Activist atheism

[Audie]

You are referring to my sentence:

Often my interactions with atheists has been limited to them saying, "prove it"​

Why is this so shocking? it's a fact. I wish these same atheists were not so one dimensional in their thinking.

Here's a claim I make: some varieties of atheism are based on the assumption of materialism/physicalism. Why should we accept that assumption? How can things such as ideas be material?

Prove what? "Prove it" is the only sensible response
to some claims.

Such as yours about your "experiences".

IF btw there were no physical component to ideas,
than they could not very well be detected, could they?

 

[ecco]

This is funny. You are asking me to prove that people say "prove it". You have revealed yourself to be one of "them", one of the "prove it" people.

You obviously do not understand the difference between someone saying "prove it" and someone asking for evidence to support their assertions.

That's a big thing with fundies. They like to say Evilution ain't proved therefore it's wrong.

I have yet to see an atheist ask a fundie to "prove" god. That is not the same as asking the fundie to provide evidence for his God.

 

[ecco]

Yes, they are right to have such concerns. I have such concerns also.

But just as fundamental evangelical Christians have a stranglehold on our culture, society, and government, I worry that in the future, some well meaning activist atheists will create an atheistic totalitarian state, thinking this is justified because their views are correct.

So, you are of the prepper mentality. OK.

 

[ChristineM]

He's a 6.9 out of 7 atheist. Maybe he at times calls himself agnostic. He is certainly not a theist if that's what you are proposing.

It is not for you to judge another. He considers himself agnostic because he cannot be sure if a god exists or not

Why would i propose he is theist?

 

[night912]

Yes, I agree. Non-atheists do the same thing. I'm not defending them.

This kind of argument reminds me of my 8 year old grandson; if he sets a bowl full of milk on the edge of the counter and someone bumps into it knocking it to the ground, he says, "I didn't do it, I didn't touch it last" and he won't on his own clean it up. Atheists should be willing to consider the effects their words and actions can have on others, including on society in general. If they are too arrogant, we might end up with an atheistic totalitarian state someday, and they will think that is a good thing.

People should consider how their words may effect others, whether it's good or bad. But we shouldn't take their freedom of speech away from them. Anyone has the right to say, don't say, believe, don't believe, etc whatever they like. What determines whether or not we should have laws and/or restrictions against it, are the actions of individuals. This keeping in mind that their "actions" may also include what they say, and this, in my opinion, is the hardest part when government make laws.

 

[ChristineM]

I don't object to any of the quotes I presented. I am concerned when a group of people (atheists) take away the rights of parents over their children, and the rights of other members of society based on their philosophical viewpoints. Just declaring that truth should prevail is not a good reason; this can easily become atheistic totalitarianism in the future.

So you object to freedom of will unless its your own will and the will if your group who gladly impose their religion on their children and gladly proselytise based on their philosophical viewpoints. This objection sounds very hypocritical

 

[tayla]

I wont expect to ever see an actual example

I assume I have offended you in some way and I am truly sorry. I hope you will someday soon forgive and forget and we can again dialog constructively about the various topics. I am trying to be more careful how I say things so I don't offend people.

 

[ChristineM]

Why do you assume I love religion because I have concerns about the effects of atheism? I consider revealed religions and revealed spiritual paths to be untrustworthy sources of truth and knowledge. I worry when a group of people wishes to impose their views on society; this is how a future atheistic totalitarian state can come to be.

This is why I think the tone of the debate between atheists and others is so important. They can lose by winning. Just look at the current political situation in the US; the winners have lost, and they have lost for us all, dragging us all along with them. These activist atheists I refer to have the capability of doing the same kind of thing.

I said "and the religious dont" not "and you dont"

You concerns so far seem to rotate around religion having rights that you deny atheists,

Atheists do not in general want to impose their Atheism on anyone, they will counter attack when religion attempts to impose their belief.

I am not interested in the strawman of american politics, it is irrelevant to atheism. Why? Because generally and until recently completely, Atheists are barred for US office.

 

[Jim]

But just as fundamental evangelical Christians have a stranglehold on our culture, society, and government, I worry that in the future, some well meaning activist atheists will create an atheistic totalitarian state, thinking this is justified because their views are correct.

It might serve your purposes better if you would say “I worry that in the future, some well meaning people who see religion as nothing but a social illness will create an an anti-religious totalitarian state, thinking this is justified because their views are correct. That has already happened in many countries and is still happening in a few. I see this as something for atheists to be concerned about because some of those people are calling themselves atheists.

 

[ChristineM]

Yes, I agree. Non-atheists do the same thing. I'm not defending them.

