Walk into almost any college, high school, middle school, or elementary school classroom. That's where I've seen it.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Printable View
Walk into almost any college, high school, middle school, or elementary school classroom. That's where I've seen it.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
“Any of their deeds” you say? What about the part where they specifically killed and targeted religious people of various faiths? At least I am pretty sure Stalin did. What about the fact that severe restrictions were placed on religions of various sorts in both Communist Russia and Castro’s Cuba, but especially for me and mine, the Jews?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
It seems pretty clear that the policies of the various Communist regimes, especially where their views on religion is concerned, including SOME of the atrocities that followed can in fact be blamed on their atheist stances.
No, atheism is not an ideology, Communism and Fascism are. Stalin and Mao may have been godless (though I doubt this) but they believed in state power, as even some Christians do. Atheist may have mentioned this, and I recounted an experience with an e-list, but you put a group of atheists in a room and you don't really get anything more than you would across the spectrum of believers. Some atheists are smart and smarter than I am, some are dumb, some advocate for souls and spirits, which irritates me, some just like to flame. There is no creed. I am just a pissed off American crip, myself, and have no leader, am critical of Milton Friedman's free market fundamentalism and feel there is no pure economic and governing system and one needs to cherry pick but retain as much liberty as possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
Jozanny, I'm not sure what to make of your response. I never said every atheist is secretly a Communist who is about to commit mass murder and restrict my religious freedom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
The original statement was "If theists can show ANY way ATHEISM/humanism does ANY harm at all, I'd love to see it." (caps mine for emphasis of key words).
It seems pretty clear that I did just that.
No one is saying Communism hasn't killed other people specifically in the name of Communism and for other reasons besides atheism, but on the particular issues I FOCUSED in on it seems pretty apparent that the treatment of religious folk in various Communist regimes is intimately attached to the Atheist beliefs of those regimes. Atheism when taken to an extreme (which would be downright religious intolerance) can cause harm. As someone who writes fantasy and sci-fi it doesn't take much imagination to speculate about a future society where atheists are the majority and engage in intolerance or downright repression of religious folk without being Communists and even keeping the trapping of liberal democracy in all other parts of life.
Interestingly enough you began the thread asking why do atheists need to respect theists or to put it closer to your actual words why they need fear giving offense to them. Well, what exactly do you mean by giving offense? What do you or other atheists plan to say that should given religious folks of any sort, not just extremists offense? And then based on how you answer that, what exact;y *is* religious intolerance exactly?
This doesn't make much sense. I am not an advocate for religious suppression and never indicated that I was. In another thread, I recalled an experience when I was in Rusk Institute. It was deleted, and in fairness, deleted not so much because of my post, but because a fight broke out, although I don't like using that word. Read my opening post with that deletion in mind, and then my reply to Richard about being a minority, which I am on a couple of fronts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
How can I provide an example of offense on a moderated board? Some skeptics would question whether Zionism was necessarily good for American and European interests, in hindsight, and I am conflicted about the issue myself. Take that as one example, but if you want any more specifics we can debate in private.Quote:
Interestingly enough you began the thread asking why do atheists need to respect theists or to put it closer to your actual words why they need fear giving offense to them. Well, what exactly do you mean by giving offense? What do you or other atheists plan to say that should given religious folks of any sort, not just extremists offense? And then based on how you answer that, what exact;y *is* religious intolerance exactly?
As to religious intolerance, you are smart enough to know where and how that still occurs.
This video, featuring Dennett, Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, seems fit for this thread.
I am not saying you are an advocate for religious suppression or that atheists in general are advocates of such a position. I am not sure why you keep thinking I am talking specifically about you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
The question that The Atheist posed was simply has atheism ever caused harm at all to anyone. The atheism embodied in Communist regimes quite clearly has done so. The fact that they placed their faith so to speak in government or a particular political ideology is a complete non-issue to this discussion. It's the fact that they took their atheism to an extreme and saw religion as problematic and the enemy.
