The new Athiest Humanities downfall?

[Nimos]

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.

I think you misunderstand what critical thinking is, you can do critical thinking on your own, that doesn't necessarily mean that whatever conclusion you reach is correct for all humans, I might assess the same situation and reach the opposite conclusion. But in many cases, the process should/would result in the same conclusion.

For instance, lets say that we have to decide whether the claim "Bigfoot exist" is true or false based on this photo:

Using critical thinking to approach the claim being made, hopefully both of us would reach the conclusion that the photo simply isn't enough to conclude whether that is true or false. Lets say another person reach the conclusion that this does in fact prove that Bigfoot is real, because it has been caught on photo. Critical thinking means to step back and carefully look at things and examine them. Could this be a person wearing a costume? Could the photo have been manipulated? and how do we decide that. So we could present these counter arguments to the person that is convinced that this does in fact prove that Bigfoot exist. And hopefully if the person is somewhat rational, they would agree that it is in fact possible that it is a person wearing a costume, or that it could have been manipulated. Doesn't mean that it is, simply that it could and that it should cast doubt about this person jumping to the conclusion they did, since other options are available.

Its not about "forcing" others to a certain belief, it is meant as a method of testing and validate arguments and claims carefully.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think you misunderstand what critical thinking is, you can do critical thinking on your own, that doesn't necessarily mean that whatever conclusion you reach is correct for all humans, I might assess the same situation and reach the opposite conclusion. But in many cases, the process should/would result in the same conclusion.

For instance, lets say that we have to decide whether the claim "Bigfoot exist" is true or false based on this photo:
View attachment 58697
Using critical thinking to approach the claim being made, hopefully both of us would reach the conclusion that the photo simply isn't enough to conclude whether that is true or false. Lets say another person reach the conclusion that this does in fact prove that Bigfoot is real, because it has been caught on photo. Critical thinking means to step back and carefully look at things and examine them. Could this be a person wearing a costume? Could the photo have been manipulated? and how do we decide that. So we could present these counter arguments to the person that is convinced that this does in fact prove that Bigfoot exist. And hopefully if the person is somewhat rational, they would agree that it is in fact possible that it is a person wearing a costume, or that it could have been manipulated. Doesn't mean that it is, simply that it could and that it should cast doubt about this person jumping to the conclusion they did, since other options are available.

Its not about "forcing" others to a certain belief, it is meant as a method of testing and validate arguments and claims carefully.

Could you use an example of something concerning humans as how they live their life in terms of coping, being content, happy and all that.

And not resort to basic skepticism against "woo-woo". I have been doing skepticism for over 25+ years and your example it is about something objective. Keep is about what is in the shorted terms possible "how to in general terms be a human as a human". You know sociology and all the boring non-natural science. And not just the "woo-woo".
Stay on topic.

For helping the person in your previous example, what could you have overlooked that could be relevant?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

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.

Happy Gregorian New Year 2022 to you also blu2.

I also see we all have the potential for virtue and morality. I see education needs to bring it from us.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

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

It appears that was the start of it.

Yet Faiths are built on one Person, this had 4.

A few more seem to have been added later.

Regards Tony

 

[Nimos]

Could you use an example of something concerning humans as how they live their life in terms of coping, being content, happy and all that.

And not resort to basic skepticism against "woo-woo". I have been doing skepticism for over 25+ years and your example it is about something objective. Keep is about what is in the shorted terms possible "how to in general terms be a human as a human". You know sociology and all the boring non-natural science. And not just the "woo-woo".
Stay on topic.

For helping the person in your previous example, what could you have overlooked that could be relevant?

Well you could do it for friendships or relationships, how to raise your children etc. or in regards to moral issues as we talked about earlier.

When Hitler for instance talked about a superior race and what he did to those he didn't like. And you have to decide on a moral position of whether you agree with him or not, by critical thinking about his arguments and whether they actually hold water or not. There is basically no difference.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well you could do it for friendships or relationships, how to raise your children etc. or in regards to moral issues as we talked about earlier.

When Hitler for instance talked about a superior race and what he did to those he didn't like. And you have to decide on a moral position of whether you agree with him or not, by critical thinking about his arguments and whether they actually hold water or not. There is basically no difference.

Thanks for your answer. I will stop here.

 

[Sheldon]

You're minimizing the dismissive quality of the comment.

No. I was pointing out that you ignored the response to your original assertions, and simply dismissed it with handwaving.

If it wasn't dismissive of religion, it wouldn't have been quoted so often.

I don't believe either of those claims is true. It wasn't "dismissive of religions, and your paraphrasing of the quote is a common sign, that you have derived from the quote what you think, and not what the author intended.

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.

That's the problem, you are assuming, and you haven't understood the quote, or the authors context, which was the point I made originally, and that you dismissed with handwaving.

Marx wasn't "dismissing religion", though he was an atheist, he was merely asserting that the (ignorant and uneducated) masses were reluctant to challenge the idea of the divine right of kings, in order to create a better life for themselves and others, because those religions insisted this would mean an eternity of torture, when they die.

That is not dismissive, it makes a valid point about centuries of oppression that religions were complicit in. Again...why this is dangerous, other than for totalitarian rulers like kings and tsars you have failed to explain?

