The Atheist Corner

[RichardHresko]

Odd you should see that, I haven't noticed any particularly strong atheists here.

I think the biggest thing you've missed, and I know this applies to almost all of the atheists I know - we are open to any and all evidence which leads to a different conclusion than "not god". I find that attitude extremely rare amongst theists.

Understanding the difference between faith & evidence would lead you to think differently as well.



Now I see your mistake.

I don't see atheists claiming inevitability of correctness, and in terms of incontrovertible evidence, I have never seen an atheist claiming evidence of their atheism, since it isn't something requiring evidence of any kind. Exactly the opposite in fact.

You appear to be indulging in the theists' favourite strawman of atheism.



Godwin et al & see below.



See above.



Again, this smacks of a simple strawman. Where does this happen? Can you show examples? You must know some peculiar atheists.



I'm personally all in favour of retaining religion and couldn't give two hoots about proof. The only problem I have with religion is when certain cults and sects choose to indulge in lying and abuse - creationists trying to have Genesis taught as fact, telling kids the Grand Canyon was formed 6000 years ago, not allowing children to have life-saving blood transfusions because it's an affront to their god, forcing women to wear burqa - those kind of things make my blood boil. I'm sorry, if you want to accuse me of putting the knife into the opposition, so be it. If theists can show any way atheism/humanism does any harm at all, I'd love to see it.

I correspond with lots of christians whose brains and attitude I have immense respect for and I certainly accept that christianity does far more good than harm. (nowadays)

What I won't stand for is bible-literalist idiots who would shut the door on science to preserve their money-raking church congregations, oppressive societies and other human rights abuses in the name of a myth.

If that makes me a zealot, I'll gladly hold the torch for zealotry.

Part of the problem here is that I make a distinction between atheists and agnostics. Atheists are committed to a position that there is no god. So no, I am not using a strawman, since there is no reason to suppose that my observations on atheists would be applicable to agnostics.

However the characterization of a "confusion" of faith and evidence in line 7 of your quoted reply is a marvelous illustration of what I speaking of. The question is not of faith versus evidence at all, if we are to be precise. The true questions are what constitutes evidence, and what metaphysical tools we are to use to interpret that evidence. And yes science also has a metaphysics...

That there is a tendency for atheists to look at those who are religious as backward and harmful is illustrated by Mosca's post in this thread, published on 8/21, which you agreed with. Note also that your correction of atheism to science indicates that you realize that Mosca confused the two.

Finally, I will point out that my post can not fairly be characterized as being pro-theist any more than it is pro-atheist since I have taken the position that neither side does anything different than the other.

[jgweed]

"...I haven't noticed any particularly strong atheists here."

This should not be surprising. Let us say, generally, that Atheists are so because they ground their stance upon reason, science, and a historical perspective. And one of the hallmarks of this kind of humanism is a certain tentativeness about conclusions that precludes the very type of truth evidenced by many religions, and certainly avoids the use of fear or terror (physical as well as intellectual) in presenting their arguments.

One rides the El to work and sees dowdy women somewhat past middle-age approach with a handful of brightly-coloured tracts that offer you a chance for salvation in eighty words or less. No one has ever passed out a tract with the good news that God is dead.
Watching the sides of walls passing by the window, one sees mysterious and cryptic words, Timothy 22:10, scribbled in white paint. Mene, mene, etc. I have yet to see "Zarathustra, I,6."
Sitting at a sidewalk cafe, one sees across the street in the little triangle park, a man with a cheap bull-horn to his mouth and hears excerpts as traffic slows down:"of gold and silver have I none."
One answers a knock at the door and greets two scrubbed and well-dressed young men with earnest faces wanting to discuss religion with me. Religion, NOT the follies of it, mind you.

It may be that atheists have faith that, given a certain level of education and an individual's use of rational inquiry, others will come to their conclusion. For them, certainly, there is no "divine call" revealing a mission to preach or to convert, as there is no afterlife or heavenly reward at issue.

[Drkshadow03]

If theists can show any way atheism/humanism does any harm at all, I'd love to see it.

I could be wrong, and I haven't done enough research on the religious beliefs of these figures, but weren't most the leaders of the various Communist movements atheists?

[RichardHresko]

"...I haven't noticed any particularly strong atheists here."

This should not be surprising. Let us say, generally, that Atheists are so because they ground their stance upon reason, science, and a historical perspective. And one of the hallmarks of this kind of humanism is a certain tentativeness about conclusions that precludes the very type of truth evidenced by many religions, and certainly avoids the use of fear or terror (physical as well as intellectual) in presenting their arguments.

One rides the El to work and sees dowdy women somewhat past middle-age approach with a handful of brightly-coloured tracts that offer you a chance for salvation in eighty words or less. No one has ever passed out a tract with the good news that God is dead.
Watching the sides of walls passing by the window, one sees mysterious and cryptic words, Timothy 22:10, scribbled in white paint. Mene, mene, etc. I have yet to see "Zarathustra, I,6."
Sitting at a sidewalk cafe, one sees across the street in the little triangle park, a man with a cheap bull-horn to his mouth and hears excerpts as traffic slows down:"of gold and silver have I none."
One answers a knock at the door and greets two scrubbed and well-dressed young men with earnest faces wanting to discuss religion with me. Religion, NOT the follies of it, mind you.

