They did? I heard the word benefits, but I didn't hear what they were. Apparently, though, they are benefits which atheists can never hope to harvest from their beliefs. Just what are these big benefits which an atheist simply cannot get, pray tell?Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
While we're on a forum and topics do drift, the original claim was that Hypatia was murdered due to her scientific contributions being an offense to Christians (while he doesn't directly state this, the idea is implied by the last sentence of the quote which follows).
The actual issue is confusing historical fiction (in this case a film) with the study of actual history. We can remove religion from the equation entirely. The only evidence provided for this claim was a modern film. A rebuttal to the accuracy of this film was offered in a link in my previous post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Terror
However, to address the second problem: atheism is NOT a religion. There is too much variety. Some atheists simply don't believe in God and otherwise have no interest in religion, some are staunch proponents of Secular Humanism, some are anti-Theists and can't see anything good in religion. It seems to me another problem is that nobody bothered to define religion. What does one mean by religion?
I guess atheists just totally get religion and understand it better than the people who practice it, but we religious don't understand you guys at all. It's probably because you're all so much smarter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clopin
Please, most atheists are mouth breathing troglodytes. They aren't mathematicians and physicists any more than the majority of Christians are teachers, priests, and doctors. As for atheists not committing crimes, that's simply not true. There are many atheist murderers like Christopher Harper Mercer who kill because of their atheist beliefs, or who are atheists but perpetrate crimes for other reasons. However, cases of people doing horrible things for the sake of atheism are under reported like certain other crime categories (rape, Islamophobic hate crime).Quote:
Originally Posted by desiresjab
As for the report that said there are few atheists in prison (which I assume you were referencing), that can be explained when you factor in how atheists are often discouraged from reporting their actual beliefs in such settings and criminals are encouraged to over report strong religious convictions in hopes of attaining parole. Ie they are lying criminals and that masks their true numbers and beliefs.
I feel that here I should remind you that for about a century until relatively recently it was atheistic anarchists and communists who had a reputation for blowing things up, arson, sending dynamite in the mail, and assassinating leaders, or rounding up believers for re-education in gulags. Atheists also cling to their own pseudo-history pretending that either Jesus didn't exist, that until Columbus Europeans thought the world was flat, dissections were outlawed by the church in the middle ages, Christianity caused the fall of the Roman Empire and the dark ages, Giordano Bruno was a wise astronomer burned at the stake for religion's hatred of science, or more apropos of this thread that Christians burned down the library of Alexandria and killed Hypatia because they hate science. Their past objections to the Big Bang theory in Physics, the existence of fossils in Geology, and Mendel's theories of inheritance in Biology, are also a matter of public record.
And religion is the only doctrine I can think of that overtly challenges the ancient claims and nonsense of atheists.
Perhaps, truly rational individuals are religious like Descartes, Newton, Aquinus, Pascal, Leibniz, Kant, Plantinga, and when you look at the world objectively the only conclusion that a rational mind could come to is that there is a God.
I don't believe religious people are at all responsible for the antagonism of atheists. I believe that atheists are often errant, misguided, petulant children and are acting out because of some personal dysfunction.
Really, you think there's a lot of variety in atheism? The studies I've read on the demographics and beliefs of atheists really don't bear that out. There's just not that much diversity there. The overwhelming majority are white, middle class, male, liberal, etc. And their beliefs tend to fall into a relatively small number of predictable categories. You're going to see a lot more diversity in Judaism for example. As much as atheists like to claim to be self-made men and free thinkers who've made up their own minds, they almost all fall into a few noticeable strands or denominations showing clear influences, behaviors, and convergences of thought. You can usually trace the lineage of their beliefs back to specific individuals like Dawkins or Marx, as opposed to really original thinkers like YesNo who I have no idea where he gets his ideas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
I have been trying to look at the problems of religion (including atheism) by considering those problems from the perspectives of imperialism, dehumanization and idolatry. The benefits would be in the opposite directions from those. So the benefits would be diversity, humanization and subjectivity.Quote:
Originally Posted by desiresjab
Current science describes a default theism for our species. You can get a summary of the research in Justin Barrett's "Born Believers: the science of children's religious belief". Also I linked earlier to a YouTube video by Inspiring Philosophy, "Is Atheism a Delusion?", which surveys this science as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ii-bsrHB0o
Assuming this research is true, and there are people who call themselves atheists who acknowledge it, there is a default human theistic framework upon which one can define religion as those cultural expressions (texts, organizations, projections into theologies or atheologies) that are based on that default position trying to enhance it or diminish it or change it in some way.
