The new Athiest Humanities downfall?

[RestlessSoul]

I haven't received the communique.

Because you are not ready to receive it, perhaps

 

[F1fan]

It’s all an illusion; the Vedic philosophers were right all along

“The well defined and solid picture of the world given by the old classical physics is an illusion”
- Carlo Rovelli

This needs to be explained. It doesn't mean that what a human senses in their environment is not there or imaginary, but that the light waves that reach the eye, and the eye converts this light into sensory data (via signals, neurotransmitters and electricity) to the visual cortex of the brain, and the brain converts them into representations of what is being viewed. Jim can look at a loaf of bread on a table and his sensory apparatus will relay the reality of this loaf and table to his brain. The representations in the brain are NOT the things seen, so philosophers have called this brain activity illusory. The loaf itself can't be in the brain, but a representation of the loaf can be, thus it is an illusion of the loaf that the brain senses.

Of course human senses are limited. We can't see many waves of light. We can't see infrared like other animals can. We can't see microorganisms, or deep into space. So the unaltered human as an instrument for observation is limited.

This all assumes people have working senses and brain.

Now this differs from people who have damage to some senses. It also differs from people who have brain dysfunctions. As we know mental illness or drugs can alter what people think they are seeing. Hallucinations are not accurate representations of the environment.

 

[Revoltingest]

Because you are not ready to receive it, perhaps

Or perhaps there's no god to send one.
Beware obeying voices in your head
that others don't hear.

 

[RestlessSoul]

This needs to be explained. It doesn't mean that what a human senses in their environment is not there or imaginary, but that the light waves that reach the eye, and the eye converts this light into sensory data (via signals, neurotransmitters and electricity) to the visual cortex of the brain, and the brain converts them into representations of what is being viewed. Jim can look at a loaf of bread on a table and his sensory apparatus will relay the reality of this loaf and table to his brain. The representations in the brain are NOT the things seen, so philosophers have called this brain activity illusory. The loaf itself can't be in the brain, but a representation of the loaf can be, thus it is an illusion of the loaf that the brain senses.

Of course human senses are limited. We can't see many waves of light. We can't see infrared like other animals can. We can't see microorganisms, or deep into space. So the unaltered human as an instrument for observation is limited.

This all assumes people have working senses and brain.

Now this differs from people who have damage to some senses. It also differs from people who have brain dysfunctions. As we know mental illness or drugs can alter what people think they are seeing. Hallucinations are not accurate representations of the environment.

“The external perception is an internal dream which proves to be in harmony with external things; and instead of calling hallucination a false perception, we must call external perception a confirmed hallucination.”
- Hippolyte Taine

 

[RestlessSoul]

Or perhaps there's no god to send one.
Beware obeying voices in your head
that others don't hear.

I agree. Better to disregard the inner monologue, and tune it out altogether if possible; it’s generally just the ego, and is guaranteed to drown out the voice of God - which is seldom heard in the head, nor perceived with the senses.

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree. Better to disregard the inner monologue, and tune it out altogether if possible; it’s generally just the ego, and is guaranteed to drown out the voice of God - which is seldom heard in the head, nor perceived with the senses.

So does God communicate by feelings?

 

[RestlessSoul]

So does God communicate by feelings?

Aha. If you sincerely wish to communicate with God, the Universe, the Underlying Creative Intelligence, Great Spirit, or whatever concept of divine power makes sense to you, you will probably have to open the channels of communication yourself.

There are many ways of doing this, but in my experience God does not hide himself for long from those who sincerely seek and need Him. Humility appears to be a prerequisite though, pride is a tough barrier to overcome, but desperation sometimes provides the key. Which is why alcoholics and addicts in recovery sometimes talk about having received the Gift Of Desperation.

 

[KWED]

I found this interesting.
The new atheism has twelve characteristics that define its nature:

(1) A commitment to explicit, strong or dogmatic atheism as the only rational
choice for modern, independent, free thinking individuals. The new atheists reject
agnosticism as too weak a response to the dangers of religion.

1. Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. One suspect that a list of "atheist characteristics" made by anyone claiming they are is likely to be similarly flawed. But anywho...

Gnostic atheism is the only rational position in respect to the gods of religion.
Agnostic atheism is only reasonable in the context of non-specific, supernatural forces.

(2) A categorical rejection of any and all super-sensible beings and realities and a
corresponding commitment to ontological (metaphysical) materialism in explaining all phenomena;

This one is wrong.