Why did I have the strange feeling that bringing up Communism was somehow going to attract the dreaded "Z" word into this discussion. I really really don't want to discuss Zionism because it's an issue that CANNOT be discussed without driving passions up the wall or without getting political. I fail to see, however, how Zionism should have anything to do with atheism considering it is mostly a secular ethnic movement with a very small religious element and wing to it.Quote:
How can I provide an example of offense on a moderated board? Some skeptics would question whether Zionism was necessarily good for American and European interests, in hindsight, and I am conflicted about the issue myself. Take that as one example, but if you want any more specifics we can debate in private.
As to religious intolerance, you are smart enough to know where and how that still occurs.
I wonder, though, if giving offense might not easily cross the line into intolerance. Intolerance need not take the form of actual physical violence or puerile name-calling. It seems far too easy in my mind to "critique" a religion and what you might find to be silly ideas of spirituality and G-d and engage in what by any definition of the word is a very blatant intolerance. The real question how do you not cross that line? Where do you even draw the line?
I'd love to see any atheist take up this challenge.
1) Let's use your definition of atheism then. My point, which was and is that there is no real distinction between theists and atheists in terms of how they conceptualize, still holds. In both cases we are dealing with 'mere' belief. Any attempt to portray one side as inherently more reasonable is thereby doomed to failure.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
2) The implication was that there was a confusion on my side (which you seem to take to be theistic) between faith and evidence. The further implication was that atheists use evidence and theists use faith. But by your own definition atheism is a matter concerning belief, not evidence. And it is hardly clear whether the belief precedes or follows the selection and interpretation of the evidence, regardless of claims to the contrary.
3) When one selects evidence in order to "highlight" (your word) something as being harmful then one is indeed tending to look at the group as being harmful. Whether or not you would look at another group the same way is irrelevant to the argument.
I still think you are confusing two different things. The French Revolution was an extreme reaction against monarchy and the abuses under the notion of the king's body as a living metaphor. Religious belief and lack thereof had little to do with the Terror. The bolsheviks were swept into power under the same principle, and yes, they suppressed the church and were far more systemic than their earlier French counterparts--but they were implementing their brand of Marxism. Lenin or Stalin's disbelief in God is trivial and hardly trickles down to the Russian citizen whom they attempted to glorify in the most egaltarian terms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
Sure, belief, disbelief and politics make hot bedfellows, but lack of belief in God, or belief in God, in and of themselves as independent imperatives, are not causation of oppression. That comes from doctrine, whether ideological or theological. There is also no such thing as extreme atheism. The atheist has two choices as to how to frame the issue. Disbelief in theism, or the simple assertion that there is no god. The latter is a strong statement which cannot be proven, but it is not extreme.
I question its secularism, but we can save this for another day, as I acknowledge it is an extremely complex issue and though I have historical readings behind me, I am not Marshall to your Truman.:DQuote:
Why did I have the strange feeling that bringing up Communism was somehow going to attract the dreaded "Z" word into this discussion. I really really don't want to discuss Zionism because it's an issue that CANNOT be discussed without driving passions up the wall or without getting political. I fail to see, however, how Zionism should have anything to do with atheism considering it is mostly a secular ethnic movement with a very small religious element and wing to it.
I am going to ask you to rephrase this, because I am not sure what page we're on--however, mocking a doctrine, and a critical examination of doctrine are two separate things, though they can blur. I've heard otherwise sympathetic observers of the Mormon faith offer less than sterling praise for Smith, for instance.Quote:
I wonder, though, if giving offense might not easily cross the line into intolerance. Intolerance need not take the form of actual physical violence or puerile name-calling. It seems far too easy in my mind to "critique" a religion and what you might find to be silly ideas of spirituality and G-d and engage in what by any definition of the word is a very blatant intolerance. The real question how do you not cross that line? Where do you even draw the line?
I'd love to see any atheist take up this challenge.
That's not even close. I asked for evidence of people claiming science is infallible and the above is your answer?Quote:
Originally Posted by dzebra
No, you simply need to learn history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
The reason churches were oppressed was entirely to do with the possibility that another doctrine would exist contrary to communism/totalitarianism.
The atheism of the antagonists was not the reason for it. Even if you look at Iosef Stalin being violently disposed to the church, it was because of his anti-theism. The distinction is important.