Seen in this perspective atheism is a religion since it attempts to change that default theistic position.
The default position itself is not cultural. It comes first. before culture, before education, before indoctrination. In other words religion is not based on a cultural expression of God so much as this default theistic position of our species. Religion (including atheism which is a religion by this definition) is a study of our reality as members of homo sapiens.
The most atheists can hope for is to argue that that default theistic position is a delusion. But that default position will not go away. And given other scientific evidence regarding the big bang and indeterminism in quantum physics, it looks to me like a safer scientific bet to say that that default theistic position is true.
Can someone please answer the following question: How can the universe be 6 or 7,000 years old--- according to the fundamentalist-apologists for Genesis--- when the light from distant stars have been travelling for more than 6 or 7,000 years to reach our eyes?? The speed of light??? 299,792,458 meters per second (yes folks, I'm using the metric system, get over it). By the way I'm quoting Sam Harris's book The End of Faith.
Gee, I don't know, Red. Can you show me where anyone on this thread has made such a claim? I mean, even once?
Say, how's the research going? Anything yet? :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
Oh relax brah, I don't even consider myself an atheist. I'm just making light about the way this word seems to trigger a big reaction on here as of late.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
I was thinking more along the lines of this typology and personality research. In the typology studied in which they first interviewed 50+ nonbelievers and then had someone code for similarities and differences, they found six different types of nonbelievers:Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
1) Intellectual Atheist
2) Activist
3) Seeker-Agnostic
4) Anti-Theist
5) Non-Theist
6) Ritual Atheists
You can read the descriptions of each in the link above. I've met people in each of these categories in real life and the internet. What each of these sub-groups has in common is nonbelief in God, but their attitudes towards religion differ, their attitudes about atheism itself differ, and their attitudes about approach differ as well.
Genesis chapter 1 was never intended as a scientific account - light is created on Sunday and the sun and stars only on Wednesday. An interesting philosophic idea but scientifically untenable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Terror
Just a thought about Hypatia - her murder is a total disgrace to Christianity, but there have been plenty of examples of mob violence being justified by socialism, I'm very sorry to say.
I notice the only ones calling atheism a religion are those who hate atheists. How curious. Not long ago I learned on here that math is only a story, science is only a myth. When you have no real arguments, this is the technique used, you insist that a metaphor is literally true. We have here religionists that call a stick a leg because some people have wooden legs. There are no legs in a pile of brush, just sticks, but they insist on seeing legs.
Religionists cannot defend God except to say belief is personal. A belief different from theirs cannot be personal. They have no good arguments. Therefore they accuse the deniers of practicing religion, hoping to dismiss their views that way.
Have I ever heard anything so weak as the exclusive benefits of religion include subjectivity, diversity and humanization? That is truly pathetic. I guess we can all now admit that atheists have no chance at subjectivity, diversity and humanization. Only religion can offer that. These things come exclusively with religion. That is the most anemic argument for religion I have ever encountered.
It is precisely because religionists do not have good arguments that they have resorted to hogwash these several thousand years. At least St. Thomas Aquinas tried to be sensible, and gave as good as he got.
Religion has never left people alone. Active proselytization is by their tenets a big part of God's game. Insisting they are right is a big part of their game. As if I should for an instant consider that authentically dull people figured it out and have their fingers squarely on the pulse of truth. Please. The poor churl who shows up at my door in white socks on Sunday with pants above his ankles to spread the word, has found the truth, eh? These people have found a secret the way someone under hypnosis finds they are a dog.
Atheists do not have to prove anything, unless they insist there is no God. If all they do is accuse religioinsts of fantasy until they can provide some proof, they themselves do not have to prove a thing. It should be their position that the relgionists do. Any atheist in her right mind should know she cannot prove there is no God, just as she knows no religionist can prove there is one.
Advice to atheists and religionists: Leave people alone. Why should they believe you?
