Human Rights

Laika said:

They will behave like flat earthers and creationists who will consistently deny any relationship between communism and atheism even if presented with evidence to support that view because they will assert "they" can only be the judge of whether a relationship exists.

Click to expand...

All of the atheists I know are atheists because we place a high value on evidence and we're skeptical of dogma. You don't have to hold those values to be an atheist, but most of us do.

The communist leaders were big on dogma. That's a crucial difference.

I suppose that if you're obsessed with using the term "atheist" to describe the communists, then we ought to have two terms that indicate the crucial differences between the communist atheists and today's atheists. Maybe we should just call today's atheists "modern atheists"? I'm not married to any particular terms, but the distinction is crucial.

I've heard some atheist suggest that we call ourselves "critical thinkers", but of course (and understandably), many theists find that offensive.

As our friend Confucius says, we ought to use proper labels for things.

Tmac said:

But that's the point, they weren't the first.

Click to expand...

Who cares? The point is that in 2017, they are!

I suppose that historical research might provide some insight that might help us solve today's problems, but historical finger pointing and "two wrongs" arguments do nothing to help today's situation.

icehorse said:

All of the atheists I know are atheists because we place a high value on evidence and we're skeptical of dogma. You don't have to hold those values to be an atheist, but most of us do.

The communist leaders were big on dogma. That's a crucial difference.

I suppose that if you're obsessed with using the term "atheist" to describe the communists, then we ought to have two terms that indicate the crucial differences between the communist atheists and today's atheists. Maybe we should just call today's atheists "modern atheists"? I'm not married to any particular terms, but the distinction is crucial.

I've heard some atheist suggest that we call ourselves "critical thinkers", but of course (and understandably), many theists find that offensive.

As our friend Confucius says, we ought to use proper labels for things.

Click to expand...

Most atheists I know who say they are anti-dogma aren't, in practice. Rather they are dogmatically anti-religion with the central axiom that a society without religion is a fairer, more principled society, without any evidence that this is true. That the we would all be better off without religion. Some atheists just took the next couple steps and tried to build societies where religions weren't allowed.

blü 2 said:

You're right ─ I didn't understand the question.

What in your case did 'being yourself' entail that you weren't already doing, specifically?

What stopped you from doing it?

Where does 'human rights' come in?

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I'm use to communicating with people who say, is this what you mean or is this what you are saying, not people who say I don't understand, I don't even understand what it is that I don't understand so I'm going to ask a bunch of question that actually have no relevance to the post that you don't understand.

icehorse said:

Who cares? The point is that in 2017, they are!

I suppose that historical research might provide some insight that might help us solve today's problems, but historical finger pointing and "two wrongs" arguments do nothing to help today's situation.

Click to expand...

No, not even today, our parents and the conditions into which we are born get the first crack. You are focusing on the results of the phenomena, we were already veterans of abuse by the time religions got their shot.

ADigitalArtist said:

Some atheists just took the next couple steps and tried to build societies where religions weren't allowed.

Click to expand...

They were dogmatists first.

icehorse said:

They were dogmatists first.

Click to expand...

That's special pleading.

Tmac said:

No, not even today, our parents and the conditions into which we are born get the first crack. You are focusing on the results of the phenomena, we were already veterans of abuse by the time religions got their shot.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand your point here. But I would agree that the folks who are alive today were born into this old cycle. But the first step in breaking the cycle is to admit that the cycle is unhealthy.

ADigitalArtist said:

That's special pleading.

Click to expand...

I'm attempting to correct a mis-characterization. We shouldn't base an argument on a bad foundation.

icehorse said:

I'm attempting to correct a mis-characterization. We shouldn't base an argument on a bad foundation.

Click to expand...

Less of a correction, more of an assertion, and not a well substantiated one.

icehorse said:

All of the atheists I know are atheists because we place a high value on evidence and we're skeptical of dogma. You don't have to hold those values to be an atheist, but most of us do.

Click to expand...