In your eyes, that may well be the case, but to compare the two groups is simply comparing apples and grains of sand.Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardHresko
Not at all. If you think I have, please point out where it happened, because I've checked back and I certainly never intimated it as far as I can tell.Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardHresko
I find it odd that you don't grasp this point. Atheism sees no evidence. That's the evidence I mean - that to change from atheism to theism an atheist would need to see evidence. Atheism is a lack of evidence, belief is of no relevance to any part of atheism and to suggest so is just plain wrong. Conflating faith and evidence is dishonest.Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardHresko
(Edit: I'm not saying you are dishonest as I think you're just mistaken. It's a frequently-quoted piece of dishonesty usually promulgated by theists. Quite why they are so scared of their own faith that they must accuse atheists of having faith escapes me.)
To you maybe, but I value consitency of opinion. I will [and do] highlight any groups causing harm, whether they be theist, anarchist or racist.Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardHresko
Are you're suggesting that doesn't happen, or are you just trying to brush it aside?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
No, I'm sure it does happen, but I don't believe the practice is common.Quote:
Originally Posted by dzebra
The best teachers I've ever had are the ones who never claim things with absolute certainty, and who always show all points of view on topics. I have the utmost respect for the open-minded. I've had a few of these, and I wish they were more common. But I don't want to get into too much of an aside.
1) In post #147 you wrote, "Understanding the difference between faith & evidence would lead you to think differently as well." As you yourself pointed out in your own definition of atheism, atheism is a matter of belief, not of evidence. That the belief is a negation does not change the fact that it is a belief.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
2) The problem here is that evidence has to be selected and interpreted to come to a conclusion. An atheist seeing no evidence is someone whose beliefs suggest the interpretation that there is no basis for the existence of a god given what facts are assembled. This is not fundamentally different from what theists do. As far as the idea that belief forms no basis for atheism I refer you back to your own definition.
3) To conflate two things is to say that they are the same when they are in fact different. That is not my position at all. My position is that faith (belief-system, weltanschauung, or whatever other term makes you comfortable) determines what one will accept as evidence. Once again my point is that the difference between atheists (even by your definition) and theists is merely one of belief system, and that they both function in pretty much the same ways.
It could well be that the issue is not one of dishonesty on either side but a failure to acknowledge that humans select and evaluate information based on pre-conceived notions. There is no possibility of knowledge without faith. (Here 'faith' is defined as the acceptance of something as true without direct experience of its truth. I am working with your definition of atheism, in the interest of both fairness and clarity you will work with my definition of faith.)
4) When one selects ("highlights" as you term it) one set of behaviors in a class and ignores others one might be consistent, but one has certainly exposed oneself to the charge of creating a biased sample. This illustrates my point that first comes the belief and then comes the evidence.
It strikes me that were one to apply the same procedure to "highlighting" a race that you apply to religionists the result would be virtually indistinguishable from racism. I'm not sure that 'consistency' would be a virtue.
Can atheism do harm?
To answer that question in the affirmative, one must be able to point to aspects of the doctrine that its adherents would use to guide or encourage them in wrong-doing.
[This argument would further seem to require some proof of the assumption that there is agreement among atheists about the consequences of the non-existence of a deity, or that there is some unifying dogma in atheism in addition to the definition that atheists hold there is no god. On the contrarywe find a wealth of varying conclusions on the part of avowed atheists. Consider Bertrand Russell or Sartre who share that view, but would hardly agree upon its practical consequences (Sartre's Portrait of an Antisemite). I would also doubt that one could point to examples of their harming others.]
Again, to answer the question in the affirmative, one must be able to show that a person's atheism was THE defining characteristic, and that all significant actions were guided by that belief, and that some of these actions were "harmful."
Hitler, from all accounts, was very superstitious, and many of his actions were timed astrologically. One would not say, however, that his belief in astrology could be blamed for concentration camps.
Nor could one, as far as I know, point to a constructed argument on his part that because god did not exist, everyone must join the Nazi party and become an anti-semite. If one looks at the intellectual origins of Nazi antisemitism, one can point to many "Christian" writers (Father Jahn, for example).
Nor was it only theists who ended up in Hitler's death camps, which included gypsies, gays, unwary journalists and generals as well as catholic priests and Jews. When he murdered the leaders of the SA, was he guided by his atheistic doctrine, or by a desire to rid himself of rivals to his quest for power?