I didn't read this report in detail, but 50 is much too small a sample size for the results to be taken seriously, isn't it? I take it for granted, by the way, that there is a wide degree of personal diversity among atheists and theists (and especially among agnostics, since everyone is necessarily an agnostic and goes from there). But this approach seems to limit diversity by creating a few unsubstantiated categories in which some may be pleased to recognize themselves or others--rather like a horoscope of atheism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
No hate here... what a curious leap. I read an article (lengthy) earlier today from 9/10/2016 by one of my church's General Authorities that sums up what I believe re: theist non-theists, etc: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/articl...freedom-dallasQuote:
Originally Posted by desiresjab
Exerps and ycerps:Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),Quote:
V.
How should we resolve current conflicts between nondiscrimination and the free exercise of religion? Our main message is that we should all cease fire in the culture wars and join in efforts to achieve fairness for all. In our pluralistic society all must learn to live peacefully with laws, institutions, and persons who do not share our most basic values.
.
.
As noted there, we should encourage all to refrain from the common practice of labeling adversaries with such epithets as “godless” or “bigot.” This kind of name-calling chills free speech by seeking to impose personal, social, or professional punishments on the speech or positions of adversaries.
tailor STATELY
From Tailor's cited quotation: "...we should encourage all to refrain from the common practice of labeling adversaries with such epithets as 'Godless' or 'bigot.' This kind of name-calling chills free speech by seeking to impose personal, social, or professional punishments on the speech or positions of adversaries."
With respect, Tailor, it is important to call bigotry what it is, and discouraging that kind of truth telling is the real chill on free speech. I will not sacrifice my free speech in any case, especially in the face of one who is actively oppressing others. That would be the bigot, not you, by the way. :)
.............
The study had two parts: a qualitative interview part with 50+ and then a quantitative part where they gave 1153 atheists (much larger sample) the six typologies with descriptions and asked them to select the one that best describes their understanding of their own atheism. They then also gave them multiple personality tests such as the Big 5 personality, Rokeach Dogmatism test, Ryff Autonomy and Positive Relationship with Others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
While I'm not claiming to be an expert in social science methodology, it seems to me interviews for the sake of theorizing typologies don't require as large a sample size. You're analyzing the differences and similarities in responses. Everyone's responses are represented equally because the goal is to develop categories from interview questions. So if one group is overrepresented and another underrepresented it doesn't matter because each group is STILL represented in some way. You're not measuring how many atheists are in each group at this point, just that such people exist and they seem to have different attitudes on various dimensions represented by the interview questions.
In quantitative data, you're measuring a particular attribute with numbers. Larger samples matter. Too small a sample allows extreme results to occur by chance. The problem is that all the individual parts and diversity is being represented in a single number and too small a sample can allow extremes to pull up the average. If you have a larger sample the closer you're to representing the actual population and approaching the actual number of that attribute of the population.
What I find valuable in Genesis I are two ideas (1) the universe was created and (2) it was good. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Terror
That the universe had at least a beginning is validated by the big bang. To assume the universe is not good puts one into a very problematic philosophical position since we are part of the universe.
The idea that the universe is young is called "Young Earth creationism": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism
Among those who gave dates for the creation, Isaac Newton suggested it was 4000 BC and Kepler gave 3977 BC as the date.
Atheists certainly have a chance at subjectivity, diversity and humanization. They are human like everyone else. Also other religions besides the various forms of atheism may not score high on these either. Mentioning imperialism, dehumanization and idolatry is a way to point out problems one might find in any religion, not just atheism.Quote:
Originally Posted by desiresjab
Of course atheists and theists are not the same. Neither are Hindus and Catholics the same. One can continue creating subcategories.
At a high level atheists and theists share a common characteristic: They take a stand on the default theistic position that members of our species will accept as long as we exist as a species. It is because of that common characteristic that they can be classified as a religion rather than, say, a political group.
