The new Athiest Humanities downfall?

[Sheldon]

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.

That sounds an awful lot like a bare appeal to numbers to me, an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

 

[Sheldon]

I think that agnosticism is by far the most intellectually defensible position to hold on these matters.

Do you generally believe claims, when there is nothing to know about them? Only that is agnosticism, it's the belief that nothing is known or can be known about the nature or exitance of god.

Which oddly enough is true of all unfalsifiable claims.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

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

Opinions about God are not owned by me. Just as the opinions in the OP article are not owned by me. I can agree or disagree with them, which would be my opinion.

All I can know of God comes through a Messenger from God. Thus it is already written, my opinion is one of choice, to agree or to disagree that Messenger is a God given source.

Example. This was written by Baha'u'llah.

"For they who turn away from their Lord in this day are in truth accounted amongst the dead, though to outward seeming they may walk upon the earth, amongst the deaf, though they may hear, and amongst the blind, though they may see, as hath been clearly stated by Him Who is the Lord of the Day of Reckoning: "Hearts have they with which they understand not, and eyes have they with which they see not...." They walk the edge of a treacherous bank and tread the brink of a fiery abyss. They partake not of the billows of this surging and treasure-laden Ocean, but disport themselves with their own idle words." Bahá’u’lláh, Gems of Divine Mysteries, p. 48-49

That is written, available to all and my opinion of it is a matter of choice as to the validity of the author.

That is the quandary we face. If there is a God, the Atheist stance is a choice and the quote above reflects the consequences of that choice.

Regards Tony

 

[Sheldon]

I understand. You fundamentalists don’t like it when someone questions your appointed prophet. Which illustrates perfectly, my point about deafness to nuance. This is a characteristic of the intransigent mindset, common among extremists everywhere.

Read that back to yourself, and tell me it doesn't read like the angry ravings of a blinkered extremist? The Hitch wasn't a prophet, he was an intelligent and erudite and gifted writer and orator. Even when I disagreed with him, which wasn't often, his prose was impressive enough to make the work a joy to read. Best of all he made me laugh, and was never petty or mean spirited.

 

[Sheldon]

That is the quandary we face. If there is a God, the Atheist stance is a choice and the quote above reflects the consequences of that choice.

It's a quandary you believe you face, I don't face it, as I don't believe in any deity, consequently I don't believe there are any consequences.

These veiled, or sometimes overt, threats from theists, make me laugh to be honest. You might as well be threatening to put a curse on me with your Harry Potter wand.

 

[rational experiences]

My mother just died from cancer so we both know how real it is, and how we have to deal with the real affect is has on our lives.

Many theists insist their god is real in the same sense when it clearly is not. Atheists acknowledge reality without gods or a supernatural much the way those of us who deal with cancer know it is real, and not imagined.

Faith healers say cancer patients can deal with cancer with imaginary treatments. They don't work. So rational minds can understand what is real and what is imaginary fairly well to function in every day life.

As a healer you are like any human.

A scientist can be irrational whilst another claims evidence is rational.

God owns no evidence and it was taught it owned no evidence as it is not in creation. The being that caused creation is the eternal

Not changed body.

God of science owned any type of science proof used by a scientist.

They look for the body that owned no proof.

So not only are they irrational they angrily claim prove it.

As a healer a true healer it is holistic. Dealt with personal family history relationships. Emotional. Abuse. Bad eating habits. Herbal remedies. Medical side effects. Told.

Not make believe life itself.

I saw miracles. I didn't say I owned it. I knew I did not own it. I did not charge for monetary gain. Would visit anyone. Gave it away as a practice as I was so affected by psychic dreams. Became sick myself. But proved it real.

In my honesty and love.

We did healing by group. Multi personalities and experience involved. We asked no questions first. We had a body diagram and when finished we would draw what we saw or heard.

Correlation was exact. What or who we saw the same. A doctor used to come bringing with him his dog. We all saw him.

Then shared the advice. Real healing.

We approached it as a study model.

I told information kept secret. Another proof. We proved by what we didn't do. We always asked first for assistance.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It is interesting. It's probably the best summary of what I think of as evangelical atheism that I've seen, (There's really nothing 'new' about it.)



Dennett is a very good philosopher. I'm unfamiliar with what he says about religion or why. Harris has more subtle views about religion (he'd probably call it "spirituality") than he gets credit for. (Probably his own fault.) I'm unfamiliar with Hitchens except as a polemicist. And Dawkins is kind of a tragic figure, a once prominent evolutionary biologist who has become a rather sophomoric opponent of "religion", which in his mind seems to equate to fundamentalist Christian protestantism. It's tragic to see a once brilliant and productive scientist self-destruct like that.



