The new Athiest Humanities downfall?

[PureX]

I think you are quite incorrect about this. There are two ways to formulate the question that we are trying to be "logical" about:

1. Is there a God?
2. Is there any pursuasive evidence for a deity active in the world, modifying outcomes based on prayer, misdeeds, and so forth?

1. The second point is a specific religious depiction of God. Debating religious depictions of God is not debating the existence of God. And it's a religious debate, not a theological debate. The actual question of the existence of God is unknowable. And any debate that follows will have to be based on something other than knowledge (desire, subjective function, etc.). Or left to stand as it is (agnostic).

 

[PureX]

For the average believer religion isn't intellectual, it is just a conceptual framework they adopt from their social experience. It's all quite passive.

That they CHOOSE to adopt ... because they can choose to reject it. And many do. How consciously or "intellectually" they debate this choice within themselves is also their choice, and their responsibility. The key, however. remains that it is a choice. Religions don't make anyone believe anything. Neither does social or political propaganda. All any of these forces can ever do is massage and support ideals and biases that we already hold. They cannot make us believe anything. Why atheists keep trying to push this idea that religions brainwash people is puzzling given the fact that the atheist themselves are proof that it isn't happening.

Actually society determines what a person will think about God. This is why religion is largely a geographical phenomenon.

This is false. Religions are not a geographical phenomenon. They are subcultures of their own and are no more tied to geography than any other culture is.

You make a lot of broad claims here that would be great as separate threads.

Religion is not theology? Great question.

Is atheism an aspect of religion? Good question.

Can atheists defend their rejection of religion/theology by using their objections to religion? Good question.

I see no reason to eject these issues from this thread as they are all fundamental aspects of the culture of "atheism" in a social/debate context.

 

[PureX]

I deny that theology is even a valid area of study. It is NOT about "the study of any deity," it is, rather, the study of what people think about deities. It would be better if it were called theismology. I put it into the same category as demonology, because there are no demons to study -- only what people have conjured up in their fertile imaginations concerning demons. It would be like trying to establish a branch of science called "dragonology," to study the various fire-breathing species of flying reptiles -- which is impossible because there are none.

So atheism is not "an aspect of theology," it is rather the denial that theology is even a valid study.

You aren't doing atheism any favors, here. First, your argument is entirely semantic. And second, ignoring the question is not a logical response to a question. It's just willful ignorance. And finally, if ignoring the question really is the atheist's response, why don't they ever shut up about it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I deny that theology is even a valid area of study. It is NOT about "the study of any deity," it is, rather, the study of what people think about deities. It would be better if it were called theismology. I put it into the same category as demonology, because there are no demons to study -- only what people have conjured up in their fertile imaginations concerning demons. It would be like trying to establish a branch of science called "dragonology," to study the various fire-breathing species of flying reptiles -- which is impossible because there are none.

So atheism is not "an aspect of theology," it is rather the denial that theology is even a valid study.

How first person of you.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If it’s true everything would still look the same. In the adventure of an experiential world we are supposed to be living in a mystery. It’s all hidden for a reason.

You may suppose that if you wish. But if you don't know WHAT the reason is, you don't know THAT THERE IS a reason.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Do you carry the label 'Atheist' on your shoulder with you everywhere you go? Don't you ever put it down and leave it at the door of the Cathedral or Temple, just for the time that you are in there? After all, when you enter a Mosque, it is customary to first remove one's shoes (you can put them on again, when you leave).

I always behave with the utmost respect in every cathedral or temple I visit. If the custom is to remove shoes, off they come. If there is worship happening, I remain silent.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

1. The second point is a specific religious depiction of God. Debating religious depictions of God is not debating the existence of God. And it's a religious debate, not a theological debate. The actual question of the existence of God is unknowable. And any debate that follows will have to be based on something other than knowledge (desire, subjective function, etc.). Or left to stand as it is (agnostic).

Really, you're far too rigid. I don't know what gravity is actually, but I know how it behaves -- and that permits me to use it to my advantage, or ignore it to my disadvantage.

The same with gods, magical creatures, wizards and warlocks, unicorns and banshees. As they have no impact of any kind upon the world (except through story-telling), they can all be quite safely ignored.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You may suppose that if you wish. But if you don't know WHAT the reason is, you don't know THAT THERE IS a reason.

Correct, there is no observable reason for the meaning of life. That goes for us all. Reason only exists as meaningful in the mind.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You aren't doing atheism any favors, here. First, your argument is entirely semantic. And second, ignoring the question is not a logical response to a question. It's just willful ignorance. And finally, if ignoring the question really is the atheist's response, why don't they ever shut up about it?

Because the religious don't shut up about it, and keep insisting on blathering on about their beliefs all over the place -- including in devising the laws in which the whole of the public must operate. It wasn't all that long ago where I live that nobody could shop on Sunday (never mind that not everybody shares that Sabbath), and all tables in bars had to be clear of intoxicating drinks by midnight sharp on Saturday night. Oh, and I was a criminal for loving who I did. Those were the devices of the religious, foist upon me.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Really, you're far too rigid. I don't know what gravity is actually, but I know how it behaves -- and that permits me to use it to my advantage, or ignore it to my disadvantage.