(3) A militant agenda and tone which opposes not just of religion itself but even the tolerance of any religious beliefs in others; this agenda and tone is driven by the belief that religion per se is pathological in nature;

Also not true.

(4) A strident, aggressive, provocative and insulting way of expressing themselves and
indulgence in all kinds of polemical and rhetorical shenanigans;

Boo hoo. Try a thicker skin?

(5) Commitment to the ability of science to answer all human questions by means of the scientific method with its criteria of measurability, repeatability, predictability,
falsifiability; quantifiability;

Another straw man. We view science as the "best method", not some "infallible source". That nonsense belongs to you religionists.

(6) A belief that faith is inherently an enemy of reason and science and no reconciliation
between them is possible. Religion is inherently irrational. They are naturally in a
perpetual conflict that must end with the victory of one or the other. Faith is defined
as “belief without evidence.” They adhere to the conflict model of the relationship
between religion/faith and reason;

WADR you are overthinking this. Yes, what you say is true, but its kinda stating the bee din' obvious.

(7) A belief that religion is part of our past but not of our future, i.e. part of our evolutionary heritage that we must learn to overcome;

To a degree, yes. Again, "stating the bleeding' obvious".

(8) An insistence of reading scriptures literally (in order to condemn religion) and a
consistent rejection of centuries of non-literal theological interpretations of the
relevant scriptures;

Another straw man. Whether a god is talking literally or figuratively, there is still no evidence for that god.
And remember that there are religionists who claim that god should be taken at his word. We atheists are equal opportunity sceptics so we can address both the literalists and the revisionists.

(9) An insistence that humankind has an innate and reliable moral sense or intuition that does not require the guidance of religion; morality is not inherently connected to or based on religion and our morals have less to do with religion than we tend to think.

Careful you don't run out of straw there.
Morality is a combination of innate and acquired traits. Some morality has come from religion, but then religion got it (well, the bits worth having) from our innate tendencies in the first place.

(10) Presentism: judging past ages by the standards of today, which is, in effect, a failure to recognise progressive revelation. (also the logical error of anachronism);

Wrong again. That is only brought up when religionists claims that religious ideology or behaviour is timeless and universal.

(11) Their belief that religious faith is either a mental illness or a criminal offense
comparable to child-molesting or an anti-social act that ‘dumbs down’ society as a
whole;

That's quite a mixed bag of straw you have there.

(12) Their rejection of the freedom to be religious; because religion is so damaging
religion is not a legitimate choice in society."

Wrong again.

Who wrote that again? They are an idiot, and so are you for agreeing with it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Aha. If you sincerely wish to communicate with God, the Universe, the Underlying Creative Intelligence, Great Spirit, or whatever concept of divine power makes sense to you, you will probably have to open the channels of communication yourself.

There are many ways of doing this, but in my experience God does not hide himself for long from those who sincerely seek and need Him. Humility appears to be a prerequisite though, pride is a tough barrier to overcome, but desperation sometimes provides the key. Which is why alcoholics and addicts in recovery sometimes talk about having received the Gift Of Desperation.

I have no more desire to communicate with God, Thor, Allah,
Gahesha, etc than I do with Voldemort, Santa, or Philip Fry.

Desire is the corruptor of minds. If one seeks, then one is
likely to imagine finding what is sought. To not seek, but
to merely observe is neutral, & comports with objectivity.

 

[KWED]

"New atheism" looks complicated.
Gimme that old time atheism.

"New Atheism" is just regular atheism pulling down religion's pants in public.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There are many premises that can support the possibility that God(s) exists. And those we can debate.

Debate what? How many angels can stand on the head of a pin? Whether God can make a stone too heavy to lift? Theology is sterile speculation. Debate it all you like. You'll never come up with a single useful idea.

If you can't demonstrate the likelihood that your god exists, and you can't, then you have nothing to offer the empiricist. And you don't merely consider the possibility. You've accepted it as actual. That's where your thinking goes off the reason tracks.

No, I accept that religious belief is driven by a whole array of phenomena only one of which is the "good feelings" it creates in the human brain. I actually think those good feelings are far less significant a motive than the very real benefits that come with the psychology of faith.

Now you're reducing your theism to psychology, to comforting placebo. I can agree with you there. That's when I entered it - when I needed comfort, when I was experiencing extreme angst, as I have previously explained to you. You, too. The difference between us is that mine resolved and religion no longer served any purpose (I know that you don't consider a god belief religion, but I do).