If we look for defining characteristics, in the sense I am using, would we not be more historically accurate to look for his motivation not completely in his atheism, but in his unthinking hatred for all sorts of groups and his infatuation with absolute power?
This is well-expressed. However, there are two ambiguities present (which I feel are unavoidable).Quote:
Originally Posted by jgweed
The first is due to how we define an "-ism." Is it a mental construct or some kind of weighted average of beliefs associated with a name? If the former, who gets to play Noah Webster? If the latter, who is included -- those who self-identify, those who oppose, those who are merely interested, or some combination? The discussion between The Atheist and myself in this thread has involved this question.
As a subsidiary point to this first one, would we include 'misinterpretations' of the '-ism' by adherents to count against the "-ism"?
The second ambiguity is deciding what constitutes "wrong-doing". This requires some agreement as to what constitutes a wrong, and also some hierarchy of wrongs and rights. Is right and wrong to be measureable in physical terms alone? That requires a metaphysical choice to accept that only sensible harm is 'real.'
"Once again my point is that the difference between atheists (even by your definition) and theists is merely one of belief system, and that they both function in pretty much the same ways."
It certainly does seem that a major difference between the two is their understanding of what constitutes knowledge, and what kinds of arguments and evidence are acceptable. This fundamental opposition, however, seems to be somewhat different than relegating the difference to "merely one of belief system" or opinion. The ambiguity attached to "belief" as a descriptive term seems an equivocation.
Can one say, for example, that one believes 2+2=s 4, or that one believes that Illinois is north of Louisiana in the same way as one can say one believes in poltergeists or Papal Infallibility? Here the word "belief" does not seem to function in the same way.
It certainly seems true "that evidence has to be selected and interpreted to come to a conclusion." But does this mean as well that any or all interpretations (systems of beliefs) are in some sense more or less as equal as one's preference or vanilla or chocolate ice cream?
My point here is to suggest that "conflating" the two views into merely matters of opinion or belief seems to ignore or understate the fundamental and grounding differences between the two different perspectives, blurs the important distinction between knowledge and belief systems, and provides no clear and distinct manner by which one can choose either.
We seem to find echoes and harmonies with each new post crossing one another almost simultaneously.
I certainly agree that one must be careful of "-isms." I think Wittgenstein's doctrine of "family resemblances" provides a solution. He argues that some members thought to be connected by a single feature common to every member in a class may actually turn out to be connected by a series of overlapping similarities, and points to "games" or facial features within a family as illustrations. This doctrine is certainly applicable to any discussion of "isms."
"As a subsidiary point to this first one, would we include 'misinterpretations' of the '-ism' by adherents to count against the "-ism"?"
This seems to imply that there is something outside (or "objective") of the interpretations by which one could judge whether there are misinterpretations. For example, that there is a "real" Christianity different from its many interpretations. We may be mislead in our thinking here by the linguistic necessity in the use of "interpretations (of)" into thinking that the object of interpretations actually exists. If this is so, then there could not be a misinterpretion, only yet another interpretation.
Cheers,
John
Okay, I erased my angrier original post where I accused people here of playing semantic games as I predicted would happen and "moving the goalpost." I might bring those charges back up later on. But for now:
What do you think are the differences between atheism and anti-theism? Basically concretely define those terms. Anyone feel free to answer.
I addressed the matter of faith or belief a little earlier. One can "know" via direct experience. Without direct experience one only "believes" the claim of another. Thus it is conceivable that one can "know" poltergeists but only "believe" Illinois is north of Louisiana (if one has not actually travelled from one to the other).Quote:
Originally Posted by jgweed
I think that this means of distinction is far from blurred.
I do not ignore the grounding differences. I deny that they exist. Both positions start from a choice of metaphysics and then moves on to select and order the evidence accordingly. The question of what constitutes knowledge and evidence is determined by the choice of belief system, which is why I maintain that that is the fundamental difference.
Is the choice between a materialist or non-materialist metaphysics merely a matter of taste, like chocolate or vanilla, and that there is no superior metaphysics? I do not know. I know of no way one could tell whether one is superior to the other. At this time I believe that the answer to that is unknowable (which is an epistemological and not metaphysical statement -- obviously there may exist a difference).