The difference between myself and yourself as atheists is more than likely that I am much more sceptical of scepticism. I'm open to the possibility that faith and dogma play a role because we don't possess perfect knowledge. In so far as reason is potentially limiting I use the flat-earth/creationism metaphor to explain that the sense of "what is possible" is much bigger. There aren't many examples I could use and it doesn't necessarily mean that my view is "better", only different.

At some level, my atheism is a "faith" and takes of the role of being a "religion" in governing my every day decisions (especially moral ones) but that is a minority view. I couldn't prove it is "better" but simply trying to make people aware that such a difference exists and getting acceptance for it is a start.

icehorse said:

The communist leaders were big on dogma. That's a crucial difference.

I suppose that if you're obsessed with using the term "atheist" to describe the communists, then we ought to have two terms that indicate the crucial differences between the communist atheists and today's atheists. Maybe we should just call today's atheists "modern atheists"? I'm not married to any particular terms, but the distinction is crucial.

I've heard some atheist suggest that we call ourselves "critical thinkers", but of course (and understandably), many theists find that offensive.

As our friend Confucius says, we ought to use proper labels for things.

Click to expand...

I have no issue with that. It would save the "new atheists" from being equated with Stalin, Mao, etc and getting huge amounts of abuse from religious people for being "evil" or nihilistic. It has nothing to do with them and they want nothing to do with it. that's fine.

But speaking as an "old atheist" (in the Feuerbach, Marx, Nietzsche tradition) all I really want is the "new atheists" to stop making it impossible for me to express my "faith" that there is no god and practice my "religion" that man has to organise his own affairs without a deity or working out systematic belief to explain why god cannot possibly exist.

I am a nihilistic, social darwinist/communist sympathiser who believes a materialist dogma based on godless faith in humanity that acts as a religious worldview affecting my decisions. That's my atheism but not yours. It would help if people recognised that there is more than one possible way to be an atheist. It would save much confusion at least.

icehorse said:

I'm not sure I understand your point here. But I would agree that the folks who are alive today were born into this old cycle. But the first step in breaking the cycle is to admit that the cycle is unhealthy.

Click to expand...

I don't know about unhealthy but it certainly violates our right to chose objectively. I don't think blaming this or that will break the cycle either.

ADigitalArtist said:

Most atheists I know who say they are anti-dogma aren't, in practice. Rather they are dogmatically anti-religion with the central axiom that a society without religion is a fairer, more principled society, without any evidence that this is true. That the we would all be better off without religion.

Click to expand...

Also that 'science and reason' automatically leads to modern Secular Humanism.

"Rationalist athiests" are among the most closed minded people in my experience. As Michael Oakeshott noted: Rationalists find it 'difficult to believe that anyone who can think honestly and clearly will think differently from himself'.

ADigitalArtist said:

ome atheists just took the next couple steps and tried to build societies where religions weren't allowed.

Click to expand...

When you label religion as child abuse, it's the 'rational' next step. TBH if you genuinely think religion is child abuse (Dawkins in The God Delusion posits as a thought that being raised Catholic may be worse than mild sexual abuse) you would be grossly immoral not to advocate for it to be banned.

Laika said:

The difference between myself and yourself as atheists is more than likely that I am much more sceptical of scepticism.

Click to expand...

If anything deserves the be compared to a dogmatic religious faith, the salvation narrative of Reason is certainly up there:

The fact that rational humanity shows no sign of ever arriving only makes humanists cling more fervently to the conviction that humankind will someday be redeemed from unreason. Like believers in flying saucers, they interpret the non-event as confirming their faith... Science is a solvent of illusion, and among the illusions it dissolves are those of humanism. Human knowledge increases, while human irrationality stays the same. Scientific inquiry may be an embodiment of reason, but what such inquiry demonstrates is that humans are not rational animals. The fact that humanists refuse to accept the demonstration only confirms its truth.

John Gray, The Silence of Animals: On Progress and Other Modern Myths

sayak83 said:

Society can (and in many cases does) expand our "rights" beyond what would have been possible without it. In fact, there is no right to life in nature outside of society. Ask tigers.