Most atheists have no practical idea why theists are theists. They stop short of ever really investigating it because they are finding their own rewards in their bias against theism.

Sure we do. I know why I was a theist. I know why you are one. Many are indoctrinated into it and feel comforted by being part of a religious community. They have been taught to consider atheism evil. And they hope for heaven, fear hell, and have their prayers answered. Or they feel that life is empty without such ideas. They've been told that atheists are without morals or purpose. I suspect than many aren't really theists, but just playing the part socially.

And yes, I have a bias against theism as I do against all faith-based thinking. It's guessing.

Interesting that you see atheism as rewarding to atheists just as you see theism rewarding to believers, but condemn the former anyway. But you're correct. I take pride in being an atheist and a secular humanist. What others see as as intellectual and moral failure, I see as the opposite. I see secular humanism as the pinnacle of man's progress to date in epistemology and ethics.

How can an atheist conclude that there is no god without there being any true premise? And yet they do.

No, most do not. This is you still tilting at windmills, your straw man. You're fighting a nonexistent foe.

You're refusal to acknowledge that most atheists are agnostic undermines everything you have to say about atheists or atheism.

The problem is that you really want to debate the religious depictions because those you can defeat (in your own mind) using material facts.

Defeat what? Unevidenced claims? We just reject them. You'd do well to assimilate that as well.

But when the discussion sticks to the actual question of God's possible nature and existence, you have no "ammo" because materialism doesn't function in that arena of debate.

Ammo? Against what?

You see yourself as some kind of warrior and defender of the faith in a war.

You keep referring to materialism, but whatever you call the alternative that you prefer doesn't function in any area. Presumably, you are talking about idealism, but who knows, as you never say. But what has your alternate way of knowing that you consider more insightful than an empirical approach to what is true and real generated of any value? You continually bemoan the skeptic's outlook as too narrow and ill-equipped to examine this other realm you seem to think exists for no better reason than that you want it to, but you never reveal what you see, or why what you think you know is worth knowing. Because you have no such knowledge. Your better way of knowing is sterile except perhaps to you personally as a comforting placebo, but not to others.

Let me offer an allegory that shows what a better way of knowing actually is and can do. There are a people that can count, but haven't learned to add yet. The chief wants to merge a flock of 36 sheep with one of 87, maybe because of a marriage between two families each with a herd, and he wants to know how many sheep that will be. He can only answer that by merging the two flocks and counting them.

Then along comes a stranger who claims to have another way of knowing that shows him more. He says he can tell in advance how many sheep the chief will count when he merges a flock of 36 with one of 87. This stranger announces that there will be 36+87=123 sheep. The chief merges the flocks, counts them, gets 123, and the crowd gasps, some shouting, "Witchcraft!" This stranger made a claim of seeing more, and demonstrated that he really did.

How about you? Your verbiage suggests that you seem to feel that you have a better way of knowing. Show me some of what this better way of knowing than what you scornfully call materialism has generated so that I'll stop calling it useless. Just kidding. We both know you can't. If you could, you would have posted it in the scientism thread, when you made the same claims that were rebutted the same way and ignored.

So you have to go fight with the mythical religious imagery, instead.

This is pretty funny coming from Don Quixote.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If only you could understand that all beliefs are real. But you can't or won't so you're never going to understand theism.

If you could understand that what others believe doesn't matter to the empiricist. He only cares what is known and can be demonstrated. If you can't demonstrate a physical referent to correspond with a belief, it is probably wrong, and even if it were a correct guess, you would have no way of knowing that until there was a physical manifestation caused by whatever it is you believe is out there. That's the power of strict empiricism. It doesn't bother with ideas until they can be shown to correlate with reality. Science only posits a new aspect of reality when it can't account for some observation given the known aspects of reality.

This is why gods don't appear in any scientific theory or law. There is nothing unexplained for them that the science without them doesn't account for. Inserting a god into the theory of evolution, for example, gives it zero additional explanatory power.

So, the fact that you have unevidenced beliefs is meaningless to the empiricist. Nothing is real except the belief, which is useless if it has no connection to or effect on whatsoever demonstrable reality. And yes, once again, I have a strong bias against other these way of "knowing." This is why. Their sterility.

No atheists do, or they would be agnostics, not atheists. This is what I mean by atheists lying. So many of them are lying, now, that it's becoming rare to find one that isn't.