I agree that this distinction, "provides no clear and distinct manner by which one can choose either." That is precisely the point. There is no a priori way to rank a materialist metaphysics relative to a non-materialistic one.
This seems to be evolving into a question of the reality of species (or, in a nod to my avatar, "essences") as opposed to mental constructs composed of individuals. But if we do not allow for the existence of a species is there any meaning to a question such as "Can atheism do harm?" Even if we restrict ourselves to an individual, how to we separate that individual from his or her "-ism" to make the judgment?Quote:
Originally Posted by jgweed
I am not sure Wittgenstein can help in this instance since there seems no way to surgically separate the person from the "-ism."
Atheism and anti-theism really aren't different ideas; they're the flipside of the same coin. Rather one is the more radical counterpart of the other, sort of like Radical feminism to a more mainstream liberal feminism.
Can atheism cause harm? Sure, the Communist regimes demonstrate the case. Playing semantic games of saying, "well, no one is atheism and the other is really anti-theism" is just that a cheap semantic game. No doubt a part of Communist opposition to religion comes from their desire to prevent conflicting loyalties to the state, but it's also painfully clear to anyone with the least bit of common sense and a brain that their militant atheism was an equal factor for their persecutions of religion. I think to argue otherwise is simply disingenuous.
Like I said it doesn't take a large stretch of the imagination to conceive of a future society where the majority are atheists (don't believe in G-d) who eventually engage in what The Atheist is calling anti-theism, the direct persecution of religious people or opposition to religion.
Furthermore, since the majority of atheists I've engaged with here, the so-called atheist four horsemen, Hitchens, Dawkins, and crew, and the majority of atheists I've engaged with on the wider internet seem quite clearly to go far beyond the boundaries of "not just believing in G-d", but a thorough opposition to the belief in G-d, it would seem that a great deal of people going under the title of atheist are in fact really anti-theists and are using the wrong names. But of course this really just more semantics dancing around the truth, that atheism and anti-theism are pretty much one and the same, except the latter is a more virulent and aggressive form of the former.
Sorry, but that's not what I said at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardHresko
Anyway, I don;t see the point in repeating myself, so I'll leave it there.
Yeah, I'll let you in on it, mostly because this next post is just flat-out wrong. Just read my reply and I'm sure you'll get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
No, that's completely wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
The issue is this simple:
The Atheist = "I have not seen any reason to believe in god/s"
The Anti-theist = "I hate god/God is bad"
And anti-theist is actually a theist. An atheist anti-theist is an oxymoron. How can one hate what one does not believe in? Anti-theists who claim to be atheists are simply lying.
I'm almost 50 years old and have been a lifelong student of religion, humanism and history. My father fought in WWII and I have a pretty good grasp on what Stalin was really about from a lifetime's reading on the subject as well as talking to people who were actually there when Stalin was conducting the purges. I've spoken with survivors of both Hitler and Stalin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
I'd also rate my common sense pretty highly and I have an extraordinarily high IQ. I'm a successful businessman and have a list of personal and work achievements which I believe are equal to almost anyone my age, and if I'm being immodest, better than most. I believe that I have dispalyed objectivity all of my life and I apply scepticism to my own beliefs more strongly than I apply it to the beliefs of others.
Strangely, despite your contention that only idiots would believe that atheism wasn't involved in Stalin's purges, I am almost 100% confident that his atheism - if he was ever an atheist, which I seriously doubt - played no part in any of his insane murder sprees.
It saddens me to think that people out there really think this way. At least I'm comfortable that the feeling doesn't result from evidence which suggests is happening or will happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
You're certainly entitled to retain that opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
Pity really, because a little more understanding on all sides would be helpful, and I generally find atheists to have minds which are open to new information.
1) You posted the following: "Atheism simply "does not believe" in god." You cast the definition in terms of belief, as I asserted.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
2) My argument here is that your ordering is backwards. First comes the matter of what one believes and then one finds the reasons (or not). In other words the old proverb would be more correctly worded, "believing is seeing."