I think that agnosticism is by far the most intellectually defensible position to hold on these matters.



That's just it, there's no way that they could possibly know that. Many atheists are aware of that problem and it seems to be part of what has motivated the recent redefinition of 'atheism' from belief in the non-existence of God to lack of belief in the existence of God. Which unfortunately threatens to make atheism synomymous with agnosticism.



Which is a false premise in my opinion. Ignoring the good that religion does in people's lives turns it into a caricature. It's easy to point to historical evils attributable to "religion". But almost all of those are attributable even more to politics. But have atheists rejected politics as pathological in nature and in toto? It's often hard to find people more political than atheists.

These sort of atheists remind me of fundamentalist evangelical theists with a bloody hole where their own faith was ripped out of their chests. But the same old missionary impulse remains, the desire to convert the planet and an intolerance for those who believe differently than they do.



Yes. That's why I don't particularly like this kind of atheist (just as I dislike their religious opposite numbers). I'm much more comfortable as an agnostic among the more philosophically astute kind of religious people. The open-mided seeker types.



Yes, there's a tendency to replace their lost religious faith with faith in scientism.



I see faith and reason as complementary. My definition of faith might be something like 'Trust and confidence in beliefs and ideas that aren't conclusively justified'. The thing is that every belief lacks conclusive justification when we inquire deeply enough. Scientific induction, the principles of logical inference, even the existence of the physical world are matters of faith too. We can't escape from the necessity of faith. That doesn't mean that some things aren't more plausible than others, but that's another discussion.



I think that it's foolish to conceive of history as a one-dimensional line from the past (bad) to a single preordained future (good), with our only choice how quickly we move leftwards along that line. That seems to me to be another atheist vestige of Christianity, this time its eschatology of the coming Kingdom.

I perceive of time more like a tree, with any number of possible futures, some paradisical, others hellish (and most in between). The actions we take now will determine what branch we take.



Yes. It seems to be to be another expression of the fundamentalism at the heart of the 'new atheism'. There's no end of fascinating subtleties in religious thought from all traditions that these fundamentalist atheists typically seem largely unaware of. They have decided that religion is bullsh*t, there's no need for them to study bullsh*t, so they are almost proud of their ignorance.



As an agnostic, I'm inclined to agree with them on that. I think that humans do come from the factory so to speak with social instincts already installed. But countless inconsistent moral codes are consistent with those instincts. And I don't think that there is any objective fact of the matter that would allow us to choose between them.



Yes, I'm totally unwilling to dismiss the struggles and victories of my parents, their parents, and all that came before me. We stand today on the shoulders of giants. And none of them was perfect. They just did their best (most of the time) in the exceedingly imperfect circumstances in which they found themselves, and maybe left the world a little better place. We aren't perfect either and our children are likely to reject us too.

It's just foolish to imagine ourselves as somehow standing outside the flow of history, the only people who have ever lived who have a clear grasp on right and wrong, truth and falsity.



And these are indications of the fundamental authoritarianism and totalitarianism that lies at the heart of their worldview. To be fair, some of their religious opposite numbers suffer from the same defects, but that's no excuse for them turning themselves into the same thing in reverse.



I think that last is over-stating it. The 'new atheists' are no more a threat than the religious fundamentalists they resemble so much and battle so vigorously. I don't foresee either side converting all of humanity. The cat of free-thought is already out of the bag.



Good thread, Tony. It raises lots of issues for discussion.

Thank you for your reply, you covered all the points with a just and balance view.

I agree fundamentalism is the danger, to find a unity of the human race will need us to also accept our diversity, which in turn will need us to contain liberty within appropriate guidelines.

I do not know to what extent humanity will go in trying to eliminate God from our mind, but it is foretold there will be a great push to achieve that aim. Thus I guess the OP also has an aspect of that understanding in it, that many may not have yet read, know of, or even consider as valid.

Regards Tony

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Thank you for your reply, you covered all the points with a just and balance view.

I agree fundamentalism is the danger, to find a unity of the human race will need us to also accept our diversity, which in turn will need us to contain liberty within appropriate guidelines.

I do not know to what extent humanity will go in trying to eliminate God from our mind, but it is foretold there will be a great push to achieve that aim. Thus I guess the OP also has an aspect of that understanding in it, that many may not have yet read, know of, or even consider as valid.