Sure, Senor Quixote. You just keep fighting those lying atheists, lying when they tell you that they are also agnostic - an idea that apparently cannot fit into your head, one of the most extreme examples of closed-mindedness I've seen. Other closed minded people tell you that there is no evidence that could change their mind that their belief is wrong and the skeptic's correct, but you don't even know what that is, because you apparently can't fit the idea into your consideration chamber even to consider and reject it.

Theism is the philosophical inquest regarding a belief in the existence of gods.

That is not correct. Theism is the belief in one or more gods. What you have described is theology.

Atheism is the counter-proposition to the theist belief/proposition: that gods don't exist. But I feel certain you will ignore this clarification because it doesn't serve your 'feel good' bias. Please prove me wrong!

Clarification? We already know your delusion, Senor Quixote. You've been very clear already. It's just that your definition is rejected. Interesting that you think that indicates it wasn't understood and needed clarification.

This is what happens when one allows oneself to decide what is true without an empirical basis for those beliefs. Because those beliefs are not tethered in reality, they are free to float and drift anywhere. For you, you have created a fantasy that you think reflects reality despite having been concocted in your head. You think they reflect what's actually out there, but how could they without being derived empirically?

You are hopelessly stuck on the idea that imagination isn't "real" because what is being imagined isn't physical. But imagination is real, and so are the images and ideas that our imaginations generate.

Sorry, but it is you who is hopelessly lost. Empiricists make a distinction between imagination and the reality that you don't seem to understand. I suspect that you are an idealist, and believe that ideas in your imagination are more fundamental than physical reality, which you likely see as an epiphenomenon of an idea held by deity, or you believe that the deity is idea, or some other formulation that places equal significant to ideas that have no external referent as to those that do.

And that is no doubt why you rail against empiricism. It places little value on imagination except as a source for ideas to test empirically, and then reject when reality fails to confirm them. That's a direct affront to how you chose to decide what is true and real, as your comment above attests.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I have no more desire to communicate with God, Thor, Allah,
Gahesha, etc than I do with Voldemort, Santa, or Philip Fry.

Desire is the corruptor of minds. If one seeks, then one is
likely to imagine finding what is sought. To not seek, but
to merely observe is neutral, & comports with objectivity.

You've relinquished all your desires? Well done.

To not see, but merely observe, is a noble aspiration. Objectivity may be a little more elusive. Unattainable for we humans, it remains an abstract ideal destined to be always out of reach. Nothing wrong with reaching for those, though.

 

[KWED]

It was not my idea.

I thought it an interesting article, that is all.

Why it was interesting was I see some of those steps are used in RF.

Regards Tony

"I didn't say to drive the X out of town, I'm just putting up the posters that quote the person who said it".

Weasel words.

 

[KWED]

Clearly the person who wrote it don't know many atheists in real life...

It's like those medieval drawings of exotic animals that the artist has only heard described.
My favourite is the hippo...

 

[Revoltingest]

You've relinquished all your desires? Well done.

Not all.
I just have no desire for deities or what some call "truth".

To not see, but merely observe, is a noble aspiration. Objectivity may be a little more elusive. Unattainable for we humans, it remains an abstract ideal destined to be always out of reach. Nothing wrong with reaching for those, though.

OK.

 

[KWED]

Some of the ideas are very stimulating in relation to science, that is what some are very good at. In the matter of God, they are all just another opinion and If they have offered God is not a possibility, personally I would see it as the height of ignorance.

So opinions are great - unless they contradict yours, then they are ignorance.
Careful with that irony, it burns.

Maybe that was not the case for them all? I admired Dawkins for quite some time, I though what a clever man, but then the godless part came out and that was very sad.

Cognitive dissonance at work.
Are you saying his scientific work was discredited once you found out about his atheism?

 

[KWED]

Rank historical illiteracy

Says the person who insists that the earliest human societies were constantly in a state of internal conflict.

 

[KWED]

You genuinely think they have a good track record on such things?

Feel free to cite some of Dawkins', Dennett's, Harris' or Hitchens' "historical illiteracy".

 

[PureX]

Debate what? How many angels can stand on the head of a pin? Whether God can make a stone too heavy to lift? Theology is sterile speculation. Debate it all you like. You'll never come up with a single useful idea.

It's only sterile to you because you can't allow the idea of God to be in any way valid or useful. And that's too bad for you. But billions of your fellow humans can, and do. So for all of them the idea and the discussion is not sterile at all. It's unfortunate that you can't participate, but that's your own choice. It's even more unfortunate that you seem to feel obliged to belittle, dismiss, and denigrate everyone else's interest and value in the subject.