Atheism, 21st century-style. New? Militant?

[BienvenuJDC]

Even though that oppressor was one that we supported and supplied with weapons for years. . .

Not a place for political discourse. An evil tyrant, no matter who originally was in league...is still an evil tyrant and oppressor.

[YesNo]

I'll grant that for devout Christians "correct" translations might be more important.

The comment about translations reminds me of a book I read a few years ago by Brian Moynahan, God's Bestseller: William Tyndale, Thomas More and the Writing of the English Bible.

It is likely the case that translations mattered more in the past. The two words that I remember being important were "church" which had to mean the "Catholic Church" and "charity" which had to mean "giving charity to the Catholic Church" if you didn't want to get into trouble.

There may have been even more red-hot button words, but those are what I remember at the moment.

What I found amazing is that Thomas More actually burnt people at the stake , but that didn't stop him from being canonized by Catholics in the 20th century.

Hmmm. So how does all that fit in with the superior morality of Christianity? Of course, maybe Catholics aren't Christian. I wouldn't know.

[DanielBenoit]

I'm no expert on Bible translations -- but I sort of like the King James. Maybe the translators were divinely inspired (or at least just as divinely inspired as the original authors)! I'm not being anti-intellectual -- I do see the value of scholarship and more "correct" translations. However, I also think that old fashioned English might be more appropriate stylistically than modern English. It emphasizes the age of the text -- I'm sure the source text of the Bible is old fashioned to Greek and Hebrew speakers, too.

I'll grant that for devout Christians "correct" translations might be more important.

Well I would argue very strongly that not only is the KJV a masterful translation, but one of the great pieces of literature in itself. Though that does not mean it is an accurate one. Many of the translators didn't have the manuscripts that we have today and much has been added and taken away. That said, of all of the more "correct" translations I've read parts of, none of them can compare to the KJV in literary value, which is most likely due to William Tyndale, whose translation ended up making up about 85% of the KJV.

Not a place for political discourse. An evil tyrant, no matter who originally was in league...is still an evil tyrant and oppressor.

Well I didn't bring it up. And yes it is good to know the origin of the tyranny in order to prevent more of it. The truth is that the U.S. under its supposed "pro-democracy" stance, really has promoted and installed dictatorships whenever necessary in the name of fighting "communism" and for our own political gain.

You don't crush oppresors by starting wars in the countries they oppress; you don't support them in the first place.

[DanielBenoit]

*Double post sorry*

[IceM]

To respond to the original question:

I've been an atheist for three years and was a devout Catholic for fourteen before, and even when I was a Catholic, I didn't see anything wrong with them. Of course, I'm 17, so for the first 14 years of my life, I just viewed atheism as those looking for God but needing better reasons to pursure him. Now, I'm a little smarter than that.

Is atheism militant? Sure, just in the same way that religion is becoming militant. There is this fear that if one view dominates, the minority will be marginalized and oppressed. My evidence: my years in the Catholic Church. Atheism was preached as an equivalent of satanism, but I knew better. I think it's this fear that continues to drive much of this perception of militantism. Are there militants? Of course, on both sides. However, evidence has shown us that one side is much more willing to incriminate the other of crimes that both are guilty of. Either side can be considered militant because it has such radical members, yet anyone with common sense can tell you a radical sect of a greater whole does not taint the whole.

Perhaps this springs out of ignorance. Not all atheists believe in science, nor do all theists blindly accept the "Word of God" without actual reasoning. It perhaps is this underlying desire to show one's absolute commitment while cloaking underlying doubts that spawns such an absolutist idea. Then again, maybe peer pressure has an effect too. Saying "I'm not sure if God exists" is held with much more contempt than taking a side.

[DanielBenoit]

What I found amazing is that Thomas More actually burnt people at the stake , but that didn't stop him from being canonized by Catholics in the 20th century. :yikes.

That's because he objected to the divorce of Henry VII to Catherine of Aragon; quite a Catholic position.

[The Atheist]

Atheism was preached as an equivalent of satanism, but I knew better.

Still is, in many cases.

I use this name reasonably universally on internet discussion boards and I am frequently asked if I'm a Satanist.

I often answer yes, just to reinforce the absurdity.

[DanielBenoit]

Still is, in many cases.

I use this name reasonably universally on internet discussion boards and I am frequently asked if I'm a Satanist.

I often answer yes, just to reinforce the absurdity.

