The new Athiest Humanities downfall?

[Sheldon]

Yes, he was always readable; always entertaining.

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

That was one of those rare occasions where I didn't agree with him, at least not completely, no sane person could think removing Saddam was wrong.

 

[Sheldon]

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 I said I don't believe in prophesy, but that is a level of prescience I'm finding hard to explain.

 

[PureX]

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.

To willfully ignore even the possibility of it pretty much exemplifies it. And that you can't see it, all the more so.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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)

It becomes a strawman once you attribute it to people who wouldn't at all agree to it. Like Dawkins. And the vast majority of atheists on this forum. In fact, I know of only one who'ld identify as a "gnostic atheist".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

To willfully ignore even the possibility of it pretty much exemplifies it. And that you can't see it, all the more so.

Please.

This is not my first rodeo.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It becomes a strawman once you attribute it to people who wouldn't at all agree to it. Like Dawkins. And the vast majority of atheists on this forum. In fact, I know of only one who'ld identify as a "gnostic atheist".

Well, here it is problem as I see it.
At least one atheist and agnostic on this site will claim the following.

1. I lack a belief in gods.
2. I am an agnostic when it comes to knowledge about gods in the metaphysical sense.
3. I know that the universe is in effect as a fact natural, material and/or physical.

So me that is weird, because I can't get #2 and #3 to add up, because to me #3 is metaphysics and thus is in contrast to #2.

 

[F1fan]

So you are a philosophical naturalist?

I'm way past the desire to apply labels and categories. I just present my thinking.

And you know what the world is in metaphysical terms?

I don't really care what the terms are. If there is a line of thinking that is probable and fact-based, present it. From what I remember of metaphysics it is a set of ideas that accepts a lot of science, but then attempts to overlay non-factual religious ideas onto it. It's a clever, manipulative approach, but I never bought it because I pointed out problems that couldn't be addressed.

 

[F1fan]

Well, here it is problem as I see it.
At least one atheist and agnostic on this site will claim the following.

1. I lack a belief in gods.
2. I am an agnostic when it comes to knowledge about gods in the metaphysical sense.
3. I know that the universe is in effect as a fact natural, material and/or physical.

So me that is weird, because I can't get #2 and #3 to add up, because to me #3 is metaphysics and thus is in contrast to #2.

But #3 is the classic, philosophical definition of metaphysics. The religious definition of metaphysics includes a divine element of some sort. Are you confusing the two?

 

[F1fan]

To willfully ignore even the possibility of it pretty much exemplifies it. And that you can't see it, all the more so.

Except upon further reading many elements of the list are misrepresenting atheists. The first sign of trouble is typically enough to expect more trouble to follow when theists try to explain what an atheist is. Theists notoriously assume atheists are wrong ONLY because theists assume they are correct in their religious beliefs. This is a huge error of judgment and understanding.

Look at the response to TGMs post. Sure he was being judgmental, but that is justified given the long history of theists making untrue claims.

The funny thing is how theists are quick to pile on the condemnation EVEN THOUGH he is correct in his judgment about the list. The list is HIGHLY problematic and incorrect. It is incorrect from the first item. Actually, from the first sentence.

"A commitment to explicit, strong or dogmatic atheism as the only rational
choice for modern, independent, free thinking individuals."

Which of the new atheists actually stated this? In truth any assessment of religion that recognizes it lacks evidence IS adequately rational. There is no requirement for dogmatic atheism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm way past the desire to apply labels and categories. I just present my thinking.


I don't really care what the terms are. If there is a line of thinking that is probable and fact-based, present it. From what I remember of metaphysics it is a set of ideas that accepts a lot of science, but then attempts to overlay non-factual religious ideas onto it. It's a clever, manipulative approach, but I never bought it because I pointed out problems that couldn't be addressed.

No, there are other versions of what metaphysics is. But if you don't care for those, that is okay.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But #3 is the classic, philosophical definition of metaphysics. The religious definition of metaphysics includes a divine element of some sort. Are you confusing the two?