 

[Sheldon]

We just stated that the foundational premise from which theistic reasoning begins is that we don't know.

That is laughably untrue of almost every established religion, but especially so of monotheistic religions. Though again the idea our default position of a claim we were entirely ignorant of would be belief, is equally absurd. Do you believe in Flagaloops? Please don't ask for information, as ignorance was the bar you just set for accepting a belief.

 

[Sheldon]

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.

Atheism does not require "proof" on the contrary like all other claims, disbelief is my default position. It requires no assumptions, anymore than I need make any assumptions about mermaids.

Can you see why this all looks so confused and disingenuous?

Yes, what I can't see is why you are still failing to understand, that this is a straw man of your own creation, and not atheism.

 

[Sheldon]

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

That's not a logical point, agnosticism addresses knowledge, whereas theism is a belief, and atheism the lack or absence of that belief.

If you can accept the illogical position that a belief is justified because it can't be disproved, how on earth can you so doggedly and blindly insist disbelief in the complete absence of knowledge is irrational?

You do know irrational means not accordance with logic, right? Which principle of logic are you insisting is being violated by a lack of belief, and why has the entire world missed this?

 

[epronovost]

Did Marx famously make the statement about religion that I quoted? Yes
Was Marx's thinking influential in the Soviet Union's Communist Party? Yes
Did the Party restrict religion? Yes

Did Marx agree, supported or encouraged such restriction? We don't know. We was dead.

 

[Sheldon]

In posting the OP that is the first thing I wanted to avoid. If there are people that can identify with that list, they will know they post replies in the light of those points.

Maybe it can help, maybe it will not, maybe it will make it worse?

Maybe it's linked to your own religion's biased position against those who just don't happen to share their beliefs, do we need a poll on that? If it helps, then all anyone has to do is to click on the two links in your OP.

 

[blü 2]

So the question is can YOU generate a coherent concept of what God might be for yourself?

Yes, I can devise imaginary gods without effort, just as I can devise imaginary people including Superman and talking animals.

What I can't devise, and what no one has been able to convey to me as a coherent conception, is a God with objective existence, one who can be found and described in the world external to the self.

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.

If it helps them behave with decency respect and inclusion towards other humans, then no harm done. If as is not uncommon ─ you may have seen the fairly recent news article of the Greek Orthodox priest who shouted at the visiting Pope Francis that he was a heretic ─ it instead emphasizes division, rejection and enmity, then it contradicts my values.

But in all cases, so far as I've found, it has no coherent concept of a real being at its center.

 

[F1fan]

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.

By what? Show us the facts of a creation. If you can't, it's not relevant.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

Whuh?

 

[blü 2]

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

Somewhere between Pascal's wager and fear of the dark, perhaps.

 

[Revoltingest]

Religion is art.

Nah.
Religion is primarily a set of beliefs.
It might incorporate art, eg, music.
Were they the same, then atheists wouldn't have art.
But we do.

 

[Revoltingest]

It appears that was the start of it.

That was the start of the term.
But not of any conduct, beliefs, values, etc.
What was before them still is...other than that new label.

IMO the only change was that with less religious
oppression, atheists simply became more vocal
& noticeable to the faithful.

 

[joe1776]

No. I was pointing out that you ignored the response to your original assertions, and simply dismissed it with handwaving.

I ignored nothing. You opinions simply don't interest me. In a debate, I'm interested in your arguments.

I don't believe either of those claims is true. It wasn't "dismissive of religions, and your paraphrasing of the quote is a common sign, that you have derived from the quote what you think, and not what the author intended

.I don't care whether you agree or not. Your opinions have no value in debate. If you can supply a good reason to support your opinions, that's a different story.

That's the problem, you are assuming, and you haven't understood the quote, or the authors context, which was the point I made originally, and that you dismissed with handwaving.

1) It doesn't matter what Marx actually meant. What matters is how his statements were received and how they influenced Soviet thought.. (2) You can't make any reasonable reader of this thread believe that you are one of the world's foremost authorities on Karl Marx's thinking. Your claims are obvious BS.

Marx wasn't "dismissing religion", though he was an atheist, he was merely asserting that the (ignorant and uneducated) masses were reluctant to challenge the idea of the divine right of kings, in order to create a better life for themselves and others, because those religions insisted this would mean an eternity of torture, when they die.

Alright, I'm willing to amend my statement to: Marx was dismissive of religion for the ignorant and uneducated masses since the statement doesn't change a thing since the Soviet masses were not intelligent and educated.

That is not dismissive, it makes a valid point about centuries of oppression that religions were complicit in. Again...why this is dangerous, other than for totalitarian rulers like kings and tsars you have failed to explain?

Are you claiming that Marx blamed only the rulers and not the religious leaders for the oppression?

 

[lukethethird]

Nah.
Religion is primarily a set of beliefs.
It might incorporate art, eg, music.
Were they the same, then atheists wouldn't have art.
But we do.

Atheists appreciate the arts as much as any. The Bible, as are all religious texts, works of literary art. As an atheist I can appreciate The Bible as a literary work of art, along with the stained glass windows, cathedrals, chants, and so on.