:lol: I haven't watched much South Park but I do remember that episode.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clopin
I'll have to give that site a look. Categorizing atheists by the single stance of their relationship to religion or the All Mighty is definitely one way to go about it. But we don't usually categorize theists in that matter. I tend to think of the branches of atheist thought in terms of philosophical lineage. You have the French school that traces it's roots to Voltaire, Diderot, d'Holbach and other Enlightenment era atheists. Then you have the German school with Marx, Engels, Freud, Feuerebach, Fichte, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche. The British school of utilitarians such as Bentham, Godwin, and Mill. The Russians or communists which include Lenin, Stalin, Bakunin, Trotsky (Mao, Guevara). There's the Positivists starting with Comte and Durkheim. And the New Atheists represented by Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett. These are each sort of families with a series of common thoughts among them and well established positions on materialism, atomism, utilitarianism, positivism, rationalism, empiricism, liberalism, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
Personally, I'm a little loathe to describe a group of people as "Intellectual Atheists" too since we don't describe any other group that way and it draws a natural contrast to it's opposite. Are theists then anti-intellectual? The adjective itself is prejudicial since everyone wants to be seen as an intelligent person, although in actual fact very few deserve that distinction. It would be like putting the word "loving" or "good" in front of Christian and asking people if they were that kind of Christian. That's sort of why I object to the term "Brights" because it implies that the rest of us are "dim." I think that while a lot of people in atheism prize intellect as a major virtue, what they really are is elitist since they have a corresponding disdain for people of average intellect. This contrasts with the more egalitarian philosophy of Christianity which says blessed are the meek, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free, give us your tired, your weary, those with bad credit, low credit, no credit, etc.
Thanks for citing evidence for your claim. I'm thoroughly convinced and won over to your side (sarcasm intended).Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackson Richardson
Thank you for that explanation, Drkshadow. 1153 still seems mighty small for the study to have much power (and there are also questions of selection bias, etc.), but I am willing to assume a diversity of views among atheists in any case. I also find the distinction between atheists and anti-theists helpful. That distinction was implicitly drawn in the conclusion to Tim O'Niell's blog post on the historicity of Agora, for which you gave us a link. It helped me put aside Red Terror's either-or thinking. This was O'Niell's final paragraph:
"And, as usual, bigots and anti-theistic zealots will ignore the evidence, the sources and rational analysis and believe Hollywood's appeal to their prejudices. It makes you wonder who the real enemies of reason actually are."
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2...d-strikes.html
As a matter of anecdotal experience (sample size = 1), the vast majority of non-believers I've met have been atheist intellectuals who were simply following the light of reason. We respected each other (I am a Christian), learned from each other, and had fun together. I have known anti-theistic intellectuals, too. Some I have respected, most I have disprected. But their anti-theism was not the direct cause of my disrespect.
In the looking glass world of the Internet I find the situation reversed. Atheist intellectuals like O'Niell and you (I am assuming you are an atheist) are the exception. Uneducated anti-theists--an odd mix of atheist wannabes and angry anti-intellectuals--are the rule. The wannabes don't really understand how reason works so they usually cut and paste other people's ideas rather than express their own (who has ears, hear). They seem to attack theists because they imagine it's just what atheists are supposed to do. My impression is that many of them have been overawed by atheist websites and/or cyber bullies. They want to join (or create) the pile on for fear the pile on will happened to them. So the bullied become wannabe bullies. It's an old story.
I find anti-intellectual anti-theists more common. They appear to be people who feel put down about their lack of education so they try to use scraps of science and atheism to show "who the smart ones really are." Their anti-theistic attacks are motivated by anger and class rage. They are more likely to learn their out of their intolerance than the wannabes.
For all that, theists are worse. Theistic anti-atheism is, of course, the norm. Members of different (and sometimes the same) religious groups regularly attack one another. And "scientific" theists are the worst of the all. Their ideology is necessary catholic (small c) and orthodox (small o), so their rage against atheism (or even ecumenism) is positively Medieval. At least atheists (usually) learn to live with their differences.
Conclusion: the only one in the universe with any sense is Mona Amon. Yes you, Mona. Congratulations. It must get lonely.