You are using another version of metaphysics than me.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Except upon further reading many elements of the list are misrepresenting atheists. The first sign of trouble is typically enough to expect more trouble to follow when theists try to explain what an atheist is. Theists notoriously assume atheists are wrong ONLY because theists assume they are correct in their religious beliefs. This is a huge error of judgment and understanding.

Look at the response to TGMs post. Sure he was being judgmental, but that is justified given the long history of theists making untrue claims.

The funny thing is how theists are quick to pile on the condemnation EVEN THOUGH he is correct in his judgment about the list. The list is HIGHLY problematic and incorrect. It is incorrect from the first item. Actually, from the first sentence.

"A commitment to explicit, strong or dogmatic atheism as the only rational
choice for modern, independent, free thinking individuals."

Which of the new atheists actually stated this? In truth any assessment of religion that recognizes it lacks evidence IS adequately rational. There is no requirement for dogmatic atheism.

Yet, here it is as an atheist. Not all the points stand, but this general short version of this variant of atheism as New Atheism holds.

All versions of religions lack evidence.
Therefore it is rational not to believe in religion.

That therefore... doesn't hold up, because its is without evidence and not rational itself.

 

[Nakosis]

Neither are christians.... But some atheists and some christians are.

I suspect this has less to do with their religious POV.

 

[Sheldon]

To willfully ignore even the possibility of it pretty much exemplifies it. And that you can't see it, all the more so.

I read them all, he has a point.

 

[F1fan]

You are using another version of metaphysics than me.

Which is why you need to explain which type you are referring to so we don't have to guess. You were referring to some other poster being agnostic when it comes to gods and how that doesn't align with metaphysics. But that DOES align with philosophical metaphysics since that type doesn't recognize a divine.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Which is why you need to explain which type you are referring to so we don't have to guess.

I am referring to general metaphysics as here:
Metaphysics - Wikipedia

And that includes other variants than dualism and idealism. I am use the standard classical version of metaphysics.

 

[F1fan]

Yet, here it is as an atheist. Not all the points stand, but this general short version of this variant of atheism as New Atheism holds.

All versions of religions lack evidence.
Therefore it is rational not to believe in religion.

That therefore... doesn't hold up,

What doesn't hold up when the supernatural elements of religion is not fact-based?

...because its is without evidence and not rational itself.

But it is clear that the supernatural claims of religions are not rational due to the lack of evidence, and being contrary to what it understood about reality.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I do not know to what extent humanity will go in trying to eliminate God from our mind

Actually, I see the theists doing this as their depiction of God evolves, or more properly, evaporates. Look at how many theists now describe God in vague terms like the source of everything. One poster essentially described a placebo god, one that gave him psychological comfort, but about which he claims to know nothing except to call it God.

Those still describing God as a person with various qualities and commands are also jettisoning some of their theology, especially hell theology. We now frequently read that hell is separation from God or the extinction of consciousness rather than an eternal torture chamber. Some are beginning to modify the tri-omni stuff, which is long overdue, as it creates so many problems for the apologist. Better to talk of a god that just isn't that into us than one who has counted every hair on one's head and wants us to know him, but just can't seem to accomplish that.

And then there's all the spiritual-but-not-religious stuff. I see that as a repudiation of religion by the religious people who don't want their god beliefs called religion, nor themselves considered religious. These are the religious doing this (I don't actually accept the claim that one can have a god belief that is not also religious belief).

Christians are largely jettisoning the Bible as history and science. Historians, archeologists, and scientists aren't asking them to. They just go on doing what they do without lecturing the faithful when they disprove some part of the Bible. It's the faithful saying that they need to be a little less religious and move in the direction of empiricism.

None of this, in my opinion, is due to anybody trying to eliminate God from the minds of the religious. Look at the secular humanists posting here. Which of them begs theists to try atheism the way some here berate unbelievers for their unwillingness to "open [their] minds" and try theism. We see the threads castigating "scientism," and the proof of God arguments, all intended to persuade skeptics to take the leap of faith. But the humanists don't do the same. They tell you why THEY don't believe, which probably sounds like proselytizing to those that do that themselves. Isn't that why they call us evangelists of a religion?