For one to "see" a reason as being persuasive in terms of its content (as opposed to the validity of its logical structure, which has already been discussed) the content has to conform to the types of information that one has pre-determined to be acceptable. Obviously this once again requires filtering and the danger of tautology emerges. This happens on both sides and in a very similar way. The religious-minded believe there is something corresponding to god and therefore see reasons to believe. Atheists do not believe in god and therefore see no reasons to believe.
The upshot of this is that there is nothing that distinguishes the theists and the atheists (by your definition) other than the non-rational starting points and the subsequent (non-rational) choices of what should constitute evidence. As far as rationality goes, there is nothing to choose between the two positions.
Atheism and anti-theism are very different. I personally am an atheist, because I cannot believe in god, without openly lying to myself. I am still of the belief that religion is a good thing, and an important aspect in the cultural heritage of the world. I don't consider myself a destroyer of religion at all, and often find myself encouraging a spiritual, or religious quality in people I meet.
Anti-theism is nothing like atheism, as it is a moral, and political belief, rather than a metaphysical one (or unbelief, as atheism is). It's like a square and a rectangle - a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not always a square.
That's your opinion, to which you're most welcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardHresko
I happen to think you're not only wrong, but demonstrably so, however, I think the discussion has now just turned to repitition and of little further value.
Yep, well put.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Anyway, your life history aside, I haven't actually disagreed with your points, at least not entirely. I just think there is more to it and I am interpreting the facts differently.
I should point out the only reason I tweaked your nose in my last comments is because I felt you tweaked mine first: "No, you simply need to learn history."
Having a minor in history during my undergrad certainly doesn't make me an expert on history, however, one of the first things you learn in formal academic training is that there is a lot room for interpretation in historical fact, especially when you start moving into the area of human motivations of historical figures or the implications and meaning of history.
One paper we had to write illustrates this point fairly well. We had to read Martyn Lyons's "Napoleon Bonaparte and the Legacy of the French Revolution." We had to decide whether we agreed with Lyons's thesis and whether we thought Bonaporte by reestablishing authoritarian rule overturned the values of the revolution or whether he was the ultimate culmination of the Revolution's values and representative of them.
As for your definitions of atheism versus anti-theism can you provide a citation to any scholarly source which defines them the way you do? So far as I predicted in one of my first posts in this thread this has mostly disintegrated in arguments over definitions and semantics.
I consider myself extremely open-minded as well; I'm constantly rethinking my ideas. So if you're half as open-minded as you claim and really are interested in having more understanding perhaps you should consider why I am stating some of the viewpoints that I am, part of it comes from experience dealing with people who at least claim to be atheists who come off as being "unable to fall asleep at night because someone, somewhere, may have the audacity to believe in G-d or a higher power" (my own play on H.L. Mencken's infamous Puritan definition).
Now if you want to call these people anti-Theists be my guess. If you have yet another term from them, again I don't really care. I am NOT opposed to atheists; you don't have to believe in G-d. No skin off my back. I have plenty of friends that are atheists.
The reason I bring this up is this particular thread is sucking up a lot of my time and energy that I could be spending doing other more useful things like reading a book or learning Spanish or writing fiction, and I am not even sure what the hell we're arguing about anymore or more specifically for what reason we're arguing.
Very good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
I am a little surprised that you chose the communist/atheist link then, as it's a fairly obvious myth. I get annoyed at it because I've seen the same argument for >30 years. It was nonsense in 1970 and it's still nonsense in 2008.
It surprises me that you're still on this tack, because we've tried to be very specific for that very reason. Could you just mean that the definitions we're using just don't match yours?Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
I don't believe there's any semantic argument needed. Right or wrong, the subject I'm discussing involves the definitions as given.
If you're a student of history, you would be aware that the English language is in a constant state of flux and there are no scholarly sources which are unable to be negated by further scholarly sources. That said, the works of supposed scholarly atheists - the four horsemen mentioned earlier - Dawkins, Dennet, Harris & Hitchens, will cover me pretty well. The thing I don't like about "scholarly sources" is that it's just an appeal to authority and I speak for myself.
Given that the position of atheism is owned by atheists, I think anyone not an atheist attempting to describe atheism can only fall into the trap which gets many atheists - attempting to create a stereotype for all christianity. It just doesn't work. Just as christianity is what christians make, Masonic Lodges are what Freemasons make them, and atheism is what atheists make it.