I know Voltaire is not among your usual readings (even if he was a biased classicist and a big Racine defender), but he was not an atheist. In fact, he was pretty much anti-atheist, only giving some of them credit, because the tendency that out-spoken atheists be part of enlightment circles he had contact and that they were, according to him, tolerant while among religious people you would find intolerance. An Atheist would be a bit better than a Jesuit, but Voltaire considered an absurd the non-existense of God and the absence of cause (or reason) in the creation of the universe and thus all natural working. With all hyper-reason speech atributed to Voltaire, he considered that it was impossible to explain everything, in fact necessary to exist mysteries and that God was among those. If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him was an attack on atheism after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
I think there is more than one way to approach the issue. As you suggest, another approach can be to trace different types or strands of atheism through intellectual history. It is a matter of different approaches, which will produce slightly different results.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
I don't find "Intellectual Atheist" that prejudicial as a term simply because the goal in this particular study seems to be to contrast different types of atheists with each other rather than with theists. The idea is not that they are smarter, but rather their atheism is grounded in their intellectual pursuits and that is how they express it. Many of them probably really enjoy Philosophy of Science and Religion and likely see their atheism as grounded in their study and interest in philosophy.
I agree the difference between atheist and anti-theist is useful. I think most people are reacting more to the latter. Not sure I agree all anti-theist are anti-intellectual, more like biased and close-minded. Do you have any evidence that they lack education? I'm also not really sure what you mean by "scientific" theists. Like Newton?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
No, as I said, I have known intellectual anti-theists and even respected a few. The only anti-theists I have known to be uneducated are those (invariably online) who have boasted as much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
No, I was talking about modern theistic "fringe science." When one's religion and science are equated, all differing religions must go. In my experience it ends up being a mask for intolerance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
I was making exactly the same point as I thought you were - the first chapter of Genesis is inconsistent with any scientific understanding of the world. I was not making any other "claim".Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Terror
Ah, my mistake.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
Thanks, Pompey! :blush:
That's not what I meant. I was referring to the 2nd part of your statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackson Richardson
In any case, remember what the writer William James once said, "We are all ready to be savage in some cause. The difference between a good man and a bad one is the choice of the cause."
Letter to E.L. Godkin (24 December 1895)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackson Richardson
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Terror
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackson Richardson
Good point, Red Terror. If socialists had murdered Hypatia it would have been okay. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Terror
Still nothin', huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
What is you view of the Khmer Rouge (Communist Party of Kampuchea) acts of genocide? Here is a documentary, but there are shorter ones on YouTube you could check out as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqiSgciK16kQuote:
Originally Posted by Red Terror
You are a spammer, who likes to put words into people's mouths. Sweet trolling ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
Their political programme can hardly be described as Marxist. They were more akin to ancient Sparta with a youthful military caste than Marxism-Leninism. I like the way how you totally ignored the massive U.S. bombing campaign which drove people into the cities to escape the horror of the countryside. Just because people call themselves communist does not mean that they are. Oh and did you know that the U.S. supported Pol Pot and his government when the Vietnamese government invaded and overthrew his regime? Food for thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
I agree with you about the problems with the US and Vietnam and Pol Pot. I am old enough to remember those days and I am not trying to justify them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Terror
Let me make this more hypothetical. Suppose the Khmer Rouge were communist by your way of thinking, would you approve of the actions taken? Do those means justify a communist end?
Just wanted to make sure you were paying attention, Mona. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by mona amon
Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Terror
And just to make it more interesting, let's say they were lying about being middle aged and having a master's degree in Shakespeare. Would you approve? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
I think there's a lot of lying going on. I don't know how to classify it. Some bothers me more than others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
If we compare Hypatia with the Khmer Rouge, it would seem that the Khmer Rouge was worse and more recent. I can imagine that Christians have learnt some lessons since the time of Hypatia, but the Khmer Rouge is very recent. My concern with all of this is to identify what thought processes made these acts possible and then rethink them somehow.
Also any sharp distinction between atheism and theism is not all that sharp. We use the same words.
You're not kidding. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Somebody pass the marshmallows. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
I'm not prepared to call bull**** on that, however unlikely and out of the norm it seems. I've read about things like that occurring to people and have had similar experiences myself. There are other more mundane explanations, often more psychological than paranormal, but once you've actually experienced something like that a totally rational explanation is never completely satisfying. I prefer the logical, scientific explanation, but I leave a small window of doubt open for other possible explanations. I don't believe that most cases of miracles are authentic, but I also don't rule them out completely either. It seems like there are so many accounts by so many people over the years that if even one or two were real it would change everything we think we know about the nature of reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
Yikes, I sure am. I don't begrudge YN his views, but I do begrudge him his sanctimoniousness, especially in the face of a whopper like that. Fess up when you fib, YN, and let's all move on. You too, RT.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror