is? I mean, if you are mistaken, you will adjust and adapt your knowledge, since you are an atheist.

 

[lukethethird]

If an atheist gets ahold of some bad meth, they might agree with the list. Or the Bible.

Didn't happen in my case.

 

[lukethethird]

Art.

Religion is art.

 

[John D. Brey]

You obviously are ignorant of what atheism is. I am not in the least surprised though, it seems to be the way of many religious folk.

It might be fairer to say I'm obviously apparently ignorant of atheism. I haven't really engaged the topic more than in a subtle way.

For me, atheism is a fundamental, and fundamentally accurate, form of theism. You can't be a thoughtful theist without appreciating the truth of atheism, even as you can't be a thoughtful atheist without knowledge of atheism's deep relationship with theism. Hint: they've been in the closet together before either of them came out of the closet. In their fear that someone saw what they were up to in the closet together, they're both claiming they don't know one another in a seminal way.

Those born after the coming out party would see the family resemblance between the atheist, the theist, and the image in the mirror, if their eyes were circumcised, or at least more circumspect.



John

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But we can do life without religion.

That depends on what you consider religion. Because what religion is, is not like gravity. What religion is, is a cultural construct and how you understand it, is a cultural construct. That is also so for me. I just know that.

 

[ChristineM]

It might be fairer to say I'm obviously apparently ignorant of atheism. I haven't really engaged the topic more than in a subtle way.

For me, atheism is a fundamental, and fundamentally accurate, form of theism. You can't be a thoughtful theist without appreciating the truth of atheism, even as you can't be a thoughtful atheist without knowledge of atheism's deep relationship with theism. Hint, they've been in the closet together before either of them came out of the closet. In their fear that someone saw what they were up to in the closet together, they're both claiming they don't know one another in a seminal way.



John

See what i mean...


Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Nothing more, nothing less. So a form of theism is out of the question.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

No, they as some atheists just use a simple cultural one like this: "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." or even this one: "a particular system of faith and worship". But there are other ways to understand that.
These 2 are a result of Western culture and reflects Abrahamic religion, but that is not all religion is.

So here are 2 other ones:
religion | Definition, Types, List of Religions, Symbols, Examples, & Facts

"Religion is the most comprehensive and intensive manner of valuing known to human beings."
What is Religion?

So for these 2 even I as an atheist am religious, but not for the 2 other ones.
What you see, depends on what you take for granted, when it comes to culture and if you can't see what you take for granted, you will treat it as fact. That goes for all humans as product of nature and nurture and not just religious people.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

See what i mean...


Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Nothing more, nothing less. So a form of theism is out of the question.

Yeah, but that is not all. Because then you have a cultural word like existence, which is from philosophy and connected to metaphysics and ontology, and then atheism is in fact a cultural product as it stands in that definition. The same with God and gods and how you understand those.
That definition is a product of culture and requires a certain cultural framework to work.

 

[John D. Brey]

See what i mean...


Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Nothing more, nothing less. So a form of theism is out of the question.

. . . Jewish monotheism acknowledges that God doesn't exist in a way that we humans would consider viable under the terms to "exist," or to be "existent." Monotheism use aniconic verbiage to speak of God's non-existence without thinking the fact that he doesn't exist is really much of a problem for him.

In one sense, Judeo-Christian thought requires the true believer to accept that God doesn't exist before they're ready to be initiated into belief in him.

True enough, most Jews and Christians are uninitiated theists. And in that sense they see themselves as opponents to atheists.

Nevertheless, those Jews and Christians who have been baptized into Christ through their faith in the tenets of atheism, are fully aware that God doesn't exist, but that not existing neither concerns God, nor encourages the true believer to forgo the unimaginable things he has in store for those who don't let the fact that he doesn't exist scare them into asking people like Moses and Paul to stand up as a stand in so they don't have to fear being in the very presence of a God who doesn't, technically speaking, exist.

Atheism is the first prerequisite to true, thoughtful, theistic faith. You don't have to give up one iota of your common sense, and we can say accurate, understanding that God doesn't exist, to become a full-fledged theist in good standing. In fact, if you do, you will be joining something like the cub scouts, rather than the boy scouts.



John

 

[ChristineM]

. . . Jewish monotheism acknowledges that God doesn't exist in a way that we humans would consider viable under the terms to "exist," or to be "existent." Monotheism use aniconic verbiage to speak of God's non-existence without thinking the fact that he doesn't exist is really much of a problem for him.

In one sense, Judeo-Christian thought requires the true believer to accept that God doesn't exist before they're ready to be initiated into belief in him.

True enough, most Jews and Christians are uninitiated theists. And in that sense they see themselves as opponents to atheists.

Nevertheless, those Jews and Christians who have been baptized into Christ through their faith in the tenets of atheism, are fully aware that God doesn't exist, but that not existing neither concerns God, nor encourages the true believer to forgo the unimaginable things he has in store for those who don't let the fact that he doesn't exist scare them into asking people like Moses and Paul to stand up as a stand in so they don't have to fear being in the very presence of a God who doesn't, technically speaking, exist.

Atheism is the first prerequisite to true, thoughtful, theistic faith. You don't have to give up one iota of your common sense, and we can say accurate, understanding that God doesn't exist, to become a full-fledged theist in good standing. In fact, if you do, you will be joining something like the cub scouts, rather than the boy scouts.



John

I have given the definition of atheiem, you are welcome to believe whatever makes you happy

 

[Left Coast]

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 I didn't claim that, so I don't know who you're replying to here. What's been explained to you repeatedly is that even if something is so, we don't have a rational reason to believe it's so until we have good evidence. It may well be that you have the magical power to cure cancer with a snap of your fingers, but until such time as I see good evidence that you have such an ability, I don't buy it.

And yes...that is completely rational. I'm willing to bet that you employ much the same approach when it comes to all kinds of everyday things that have nothing to do with religion or God.

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.

Again, no, it doesn't make her a "liar." It might make her wrong, but lying is something different. A person can be honestly wrong about something without lying.

For a guy who brands himself as being such a subjectivist, you get really black and white and dogmatic about these things. Maybe consider that other people might just genuinely disagree with you without impugning their character.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And I didn't claim that, so I don't know who you're replying to here. What's been explained to you repeatedly is that even if something is so, we don't have a rational reason to believe it's so until we have good evidence. It may well be that you have the magical power to cure cancer with a snap of your fingers, but until such time as I see good evidence that you have such an ability, I don't buy it.

And yes...that is completely rational. I'm willing to bet that you employ much the same approach when it comes to all kinds of everyday things that have nothing to do with religion or God.



Again, no, it doesn't make her a "liar." It might make her wrong, but lying is something different. A person can be honestly wrong about something without lying.

For a guy who brands himself as being such a subjectivist, you get really black and white and dogmatic about these things. Maybe consider that other people might just genuinely disagree with you without impugning their character.

I don't care for your "we". You are not humanity and neither am I. I just know that. How about you?

 

[Sheldon]

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?

Why resort to petty personal insults? If your beliefs are so fragile they can't take critical scrutiny, then why bring them to a public debate forum.