It may be that atheists have faith that, given a certain level of education and an individual's use of rational inquiry, others will come to their conclusion. For them, certainly, there is no "divine call" revealing a mission to preach or to convert, as there is no afterlife or heavenly reward at issue.

I think that there is a subtle distinction between the epistemological use of materialism in science and the metaphysical use of materialism in atheism. Scientists focus on what can be said about the sensible (in the Platonic sense of the term) world. Science does not, and indeed can not, use its methods on that which is not Platonically sensible.

'Scientific' Atheism changes the epistemological position into a metaphysical one -- that nothing beyond the limits of the sensible is real. This is not science, nor truly based in science, but a failure to distinguish between epistemology and metaphysics.

Limiting ourselves to reflective people, I see the positions espoused by atheists to be no less rational or cognizant of history than those who come to the conclusion that there is a god -- nor any more so.

[Jozanny]

I could be wrong, and I haven't done enough research on the religious beliefs of these figures, but weren't most the leaders of the various Communist movements atheists?

The short answer is yes, but state ideology functions a good deal like theology--which is why Atheist was right to assert before that we're always going to have large groups of people adhering to something.

I am no expert on Orwell, but I think it is safe to say even Orwell would have been wary of the cult following which surrounds his work.

But rebels like myself are also damned, as no one can be an island unto themselves.

[RichardHresko]

But rebels like myself are also damned, as no one can be an island unto themselves.

That is perhaps true, but they also get the best lines! See Paradise Lost.

[jgweed]

I was unclear in my reference to science, and probably should have used the phrase "scientific methodology," primarily in the sense that science---even when it declares "laws"---always leaves open future discoveries or evidence that may alter its current findings.

This is not to say that some scientific evidence might not be used to refute religious claims made by some religious sects about scientific subjects and facts.

John

[RichardHresko]

I was unclear in my reference to science, and probably should have used the phrase "scientific methodology," primarily in the sense that science---even when it declares "laws"---always leaves open future discoveries or evidence that may alter its current findings.

This is not to say that some scientific evidence might not be used to refute religious claims made by some religious sects about scientific subjects and facts.

John

I concur on the ability of science to refute claims made by religious groups about scientific subjects and facts. You point out correctly by this that the religious side also confuses philosophical boundaries.

[dzebra]

If theists can show any way atheism/humanism does any harm at all, I'd love to see it.

One way is by claiming infallibility in incomplete science, thus convincing people something is true when it possibly is not. Maybe that is not how it is intended, but that is how it's presented to the masses. So much of science is based on assumptions (or best guess we can come up with) that a significant portion of it cannot be claimed as truth, but merely as speculation.

[The Atheist]

Atheists are committed to a position that there is no god. So no, I am not using a strawman, since there is no reason to suppose that my observations on atheists would be applicable to agnostics.

Sorry, but that is the strawman.

I must say I do get a little tired of this, so let me note it for the purposes of this thread yet again:

Athiesm is in no way committed to a position that there is no god.

Atheism simply "does not believe" in god.

Strong atheists may assert "there is no god", but since none of them are participating in this discussion, it's probably meaningless to mention them.

I accept that some dictionaries state have the definition of atheist as "believes there is no god", but that is different to the facts and simply wrong. The presently-accepted definition of atheism, as used by atheists, is as given above - no belief in anything is necessary, simply a lack of belief in god/s.

However the characterization of a "confusion" of faith and evidence in line 7 of your quoted reply is a marvelous illustration of what I speaking of.

Nope, you've missed the point of what I was saying. I saaid that the meanings of the terms are often confused, not that they have any relationship to each other. That should have been quite clear from context, but hopefully, it's even clearer now.

That there is a tendency for atheists to look at those who are religious as backward and harmful is illustrated by Mosca's post in this thread, published on 8/21, which you agreed with.

Nope, I think you're seeing the opposite of what happens. I don't paint religion as backward and harmful, but I do like to highlight parts of religion which are harmful. If I saw groups of atheists behaving in harmful ways, I'd have a go at them too.

I could be wrong, and I haven't done enough research on the religious beliefs of these figures, but weren't most the leaders of the various Communist movements atheists?

You're quite right that Stalin and Mao were atheists, but it would be completely wrong to place any of their evil deeds at the door of atheism. That would be as silly as me putting the Holocaust at the door of the christianity since Hitler was a christian.

One way is by claiming infallibility in incomplete science, thus convincing people something is true when it possibly is not. Maybe that is not how it is intended, but that is how it's presented to the masses.

I don't believe this happens, so if you have evidence to the contrary, please show me where.

Given that science is presented to the masses via mass-media while scientists proclaim their findings in scientific journals, I suspect you ought to be blaming journalism rather than science.

[dzebra]

I don't believe this happens, so if you have evidence to the contrary, please show me where.

Walk into almost any college, high school, middle school, or elementary school classroom. That's where I've seen it.

[Drkshadow03]

You're quite right that Stalin and Mao were atheists, but it would be completely wrong to place any of their evil deeds at the door of atheism. That would be as silly as me putting the Holocaust at the door of the christianity since Hitler was a christian.

“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?

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.

[Jozanny]

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.

[Drkshadow03]

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.

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.

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?

[Jozanny]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.