This kind of argument reminds me of my 8 year old grandson; if he sets a bowl full of milk on the edge of the counter and someone bumps into it knocking it to the ground, he says, "I didn't do it, I didn't touch it last" and he won't on his own clean it up. Atheists should be willing to consider the effects their words and actions can have on others, including on society in general. If they are too arrogant, we might end up with an atheistic totalitarian state someday, and they will think that is a good thing.

In the same way the religious should be aware of the damage they do and oh look, several thousand years of religious totalitarian states to our credit.

 

[ChristineM]

How am I being hypocritical? I am not religious. I reject religion; it is a lie and a scam.

You are comparing one with the other, willing accepting actions from one while vehemently rejecting those same actions from the other.

 

[tayla]

PM me with your questions, if they are actually sensible i will supply what answers i can as i am sure any other atheist on RF would.

Thank you. Perhaps I will create threads about them when I get through my backlog of posts to reply to.

In a nutshell, my concerns are:

1. The assumption of materialism/physicalism.
2. That scientific inquiry includes such things as the economic law of supply and demand, for example.
3. That the subjective experience of consciousness is merely an illusion, or merely the process and functioning of the neural network of the brain, or merely an emergent property.
4. That a spirit being simply can't interact with the physical. Yes it can, there is a way.
5. That things showing purpose (teleonomy and teleology) in fact, have only the illusion of purpose.
6. Whether information embedded in physical systems require a non-physical source.
7. That the universe just is, for no reason.
8. That any biological systems can arise randomly. It is merely assumed they do.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Are you sure you meant to address that comment to me?

If so, I will be more than glad to address it.

If some non-religious humans use emotions and feelings, then please base that in only reason, logic and evidence. It connects to the thread "God did it". No human can do everyday life only using reason, logic and evidence.
Further look here:
Why do people think that electrons in atoms are tiny beads flying in circles around the nucleus?

Since I can't wish you a good life, I wish that you don't have one. I am sincere, I wish you a good life.

 

[tayla]

Terrif. Now, apply same to all the "hate" you claim to find. A little grace, dontyaknow

Yes, I will endeavor to be polite and respectful in all my posts.

What should be my response when others do not do likewise?

 

[tayla]

If you don't like it, don't attend atheist seminars and conferences.

I don't attend them. I listen to them. I am studying ideas and viewpoints.

I hope you are not saying that people mocking each others' ideas and laughing at them is a good thing?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Thank you. Perhaps I will create threads about them when I get through my backlog of posts to reply to.

In a nutshell, my concerns are:

1. The assumption of materialism/physicalism.
2. That scientific inquiry includes such things as the economic law of supply and demand, for example.
3. That the subjective experience of consciousness is merely an illusion, or merely the process and functioning of the neural network of the brain, or merely an emergent property.
4. That a spirit being simply can't interact with the physical. Yes it can, there is a way.
5. That things showing purpose (teleonomy and teleology) in fact, have only the illusion of purpose.
6. Whether information embedded in physical systems require a non-physical source.
7. That the universe just is, for no reason.
8. That any biological systems can arise randomly. It is merely assumed they do.

Do you want that in everyday terms:
2 nursing assistants are talking and the one says: "I am busy, I have things to do". Then the thing in the bed says: "Am I a thing?"
In practice that is a result of #1 and #2. Humans are no longer humans. They are consumers, customers, clients and things.

 

[tayla]

On the other hand, have you ever tuned in to TV Evangelists who railed against the evil atheists who are controlled by Satan? You're OK with that - right?

Why do assume I find that OK? I reject revealed religions and revealed spiritual paths as trustworthy sources of truth and knowledge. And I especially find fundamentalist evangelical Christianity to be cult-like and dangerous -- just look at the effect it is having on the US political system.

 

[tayla]

As compared to people being burned at the stake when religious people exposed them as being witches.

Yes, I prefer laughing and mocking to burning at the stake. But better yet is -- no disrespect of others and their views.

 

[Jim]

Power... Interesting topic. I dont concern myself with it i focus on the why in the brain rather than the the manifestation in the landscape.

That might appear to be not caring. A bit like a good doctor does not get lost in the patients words, but is listening for breathing as the patient speaks. A patient creates an air tight reality no breathing. Not unlike politics today or, exactly like politics today.

A good doctor might try to find some way to get the patient breathing again.

 

[Audie]

I assume I have offended you in some way and I am truly sorry. I hope you will someday soon forgive and forget and we can again dialog constructively about the various topics. I am trying to be more careful how I say things so I don't offend people.

I am not offended.