The new Athiest Humanities downfall?

[F1fan]

My mind found all the proof I need. What remains is the written word, it is the standard we can obtain to, in one post to me, things that can unite the world, you reflected what Baha'u'llah had offered is needed.

That to me is proof.

Objectively it's quite weak. So your position rests on a very low standard that isn't sufficient for more objective and critical thinkers. In debate the standard tends to be pressured higher and higher.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Number 3, 4, 11, and 12 are blatant misrepresentation

Thanks for the feed back, I will read them again.

Ok went back had a read. The way I see the list is not as a whole, but each as indicator.

Thus any one of the list may be used in an individual case.

I have definitely seen them used in this fashion, only in words, but strong tones were used. So for #3 take away "A militant agenda", in the physical sense, this has been offered on RF in tone.

#4 is in many RF topics.

#11 Also used on RF, seen it said had it offered to me.

#12 Well not so clear cut but many comments on RF have support this. The banning of religious activities in many aspects of society show how it unfolds. Many tangents would need to be considered.

Regards Tony

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

First of all, I just realized that I actually didn't answer your question in the last reply, so will just do that here first:

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

You are correct that science doesn't answer moral questions, for instance we can use science to create an atom bomb which we can use to blow each other up, but science doesn't have a stance on whether that is morally right or wrong.


There are limitation whenever we have a lack of evidence, which means that the critical thought process will be less reliable and we might have to make use of less certain ideas or experiences to help make us make a decision.

So for instance, lets imagine a hostage situation and the negotiator is working with an unstable person, the negotiator have very limited knowledge about this person, but might have former experience from dealing with similar situations which might be useful or it might not. So the negotiator will be able to use critical thinking only with limited effect trying to figure out which approach might end in the best possible result.

But in cases where evidence is present, making use of critical thinking is highly useful. For instance, lets say that you are given the option to walk over a metal plate and can see fire underneath it, which you know will make it burn you. Clearly using the evidence or knowledge of fire and metal, will make you choose not to do it.

So using your wife as example, to the best of my knowledge, she will also use critical thinking to determine which approach is best in a given situation, should she lean on the religious stuff? or is it better with the other approach. But critical thinking about this as also stated above, doesn't say anything about whether this is moral right decision or not.

But we can use critical thinking when it comes to morality to judge and examine each others arguments. For instance, a person might argue that people of a specific skin color is worse humans than others are. But by using critical thinking, we can evaluate their argument. Which is also why I said that critical thinking might in fact be necessary in order to do moral evaluations in the first place, because it gives us a method or approach to do this.

Okay, you have your beliefs and I have mine and yes, I am an atheist.
Here is some science.
Princeton - News - Brain imaging study sheds light on moral decision-making

 

[Sheldon]

I do not see that faith is based in ignorance. I see faith is based in sound and logical reasoning, which should be used in all aspects of life.

Regards Tony

Sorry but if theistic belief is based on sound logical reasoning, why do so many theists make irrational claims and arguments so often, by using known common logical fallacies? I often see people use logic like this, purely as rhetoric or to try and lend some gravitas, but so many of them so often invoke known logical fallacies, often after they've been explained, that I find the claim dubious.

 

[Vinayaka]

Big old engines can injure ya.
I've visited the hospital many times.
Eventually, I wised up. I'm safer now.

I've never been injured myself, but as a kid, I lost a beloved uncle and a close friend of my father's, both in combine accidents. One was a scarf caught in an auger, and the other was a hydraulics failure when he was under the pickup greasing it. My brother had a steel chain go flying past his head while trying to move a large rock out of the field.

Yes, tread carefully around that stuff.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Objectively it's quite weak. So your position rests on a very low standard that isn't sufficient for more objective and critical thinkers. In debate the standard tends to be pressured higher and higher.

Who is it that determines the standard is high or low?

The standard I quoted may be the level that all can aspire to and would not the higher standard support itself, stand on its own merits?

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

Sorry but if theistic belief is based on sound logical reasoning, why do so many theists make irrational claims and arguments so often, by using known common logical fallacies? I often see people use logic like this, purely as rhetoric or to try and lend some gravitas, but so many of them so often invoke known logical fallacies, often after they've been explained, that I find the claim dubious.

Some folks don't understand what logic is. Simple as that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Who is it that determines the standard is high or low?

The standard I quoted may be the level that all can aspire to and would not the higher standard support itself, stand on its own merits?