Well I'm an agnostic so I must believe both God and Satan have their good qualities

[OrphanPip]

I don’t dispute your facts: I dispute your reasoning. Given the example of chimps (which I haven’t read but I’ll take your word for it) why would you infer that the only possible reason for the chimp’s behavior is a “universal biologically determined moral code”? I’ll grant that without some selfless behavior, mammals could not propagate – all female mammal mothers routinely offer scarce resources to their offspring. Nonetheless, I wonder: would a chimp kept in complete isolation from birth exhibit the same behavior? If not, isn’t it likely there is a cultural component to the behavior? Mightn’t it vary from one group of chimps to another? In fact, among many mammals, females raised in isolation lack basic mothering skills -- so even these essential skills are partially culturally constituted (or at least learned from watching experienced mothers).

I don't dispute the fact that culture effects morality, what I dispute is the idea that it is the determining factor. No behavioral phenotypes have direct relationships to the genotype, there is indeed a complex relationship between the genes and the environment. Yet, when we see relatively identical behaviors across disparate cultures the reasonable conclusion is that the genetic influences are powerful, or that the nebulous origin of the cultural influence is very old. Thus, why I would contend most of what we consider to be Christian morals are merely slight reworkings, and often mere meaningless talk, surrounding ideas and impulses that have been around a lot longer.

I'd also like to make it clear that the biological impulses themselves are not sufficient reason to justify the moral prescriptions that arise from them, an is does not make an ought.

[/quote]
The one “universal” moral code sometimes cited for humans is the incest taboo. Freud wrote an entire book about it. Reductionists (like OrphanPip) often cite incest taboos as biologically determined, because they reduce the risk of birth defects. However, based on the best available evidence, this is incorrect. Although incest taboos do (slightly) reduce the risk of birth defects, that appears NOT to be an acceptable explanation for them.

The reason: in many cultures, the incest taboo takes the following form: a person may NOT marry his or her parallel cousin, but MUST marry his or her cross cousin. A parallel cousin is a mother’s sister’s child, or a father’s brother’s child. A cross cousin is a mother’s brother’s child, or a father’s sister’s child. What is going on here? Obviously, the biological disadvantages are identical regardless of which cousin is married.[/quote]

Incest is really only significantly deleterious for siblings and parent-child relations. I would say anyone trying to make that argument doesn't know their biology very well.

Moral codes are obviously manifestations of organized social control, once again it is not that culture doesn't effect how these manifest, but that a biological impulse is at the core of all of them.

Since this form of the incest taboo (often called marriage rules) is so common, it seems there must be some other reason for the rules. For those who have studied these societies, the reason seems clear. Parallel cousins are generally in the same clan. Cross cousins are members of different clans. By marrying between clans, cousins can create economic and political alliances that are almost surely helpful to the children the marriage produces, and almost surely increase the descendant-leaving success of the married couple. Given that the biological closeness of parallel and cross cousins is identical, this cultural, economic and political explanation is far more reasonable than the biological one, which is falsified by the facts.

Yet, those are also biological factors. You see the same behavior amongst prairie dogs, and any number of group living animals. A population is strengthened by regularly out-breeding. Of course, the desire for political and economic control is related to biology as well.

Obviously, “arguments” should be reasoned. But there are ways of arriving at moral precepts other than argument. I offered one: analogical reasoning (in pop-culture-speak this would involve emulating “role models”). The Christian ethos specifically advocates this method, suggesting that believers “emulate Christ” (“What would Jesus do?”).

Those would be very bad ways to reach moral decisions when it comes to organizing a society. What you end with is someone declaring a preference, rather than a reason.

In addition, the fact that “argument from authority” is a “logical fallacy” does not mean that it is never acceptable to accept authority. Why would it? All of us often accept authority – which is why we think the speed of light is C (I don’t know about you, but I’ve never measured it). One good thing about Biblical authority is that it has, at least, stood the test of time. I may not trust Christianity implicitly, but I respect it more than I do Scientology.

No, an argument from authority fallacy is not saying that it is wrong ever to accept authority. It says that it is wrong to say something is right merely because of X authority. It would be fallacious to claim the speed of light is c (should be lower case) merely because physicist say it is. It is c because we are capable of measuring it as so, and having some trust in the accuracy (based on the reasonable knowledge that the scientist present us the how and why of what they say) of the scientist is not claiming that the scientist must always be right.

An argument from authority: Murder is wrong because God says so.