Certainly every school has its lunatics. The trouble is that by painting those people as represntative of atheism, you're going down the same track as if I tried to paint Samuel Berkowitz as representative of christianity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
To add to that, atheism isn't as movement, it doesn't have meetings (although some atheist groups do), it most certainly doesn't have a bible and it doesn't have any leaders or spokespeople. That the four horsemen are visible is entirely due to their own efforts, nobody voted Dawkins Chief Atheist and only very few people believe he is anyway. The number of atheists actively involved in "atheism" is incredibly tiny. In the UK, disbelief is around 40-50%, probably 40 million people. Yet the world's most famous atheist, Richard Dawkins has a fan club of about 200.
I either go or used to go to several atheist forums and the number of militant atheists is even smaller. I get just as annoyed at them as you or anyone else does, I assure you! Every major disagreement I've had online (20,000 posts over many years) has been with a militant atheist.
By "militant atheist" I mean an atheist who is anti-religion, which is different to anti-theism. I trust you get the difference.
Well, I can tell you that the reason I persevere is entirely to do with the subject in hand. Atheism comes with lots of baggage and almost all of that baggage has been handed to us by theists. For some reason, many theists are sufficiently scared of their own faith that they must attack atheism, which is odd. I never see philatelists attacking people who don't collect stamps, I never see sportspeople attacking lazy, fat people, and I don't think I've yet seen a smoker attacking non smokers, either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
I'm trying to lighten the load by changing a few misconceptions about what atheism actually is.
Some people will listen.
I don't know if I am entirely confortable defining faith on this basis, although jgweed's rebuttal is stronger than anything I might add, I will still add, at this point, that we stray into the problem of defining epistemological aquisition. Is *knowing* how to use my joystick on my power chair the same thing as believing this figure called Christ is a manifestation of the Hebrew deity?Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardHresko
A couple of other things: My pathway to non-belief started when the characterization of the Judeo-Christian god began not to make much sense to me. I have read rational theists who rebut this by saying it is the fault of our limited understanding, but my reply would be you cannot have it both ways. If biblical authors were *divinely* inspired it seems they aspired to a curiously human persona: One who is insecure, demands attention, and seems to think killing pagans is perfectly acceptable because of their ignorance of who the "true" deity" is--but a few centuries later he comes down in human form and says "hey, only hypocrites who mouth niceties about me being the son of god will be stuck dead, aren't I merciful?"
Again, this doesn't make much sense to my ethical values, which is why I am anti-religious in terms of religions being human constructs. Yahweh and Jesus don't make much sense, but from there, neither does Allah, even though Allah and Yahweh are identical constructs--and neither do Hindu gods, or Isis.
So I reached atheism from the starting point that our gods are manifestly superlative human characters which cannot and do not exist or have powers, because, as Atheist said, there is absolutely no evidence for this.
Modern believers claim god speaks to them, but for me this is a dubious assertion. Emotions are survival mechanisms--feelings derived from them are complex and not fully understood, but as a writer I can aspire without seeing this as proof of a cosmic designer egging me along.
In my case, it is not a matter of simple labeling, in that as an anti-theist god is bad and as an atheist god *isn't*.
I find Drk's position of Communism being extreme atheism untenable, for reasons already stated, but again, atheism is not an ideology. There may be atheists who are zealous, and occasionally unpleasant, (Dawkins, Hitchens, me)--but being against religious doctrine is not being anti-god, even though critical examination of Yahweh and Jesus is certainly a negation of them as acceptable representations.
I agree with JBI, however, about the cultural significance of established religion on society, even though I would like to see religions themselves diminish.
Good timing at the Times!
The NYT today has this article on the dilemma facing teachers and it has nothing to do with teachers claiming absolute proof, but the difficulty in changing minds which have been filled with literal Genesis.