Regards Tony

Tony, how would you feel if you rephrased the start of paragraph 3 a little, to say something like: "I do not know to what extent humanity will go in trying to eliminate untruth and superstition from our minds?" Would that seem like a good thing to you?

 

[lukethethird]

Don't do it Tony, it's a trick.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Tony, how would you feel if you rephrased the start of paragraph 3 a little, to say something like: "I do not know to what extent humanity will go in trying to eliminate untruth and superstition from our minds?" Would that seem like a good thing to you?

I see that is in reality the same thing, specific to certain virtues, and can be seen from different frames of reference.

But once you have mentioned it, God was not the best approach, maybe the better word would have been been religion, which is inclusive of your option.

The Baha'i Writings offered if religion becomes the cause of division, we are better off without it.

I do use God in the following sense.

The source of all Virtues and Morals, the source of Justice and truthfulness.

Please note, there may be a large proportion of atheists that are more attuned to these morals and virtues, trustworthiness and truthfulness than there are people of faith.

Regards Tony

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I do use God in the following sense.

The source of all Virtues and Morals, the source of Justice and truthfulness.

And here is where we differ most of all. Let me try to explain why, because this is huge.

You say that "God [is the] source of all Virtues and Morals." But scripture tells me that this same God ordered the massacre and rape of the Canaanites. I do not see, maybe I'm alone in this, those things as virtuous or moral. Scripture tells me, as well, that you should take a sharp knife and mutilate your son's penis. I have a hard time seeing either virtue or morality in such a thing, but heck, what do I know? (But the way, I had my own foreskin whacked off, but fortunately, I have no memory of the event. I doubt that I would have enjoyed it, during the first few days of my life.)

I wonder how Baha'is in Iran or elsewhere suppose that God is the "source of Justice and truthfulness," but can't manage to tell that to their leaders of those places, who seem to take some delight in the persecution. I mean, "God" (especially God "as the source of") really ought to have some power to effectuate both "justice and truthfulness," so it is excessively difficult for me to understand why He does not.

I constantly have to ask myself this simple question: if the most powerful force in the universe cannot achieve its most basic goals --- well, how powerful is it, really?

 

[F1fan]

All I can know of God comes through a Messenger from God.

That is the quandary we face. If there is a God, the Atheist stance is a choice and the quote above reflects the consequences of that choice.

I'm glad you can admit you are uncertain God exists. As you say, all you can know of God comes through a Messenger from God, and since you are NOT a Messenger yourself how can you assess and test whether this guy is genuine or a fraud? A rational mind devoted to truth will be skeptical. A mind that wants to reinforce belief will fall back on faith, and accept the claims by a Messenger, and reject reason.

Atheists are free from this dilemma. We don't gamble on consequences of non-belief. Atheists have the freedom to assess and doubt any religious claim made by people who can't show evidence that the claims are true. If there was a God it would surely make itself known in ways available to reason. If it exists and prefers to hide, then it could not morally impose consequences on rational minds that use their natural abilities to reject what some claim is true.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

And here is where we differ most of all. Let me try to explain why, because this is huge.

You say that "God [is the] source of all Virtues and Morals." But scripture tells me that this same God ordered the massacre and rape of the Canaanites. I do not see, maybe I'm alone in this, those things as virtuous or moral. Scripture tells me, as well, that you should take a sharp knife and mutilate your son's penis. I have a hard time seeing either virtue or morality in such a thing, but heck, what do I know? (But the way, I had my own foreskin whacked off, but fortunately, I have no memory of the event. I doubt that I would have enjoyed it, during the first few days of my life.)

I wonder how Baha'is in Iran or elsewhere suppose that God is the "source of Justice and truthfulness," but can't manage to tell that to their leaders of those places, who seem to take some delight in the persecution. I mean, "God" (especially God "as the source of") really ought to have some power to effectuate both "justice and truthfulness," so it is excessively difficult for me to understand why He does not.

I constantly have to ask myself this simple question: if the most powerful force in the universe cannot achieve its most basic goals --- well, how powerful is it, really?

It is just because I see it differently. It all ties back to this meditation from the Bible.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

There is now a lot that explains to us how this unfolds in this creation.

God has created us at the edge of darkness and the beginning of the light. The light is the potential within us. The Light is the Messenger and the Message.

