The Atheist Corner

[ShoutGrace]

This video, featuring Dennett, Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, seems fit for this thread.

[Drkshadow03]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

[RichardHresko]

Sorry, but that is the strawman.


(1)
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.


(2)
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.


3)
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.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

[The Atheist]

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

That's not even close. I asked for evidence of people claiming science is infallible and the above is your answer?

“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.

No, you simply need to learn history.

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.

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.

In your eyes, that may well be the case, but to compare the two groups is simply comparing apples and grains of sand.

2) The implication was that there was a confusion on my side (which you seem to take to be theistic)...

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.

...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.

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.

(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.)

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.

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.

[dzebra]

That's not even close. I asked for evidence of people claiming science is infallible and the above is your answer?

Are you're suggesting that doesn't happen, or are you just trying to brush it aside?

[The Atheist]

Are you're suggesting that doesn't happen, or are you just trying to brush it aside?

No, I'm sure it does happen, but I don't believe the practice is common.

[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.

[RichardHresko]

1)
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.


2)
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.

3) Conflating faith and evidence is dishonest.

(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.)


4)
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.

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.

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.

[jgweed]

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?

[RichardHresko]

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 is well-expressed. However, there are two ambiguities present (which I feel are unavoidable).

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.'

[jgweed]

"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.

[jgweed]

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

[Drkshadow03]

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.

[RichardHresko]

"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.

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).

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.