Click to expand...

I tried to start with human rights at 'natural level' (zilch) but it seems that it was lost on the OP.

Tmac said:

The thought seems to be too hard for you to take seriously.

Click to expand...

Oh, it's serious altright.

Concepts about Human Rights have to begin somewhere, and ground-zero for human rights starts with Nature.

You have no rights in connection with the abilities or disabilities that you will be born with. That is ground zero.

Now, if you want to build upon that, why, fair enough, but no matter what, your physical and mental attributes are more or less fixed ................

So why not build a first foundation for human rights based upon levelling the field slightly about the above?

...... just askin'.....

Tmac said:

I'm sorry, I'm use to communicating with people who say, is this what you mean or is this what you are saying, not people who say I don't understand, I don't even understand what it is that I don't understand so I'm going to ask a bunch of question that actually have no relevance to the post that you don't understand.

Click to expand...

Interesting,

You can't tell me what you're talking about.

When it comes to vague phrases like 'being oneself', that's an old problem, of course.

Augustus said:

If anything deserves the be compared to a dogmatic religious faith, the salvation narrative of Reason is certainly up there:

The fact that rational humanity shows no sign of ever arriving only makes humanists cling more fervently to the conviction that humankind will someday be redeemed from unreason. Like believers in flying saucers, they interpret the non-event as confirming their faith... Science is a solvent of illusion, and among the illusions it dissolves are those of humanism. Human knowledge increases, while human irrationality stays the same. Scientific inquiry may be an embodiment of reason, but what such inquiry demonstrates is that humans are not rational animals. The fact that humanists refuse to accept the demonstration only confirms its truth.

John Gray, The Silence of Animals: On Progress and Other Modern Myths

Click to expand...

Daniel Kahneman won a Nobel Prize in economic sciences. You could argue that he knows more about bias than anyone in the world. He has acknowledged that he himself is still prone to fall into bias traps.

So what to do? Throw in the towel? I think not. I think that the best we can do is try to be honest about our own biases and move forward. That's hardly a reason to abandon critical thinking.

It certainly seems that if we don't learn to think more rationally, we're doomed.

I think human rights is very broad. Its not just about religion. Its about whats right and whats wrong, and what we believe should be normal, and what is not normal. The thing about today is what we believe is normal is actually not normal. We are so expressive about what we believe that some of us over express ourselves and it leads to actions that are very wrong, and very abnormal, and can lead to devastating issues. Like marriage between a man and a woman. Not just from a religious perspective but from a natural perspective. It looks better and it makes sense that a man and a woman can love each other, raise a family. Its part of the natural order of things. And because we have so many rights, what we thought was wrong, is now legal, and that wrong thing has blown up out of proportion and ruined the natural order of normal. And now when we explain how we feel about this abnormal/unnormal lifestyle it makes us look like the bad guy, a racist, a homophobe. I can care less what your sexual orientation is this is america.

But don't tell me how to act, and how I should like, or love, or express. I don't need anyone explaining what is wrong from right. And don't impose your abnormal thoughts on me. Just leave people alone, and enough of the BS.

Thank you.

icehorse said:

Daniel Kahneman won a Nobel Prize in economic sciences. You could argue that he knows more about bias than anyone in the world. He has acknowledged that he himself is still prone to fall into bias traps.

Click to expand...

Everyone does because we didn't evolve to be rational.

Anyway, this is more to do with an ideological belief held in opposition to all available evidence rather than cognitive heuristics and biases (although some of these could be used to explain why they are so irrational in their ideological outlook).

icehorse said:

So what to do? Throw in the towel? I think not. I think that the best we can do is try to be honest about our own biases and move forward. That's hardly a reason to abandon critical thinking.

Click to expand...

Try to improve society in a way that accepts our flaws as being incurable.

icehorse said:

It certainly seems that if we don't learn to think more rationally, we're doomed.

Click to expand...

Who says the solution has to lie in rationality? You don't get any extra credit for doing good things purely for 'rational' reasons.