It is our choices that are recorded in the past scriptures. It is not about God's power, it is about our choices to remain weak, to remain in the animal condition and not embrace our spiritual capacities.

Regards Tony

 

[RestlessSoul]

Read that back to yourself, and tell me it doesn't read like the angry ravings of a blinkered extremist? The Hitch wasn't a prophet, he was an intelligent and erudite and gifted writer and orator. Even when I disagreed with him, which wasn't often, his prose was impressive enough to make the work a joy to read. Best of all he made me laugh, and was never petty or mean spirited.

Yes, he was always readable; always entertaining.

On the other hand, don’t mention the war.

 

[rational experiences]

Humans.

Everything exists is natural.

No theism. No science. No machines.

Humans. We live.

We see space at night and stars and a round moon.

We state the immaculate night time star seeing term is ours. By earth status. Taught. Coldest earth owned.

We see sun light

We can think.

First science theism as science were words used by humans that determined the names identity.

Why is it my natural fault what you scientist brother caused?

You were the indoctrinator of all terms God. You applied what names to use and when we used naming yourselves.

What to honour. What to trust as human information.

Now you want to complain about the mass of problems you caused for humanity. As if the everyday human is at fault.

About summarises how evil as self possessed a scientist just a human is.

Destroyer theist in person. Self described by his own science self.

It is truly a disheartening place in history to witness you laying blame on the innocent humanity for all of sciences choices. When you chose it all just as men.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It is truly a disheartening place in history to witness you laying blame on the innocent humanity for all of sciences choices. When you chose it all just as men.

It is truly sad that humans choose war and predudice over love and unity.

Regards Tony

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm glad you can admit you are uncertain God exists. As you say, all you can know of God comes through a Messenger from God, and since you are NOT a Messenger yourself how can you assess and test whether this guy is genuine or a fraud? A rational mind devoted to truth will be skeptical. A mind that wants to reinforce belief will fall back on faith, and accept the claims by a Messenger, and reject reason.

Atheists are free from this dilemma. We don't gamble on consequences of non-belief. Atheists have the freedom to assess and doubt any religious claim made by people who can't show evidence that the claims are true. If there was a God it would surely make itself known in ways available to reason. If it exists and prefers to hide, then it could not morally impose consequences on rational minds that use their natural abilities to reject what some claim is true.

So you are a philosophical naturalist? And you know what the world is in metaphysical terms?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I found this interesting.

"The ‘new atheism’ is the name given to contemporary atheism as spear-headed by the work of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett.

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.
(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;
(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;
(4) A strident, aggressive, provocative and insulting way of expressing themselves and
indulgence in all kinds of polemical and rhetorical shenanigans;
(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;
(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;
(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;
(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;
(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.
(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);
(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;
(12) Their rejection of the freedom to be religious; because religion is so damaging
religion is not a legitimate choice in society."

Spoiler: Source

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...cQFnoECAYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2oB623Tqdht2YN3zoQRQ6K

Edit - A Link that is not a PDF The New Atheism

This may become mankind's greatest challenge, is it the height of materialism, the downfall of the human race as described in prophecy?

How do you see it?

Personally I can leave them to their thoughts, but since some here come up with these replies in their posts on religious threads, I thought it worth discussing.

Regards Tony

Stopped reading at point 1. When I encountered the words "...dogmatic atheism", I concluded this is just the same old strawmanning nonsense apologetic PRATT.

I predict that the other 11 points aren't any better.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Stopped reading at point 1. When I encountered the words "...dogmatic atheism", I concluded this is just the same old strawmanning nonsense apologetic PRATT.

I predict that the other 11 points aren't any better.

Well there appears to be articles and studies into dogmatic atheism. So obviously it's not a strawman.

"In this article, we suggest that dogmatic beliefs, manifested as strong beliefs that there is no God (i.e., dogmatic atheism) as well as strong beliefs in God (i.e., religious orthodoxy), can serve as a cognitive response to uncertainty. Moreover, we claim that people who dogmatically do not believe in religion and those who dogmatically believe in religion are equally prone to intolerance and prejudice towards groups that violate their important values."

https://www.researchgate.net/public...olators_among_dogmatic_believers_and_atheists

A search of the net finds articles and research.

Regards Tony

 

[Sheldon]

Thank you for your reply, you covered all the points with a just and balance view.

I know, I'm always shocked when a theist is openly hostile towards atheists.

He just blindly agreed with the subjective opinions in your OP, derived from your own religion's bigoted views about atheism. If that's what you mean.