The same with gods, magical creatures, wizards and warlocks, unicorns and banshees. As they have no impact of any kind upon the world (except through story-telling), they can all be quite safely ignored.

So they do have an impact and that you subjectively choose to ignore that, they have usages, are on you. It is observable that they have an impact beyond story-telling.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Because the religious don't shut up about it, and keep insisting on blathering on about their beliefs all over the place -- including in devising the laws in which the whole of the public must operate.

Yeah, that is how laws for behaviour work. They are cultural products and you can't observe the reason for them. You either believe in them or not.
Now we all have opinions about laws and behaviour, including you and I. But that has nothing to do with evidence and all that. That is again cultural, psychological and all that. And that also applies to us as atheists.
Edit: For the bold that depends on culture and how you understand religion.

 

[PureX]

Since there are no true premises that can support a reasoned conclusion that any gods exist, how can any rational person end up believing any god exists?

There are many premises that can support the possibility that God(s) exists. And those we can debate.

Note that there are other reasons why humans believe in irrational or non-rational ideas, but we are talking about how a believer in god can conclude a god exists without there being any true premises.

Humans can "believe" (conclude) whatever they choose, mostly because they can't know for certain what is true. How can an atheist conclude that there is no god without there being any true premise? And yet they do.

That "something else" still needs to be real. the social sciences identify emotions and the reward system as this real phenomenon. Can you accept that religious belief is driven by the good feelings it provides some human brains?

No, I accept that religious belief is driven by a whole array of phenomena only one of which is the "good feelings" it creates in the human brain. I actually think those good feelings are far less significant a motive than the very real benefits that come with the psychology of faith.

Most atheists seem to lack this need for emotional security and reward. This gives them the freedom to examine religious concepts objectively.

Most atheists have no practical idea why theists are theists. They stop short of ever really investigating it because they are finding their own rewards in their bias against theism.

 

[Sheldon]

Yes, revelations throughout the ages mention them.

Revelation is a claim, not evidence, unless it's experienced first hand it has no more credibility that any other bare claim. If there is anything to experience of course, as that has yet to be established in any objective way.

 

[PureX]

Really, you're far too rigid. I don't know what gravity is actually, but I know how it behaves -- and that permits me to use it to my advantage, or ignore it to my disadvantage.

The same with gods, magical creatures, wizards and warlocks, unicorns and banshees. As they have no impact of any kind upon the world (except through story-telling), they can all be quite safely ignored.

The problem is that you really want to debate the religious depictions because those you can defeat (in your own mind) using material facts. But when the discussion sticks to the actual question of God's possible nature and existence, you have no "ammo" because materialism doesn't function in that arena of debate. Too bad for you. All ready to fight the evil theists, and no bullets. So you have to go fight with the mythical religious imagery, instead.

 

[Sheldon]

There are many premises that can support the possibility that God(s) exists.

I'm very dubious as I've never seen a rational argument, however I also don't accept that one can argue something into existence. So I'm guessing we are on a very different page there as well.

 

[Sheldon]

How can an atheist conclude that there is no god without there being any true premise? And yet they do.

No they don't, some do, many do not, as you must know by now.

 

[Colt]

You may suppose that if you wish. But if you don't know WHAT the reason is, you don't know THAT THERE IS a reason.

We do know what the reason is, God is spirit, God is truth, he is our Father, we are his children. God is raising us in an experiential environment so that we can grow in truth and spiritual perception.

agondonters, evolutionary will creatures who can believe without seeing, persevere when isolated, and triumph over insuperable difficulties even when alone.

If Jesus appeared to you today and had coffee with you for 30 minutes and then left, you would still be left to live on this world in faith. The apostles who spent 3 years with Jesus watching the drama unfold lost their faith in him about 5 minutes after he died! Then came the resurrection, ascension and outpouring of the spirit of truth. They still needed spiritual guidance going forward, many of them to terrible death!

 

[PureX]

I'm very dubious as I've never seen a rational argument, however I also don't accept that one can argue something into existence. So I'm guessing we are on a very different page there as well.

What you think constitutes "existence" is very narrow compared to most humans. So I'm not surprised by this comment.

 

[Sheldon]

Most atheists have no practical idea why theists are theists. They stop short of ever really investigating it because they are finding their own rewards in their bias against theism.

If only theists dedicated some time and thought to explaining their beliefs and why they are real. Oh, wait a minute? I have no bias against theism, I treat their claims exactly as I treat all other claims, why would I not.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm very dubious as I've never seen a rational argument, however I also don't accept that one can argue something into existence. So I'm guessing we are on a very different page there as well.

Yeah, well, you can argue a subjective belief into existence and then act on it.