One last point I want to make, I don't think I ever once painted atheism with some broad stroke; you and Jozanny seem to be confused on this point because you keep bringing it up. I never once said ALL atheists are this or that, nor did I ever say all atheists are represented by the lunatics.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
More evidence of a world power's decline, in my estimation--and Drk is alarmed at the prospect of religious suppression through what he assumes is a Dawkins' zealotry.:argue:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Heh. Believe me I am far more concerned about the Christian fundies suppressing the teaching of Evolution actually. Plus I just saw the Jesus Camp documentary, what a creepy movie filled with such creepy people!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
Honestly, I don't want to view Jesus Camp. I don't need to feel despair becoming ever more deeply ingrained. I've read about it though and seen clips.:alien::bawling:Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
Can I direct you to your own post where you do exactly that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
I am editing my original reply because as I stated before I sort of just want out of this conversation.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
You're right. It was a poor choice of words.
Let me refine myself by saying I agree that anti-theism is untenable, because if one declares that "God is bad," this doesn't leave one with much if that same God operates outside the constraints of natural law. If I see no evidence for divine benevolence, I also see no evidence for deliberate malevolence either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
My original point though, was that I got from A (believer) to B (atheist) by initially examining deity as a character and deciding deities operate a lot like spoiled kids who want better toys. The theology surrounding the Christ isn't as reducible, which perhaps accounts for its success, but the martyr complex is a known psychological phenomenon.
My question for Richard is this: If God isn't a super-attenuated projection of a human agency, then what is it?
Genesis declares that God created man in his own image--and I've always been struck by that--that the ancient Hebrews weren't the least bit suspicious that maybe they defined a deity in their image, instead.
“It is not as in the Bible, that God created man in his own image. But, on the contrary, man created God in his own image.”Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
Ludwig Feuerbach
And another quote which fits nicely into the discussion on faith:
"We may define "faith" as the firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Where there is evidence, no one speaks of "faith." We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence."
Bertrand Russell
These are well-thought out remarks. I will try to do them justice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
1) I deliberately put forth a definition of faith that I felt was value neutral. The difficulty with definitions of faith, such as Russell's quoted by someone else in the thread, is that it attempts to "stack the deck" instead of define the term.
I think 'faith' as I have defined it here is stripped to its barest essentials and does not require acceptance of anything intrinsically spiritual. The definition merely draws attention to the fact that a lot of what we claim to 'know' really relies on our believing what others tell us.
I would say, given the definition, that the experience of the joystick gives knowledge of it. The only way that acceptance of Jesus as the Hebrew deity would qualify as knowledge rather than faith is if one had personal experience of Jesus in that way. (I claim no such experience.) I will also point out that by this definition one does not know that one's parents are indeed one's parents for what I hope is an obvious biological reason.
2) I think you describe very well a process by which many of us come to a change in our view of the world. I would suggest that when something does not make much sense that this occurs not so much from a failure in logic but because the person does not find the position to be in tune with his or her feeling of how the world is. The logic comes later. As I said before this process is non-rational (which is very different from irrational!!!) and turns our minds in a new direction from which we seek our evidence.
3) The only problem with the point here is that I think that the most you can really say here is that there is no evidence for a god that is a superlative human character. This does not exclude the possibility that there is a god who is not a superlative human character.
Given that modification, I agree with you completely. A god who was simply a very powerful (or even infinitely powerful) human being is an untenable concept, given the other attributes a god would have to possess to be a god. Such a god fails on logical grounds. Augustine, Boethius, Anselm, and Aquinas also would agree on that position.
That is the perfect question to ask in this discussion!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
If god does exist, god can not possibly be a spoiled child, or even just a very powerful human. You are 100% right here, and if you like I would be able to draw on several Church Fathers who have constructed proofs of this very thing to show this. God is, in orthodox Christian theology, not of the same substance as his creation.
Orthodox thought also advises us that we can not know what god is. Our knowledge (in the sense of experience, as discussed earlier) is not of god in his essence but rather only of his activity ('energeia' in Greek). Much of Christian theology is based on this so-called via negativa, this knowing by knowing what is NOT true.
One problem that occurs when one considers the Fundamentalists is that they generally ignore all of both Jewish and Christian tradition in interpreting the Bible. Augustine 1600 years ago pointed out that the Bible has to be interpeted in terms of allegory, and Jewish scholars nearly 1000 years BEFORE Augustine said virtually the same thing. To be ignorant of one's tradition or even worse to reject it as irrelevant is something that is, to me, incomprehensible.