I've said repeatedly that if my neighbor wants to dance around a tree in his back yard at midnight baying at the full moon while shaking a stick with a chicken claw nailed to it in order to center himself and give his like meaning, that's fine, as long as he keeps the noise down. I might ask him how he came to his beliefs, but I'm not going to argue with him about them, try to talk him out of them, or even ask about his god, if any. That's pointless.

The evaporation of religion is to be expected. It's natural, and will occur without any prodding. I see the religious phase of human history to be the time between when man first developed linguistic skills sufficient to wonder about and discuss nature, which they could only conceive of in terms of a conscious agency running the show that needed propitiation and demanded obedience, until he found his answers, none of which required supernaturalism. This is what is squeezing religion and the god of the gaps out, not an active or deliberate effort to convert the religious to atheism. It's a crisis of relevance for deities and religions.

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.

This would be an example of what I just wrote about. The source of virtue, morals, justice, and truthfulness need not be a god. It could well be human evolution and human culture.

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."

Irrelevant. Those of you tilting at gnostic or hard atheists and calling it atheism really have nothing to say the the vast majority of atheists, who do not hold such beliefs or engage in such activities. This is the same disingenuous and dishonest argument against atheism that mentions murderous atheistic regimes. The overwhelming majority are secular humanists and vociferously object to such genocidal ways, but the theists still want to brand secular humanists as murderous. Such people have no actual argument against agnostic atheists who are secular humanists, so they resort to these immoral arguments that they know are lies.

I notice also that you haven't apologized for any of the scurrilous accusations of atheists in your OP. Like so many theists, you try to depict yourself as a fair and loving person, but you are just another vector for atheophobia. You talk of unity and world peace as you start threads attempting to marginalize and demonize atheists. You want your religion to be seen as more modern and enlightened, but I've got to say that whereas I used to include Baha'i in the list of less toxic religions, now I see it as yet another Abrahamic religion trying to advance itself with deception and scapegoating. You give off an aura of being fairly receptive to any kind of theism while continuing to demean atheism. So, this antitheist, who believes that organized religion is toxic, has added your faith to that list. I wish for any religion that teaches its adherents bigotry against atheists to disappear.

To willfully ignore even the possibility of it pretty much exemplifies it. And that you can't see it, all the more so.

Here you are again claiming to see more, bemoaning those not succumbing to your proselytization, depicting them as too small to see what you see, but once again, unable to provide the goods. Sorry, but I am absolutely convinced that you see nothing of any value except to you as a psychological aid (placebo). I wouldn't begrudge you that, but I do begrudge you claiming it on the backs of unbelievers. If you were to simply stop with, "This works for me" rather than proceeding on to "Blind, idiot atheists, too short-sighted and closed-minded to even take a look, and liars to boot," there's be no issue here. But as long as you insist on trying to prop yourself up by demeaning atheists, I feel compelled to repeat how vacuous your claims for yourself are.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
But it is clear that the supernatural claims of religions are not rational due to the lack of evidence, ...

Correct.

...and being contrary to what it understood about reality.

Not correct. Because I understand that there still people who believe and unless you want to claim that religion is not actually a part of the world as such, then it is not contrary to how the world works when it comes to religion.

 

[Yazata]

Well, here it is problem as I see it.
At least one atheist and agnostic on this site will claim the following.

1. I lack a belief in gods.
2. I am an agnostic when it comes to knowledge about gods in the metaphysical sense.
3. I know that the universe is in effect as a fact natural, material and/or physical.

So me that is weird, because I can't get #2 and #3 to add up, because to me #3 is metaphysics and thus is in contrast to #2.

I might come close to that, apart from one word in #3. That's the word "know". My version might be something like...

3*. I accept the thesis that the universe is natural (in a very broad sense that includes not only physical fields but also things like logic, mathematics and the 'laws of physics') as a hypothetical explanatory framework, not as something that I actually know to be true.

But yes, I agree that quite a few of our RF atheists seem to be metaphysical naturalists in the way you describe.