Regards Tony

Well, in practice the given individual. You seem to have one standard and I have another.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Sorry but if theistic belief is based on sound logical reasoning, why do so many theists make irrational claims and arguments so often, by using known common logical fallacies? I often see people use logic like this, purely as rhetoric or to try and lend some gravitas, but so many of them so often invoke known logical fallacies, often after they've been explained, that I find the claim dubious.

#2, 6, 7 & 9

Regards Tony

 

[F1fan]

It's their drive to be intellectual superior to theists that is colored with selfish pride, that makes them unattractive. It comes out with their irrational ways of talking to theists rudely.

No doubt it SEEMS this way since atheists do approach the subject of religion from an intellectual and reasoned approach. Theists do not. Theists can't respond to intellectual criticisms because they don't approach it that way. That's not a fault of non-theists, it's just the dilemma for theists.

Let's contrast your post above by pointing out how theists assume a spiritual superiority over atheists, yet often behave in a way that makes us doubt there is any such superiority at all. Theists need to be careful because they trap themselves in a framework of assumed virtue and can often expose hypocrisy quite easily.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Well, in practice the given individual. You seem to have one standard and I have another.

We would definitely see it with a different frame of reference.

But if the standard is to eliminate the extremes of both excessive wealth and extreme poverty, then all that is needed is the details we can all can contribute to.

Regards Tony

 

[Daniel Nicholson]

All four of them are uneducated in religions, sociology of religion, and humanities. So they make up a lot of rhetorical, unfounded polemics and it pleases the crowd. It sells books. And some worship them and get angry like they are prophets of their own God.

Its a belief system. A faith.

Watch one Hitchens or Harris debate on YouTube and come back and say they are uneducated in religion.
The absence of a belief in God is not a belief system or a faith.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Reflection is wonderful thing

And the scariest.

Regards Tony

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We would definitely see it with a different frame of reference.

But if the standard is to eliminate the extremes of both excessive wealth and extreme poverty, then all that is needed is the details we can all can contribute to.

Regards Tony

So we went from your religious beliefs to a general political belief. Well, I agree with your political belief, but I don't agree with your religious belief.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Watch one Hitchens or Harris debate on YouTube and come back and say they are uneducated in religion.
The absence of a belief in God is not a belief system or a faith.

No, but they seem to claim more than that.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

So we went from your religious beliefs to a general political belief. Well, I agree with your political belief, but I don't agree with your religious belief.

That is a teaching of Baha’u’llah, it is my faith based belief that God said this needs to be done.

It is the same as all the list you gave me. They have been offered already in the Baha'i Writings.

In the end that does not matter, the elimination of extreme wealth and poverty does.

Another is a universal connection through a common language.

The Arts are also very important

Regards Tony

 

[Sheldon]

I think it's more of an issue of atheists being able to articulate problems with religion and belief in the modern age, and theists not really able to respond in an equally successful way.

Oh oh, where's my tin hat?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I do not see that faith is based in ignorance. I see faith is based in sound and logical reasoning, which should be used in all aspects of life.

Regards Tony

And of course there we disagree, but I see no need to argue about it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Oh oh, where's my tin hat?

Well, yes, but not all religious people are old school theists. I know that this pains you, That would make your life much easier.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Militant atheism is a real thing. I don't know about the criteria you mentioned. It's not my kind of atheism.

It's like a fundamentalist anti religious extremist pursuit.

I think some of militant atheism is reflected on RF.

My atheism is different. I actually have a strong desire to find a real God. My conviction is something I cannot help but see; there's probably no God.

However I'm strongly spiritual minded, and have devout religiosity. I don't see much of value in Abrahamic religions such as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Some of those stories have value, but most of it is mythological, and dogmatic gobbledygook. I was raised with the poisons of religion, and had to fight my way out of it.

As an atheist, I'm down to my last straw with there being a God. If there is a God, the only way to know God is personally without the shackles of past religion. Perhaps God would be more into truth realization, moreso than being worshipped all the time. Perhaps God is into personal responsibility moreso than obedient faith for some kind of transformation. Perhaps God isn't omniscient.

When I talk to religious folks I'm more interested in the meaning they get out of their religion. I stick to the truth seeking aspect of it. I am friendly toward Abrahamic people, not so friendly to the religions though.

That is a great post. Thank you for those thoughts.

Regards Tony