These arguments are weak, because there is no logical reason to accept God's authority as valid. I've already addressed the subjective nature of Bible interpretations as an even bigger problem. Instead of havings appeals to God, we get appeals to one guy's interpretation of what God says. It's quite honestly ridiculously. Just replace God with your neighbour Joe and see if those arguments make sense to you.

The only reason Biblical authority has stood the test of time is because of political structures, I don't even see where it logically follows that time suggest legitimacy or veracity. Though, I'll certainly acknowledge people are more willing to accept older superstitions over newer superstitions. Probably why Muslims claim that the Qu'ran is the original word of God, and thus older, despite actually being newer than the Bible.

[Ecurb]

No, an argument from authority fallacy is not saying that it is wrong ever to accept authority. It says that it is wrong to say something is right merely because of X authority. It would be fallacious to claim the speed of light is c (should be lower case) merely because physicist say it is. It is c because we are capable of measuring it as so, and having some trust in the accuracy (based on the reasonable knowledge that the scientist present us the how and why of what they say) of the scientist is not claiming that the scientist must always be right.

An argument from authority: Murder is wrong because God says so.

These arguments are weak, because there is no logical reason to accept God's authority as valid. I've already addressed the subjective nature of Bible interpretations as an even bigger problem. Instead of havings appeals to God, we get appeals to one guy's interpretation of what God says. It's quite honestly ridiculously. Just replace God with your neighbour Joe and see if those arguments make sense to you.
.

I think I learned once how the speed of light was first measured. However, I've forgotten. Nonetheless, I'm perfectly willing to accept that it is approximately 186,282 miles per second. I also accept that Ty Cobb's lifetime batting average is .367; that Rome wasn't built in a day; and that Pluto is no longer a planet.

In addition, the notion that "there is no logical reason to accept God's authority as valid" is a mere unsupported assertion. I can think of several reasons, of which I'll offer only one: God is a metaphor for something like, "the good of mankind". Of course He doesn't really exist -- but a great deal of human wisdom has been incorporated into religious works and their precepts. In addition, those works and precepts (like the Bible) that have persisted and spread may very well have some value. After all, if they were deleterious to human wellfare, we might suppose that competing creeds would spread in their place. No one individual can reason his way to an ethos as well as the combined wisdom of the centuries embodied in certain religious works, and tested by evolution and time. Therefore is it logical to accept God's authority as valid.

That's only one "logical reason" to accept God's authority -- I could invent a dozen more. Of course you (and I, for that matter) may dispute some of the above premises -- but it's a reasonable and logical argument (I could put it in the terms of formal logic, if I wanted, but why bother.).

[OrphanPip]

By that point though you've already gone beyond the appeal to authority and sought another reason for why the ideas that God apparently embodies are somehow valid. It demonstrates why the appeal to God alone is not sufficient, why the Bible is not a sufficient moral guide within and of itself.

Edit: Your particular example though seems an example of argumentum ad populum.

[Ecurb]

Good grief! Spare me from logical fallacy experts!

Besides, isn't naming the "logical fallacy" of which one's interlocutor is guilty a form of "argument from authority"? OrphanPip is hoist on his own petard! Uh oh! Now I'm hoist on MY own petard! It's a never-ending circle! Let me out! Let me out!

[OrphanPip]

Good grief! Spare me from logical fallacy experts!

Besides, isn't naming the "logical fallacy" of which one's interlocutor is guilty a form of "argument from authority"? OrphanPip is hoist on his own petard! Uh oh! Now I'm hoist on MY own petard! It's a never-ending circle! Let me out! Let me out!

It's in no way an argument from authority, it's merely short hand for what is recognizable as a fallacious argument.

[Ecurb]

Of course it's an "argument from authority". The "authorities" have established the recognized "logical fallacies". Naming the well-known fallacy of which the other person is supposedly guilty is simply calling on the support of those authorities.

(I give up.) Fiat justitia, et ruat mundus, by the way, since we are speaking in Latin.

[OrphanPip]

Of course it's an "argument from authority". The "authorities" have established the recognized "logical fallacies". Naming the well-known fallacy of which the other person is supposedly guilty is simply calling on the support of those authorities.

(I give up.) Fiat justitia, et ruat mundus, by the way, since we are speaking in Latin.

Hardly, the fact that they are logical fallacies is not derived from the authority of those who named them, but that they have been argued and demonstrated as such.

Edit: But sure, let's just leave it at this.