Activist atheism

ecco · Jul 15, 2019

As a followup to my post # 449 I'd like to address your earlier post...
You wrote...

dmap said:
In a nutshell, my concerns are:

The assumption of materialism/physicalism.

That scientific inquiry includes such things as the economic law of supply and demand, for example.

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.

That a spirit being simply can't interact with the physical. Yes it can, there is a way.

That things showing purpose (teleonomy and teleology) in fact, have only the illusion of purpose.

Whether information embedded in physical systems require a non-physical source.

That the universe just is, for no reason.

That any biological systems can arise randomly. It is merely assumed they do.

RE:my concerns are:

4. That a spirit being simply can't interact with the physical. Yes it can, there is a way.

That sure sounds spiritual and religious.

5. That things showing purpose (teleonomy and teleology) in fact, have only the illusion of purpose.

That sure sounds like unsubstantiated opinion.

6. Whether information embedded in physical systems require a non-physical source.

That sure sounds like woo.

7. That the universe just is, for no reason.

That sure sounds like religious, spiritual, woo.

8. That any biological systems can arise randomly. It is merely assumed they do.

That sure sounds like fundamentalist religious woo.

tayla · Jul 15, 2019

Revoltingest said:
I'm struck by the fact that if one selects quotes from a few members of a group, one can paint a picture of any extreme position.

My purpose was to illustrate specifically what the well-known leaders of atheism that I quoted say. I am proposing that these certain ideas are problematic in that they can provide the basis for a future atheistic totalitarian state.

tayla · Jul 15, 2019

Revoltingest said:
Imagine finding prominent religious extremists, & using them to paint all religious activists.

Sorry if I did not make myself clear; I don't wish to imply that every atheist believes what those quoted individuals believe. I intended to focus specifically on the particular ideas and whether those ideas are in some way dangerous to society.

tayla · Jul 15, 2019

Revoltingest said:
It would be better to consider mainstream advocacy from a group. That is where actual power to effect change comes from. So surveys of beliefs would be more meaningful.

Yes, a very insightful suggestion. Still, I don't think it's wrong to focus on the viewpoints of the leaders of the various groups and subgroups.

tayla · Jul 15, 2019

Revoltingest said:
Btw, some of the quotes you list aren't about activism, & are even pretty reasonable.

They all have the common theme of change in the context of society. That's the essential goal of activism, to change (improve?) society.

I agree with all the quotes, by the way.

tayla · Jul 15, 2019

LuisDantas said:
Honest question: why do you expect me to find that at all convincing?

I'm not sure what you think I'm trying to convince you about; I've lost track of the context of this sub-thread, sorry. At your request, I provided a quote supporting an idea.

mikkel_the_dane · Jul 15, 2019

lewisnotmiller said:
I'm an atheist though. So I get a little twitchy when people tell me what atheists are like.
My wife and kids too.

It's no biggie, long as you realise you're talking about a subset...and a pretty small one in my personal opinion.
But if I said 'Christians have radical plans for our society' it might be fair enough if some tap me on the shoulder and said I was overstating.
If I said 'Theists have radical plans for our society' that would be even more true.

Atheists don't have a dogmatically consistent set of beliefs in the way some religious groups do. Just seems weird to be put in a bucket with other atheists.

Nor do religious people. I believe in God and I not even a theist nor believe in revealed religions.

tayla · Jul 15, 2019

LuisDantas said:
As it stands, you are about as convincing as Flat Earthers right now. But putting this much effort at it, you may soon leave them behind.

I doubt you have any idea what I am proposing. I'm sorry the meaning in my OP was too veiled and mysterious. In the future I will strive to have focused OP's with supporting quotes from well-known atheists. Very scholarly and all that.

tayla · Jul 15, 2019

LuisDantas said:
you are about as convincing as Flat Earthers right now.

How can I be as convincing as flat earthers when you don't even know what I am proposing? At least with flat earthers, you know what they believe.

tayla · Jul 15, 2019

LuisDantas said:
And what exactly guides those so very specific exceptions?

People I don't like can be mocked, but no one else.

Perhaps the best policy is to never say anything about someone you wouldn't say to their face. It's easy to insult "them", over there (and I plan to continue doing so if I don't like them). But, of course, it's so much mental work to conjure up a mental image of the real person and to construct a sentence that won't offend them because of its insensitivity.

tayla · Jul 15, 2019

LuisDantas said:
The important part will vary enormously, depending on the goals of the discussion.

Yes, of course. Every idea is important if that is the topic at hand.

ecco · Jul 15, 2019

mikkel_the_dane said:
So what is the point in that I have beliefs, which are wrong? As back to what we have still not finished and indeed tie a lot of these threads together: The idea of better world for us all and how to get there? But we don't seem as humans to be able to agree on either.

So please only with reason, logic and evidence. No right or wrong as connected to good or bad.
And there is where we end.
That I in the formal sense hold beliefs without reason, logic and evidence, only matters to you, if it matters to you, as right, wrong, good and/or bad.
And then we leave science.

That is my point in part. Science has a limit and you are looking at it. It is natural and indeed a fact, that I hold beliefs without reason, logic and evidence. We all do, including you. And yes, religion also has a limit.

I really don't understand what you are trying to get at.

mikkel_the_dane said:
So could we leave the dichotomy of science versus religion and try to do a combination?

No. We cannot try to do a combination of science and religion. One is based on nature, the other is based on the supernatural.

What would a combination of natural and supernatural be? SemiNatural? SortaNatural?

tayla · Jul 15, 2019

LuisDantas said:
find any reason to be troubled by diversity of beliefs and belief stances.

Yes, I often have to remind myself it is OK for someone else to not be me. That's especially true with my dogs who are definitely not me.

tayla · Jul 15, 2019

LuisDantas said:
So have I. And very consistently, the actors where emphatically monotheistic.

Very few people who are not

Please provide names, percentages of the population, and other supporting documentation and quotations when using generalizations; this, to avoid offending others. (I'm merely passing along the requests that others often/sometimes/rarely/usually make of me.)

tayla · Jul 15, 2019

Dan From Smithville said:
I would not say that a person that is trying to persuade someone is an activist, though an activist could try to persuade someone. In my mind an activist for a cause would tend to view that cause in absolute terms and not in a very open-minded style.

Interesting perspective. I suppose more study of this topic is warranted. I would guess there are many differing views about this, as there are with most topics. Often/sometimes/occasionally/rarely/usually people talk past each other arguing when they are merely using the terms differently.

tayla · Jul 15, 2019

Dan From Smithville said:
However, you have hit on one of the most important points of any interaction between people in a free society. Persuasive arguments are practically the only means to try and sway another person. Not only the points, but the quality of the argument can also have a positive or negative impact. Even where claims are made that cannot be objectively supported, the demeanor and sincerity of the person offering the argument can win the trust of the listener or lose it. This would be true if you have all the objective evidence that can be brought to bear.

The way I look at it, we can try to persuade people and if that fails, there is not much else to do, except evaluate your arguments, revise them, try to find holes or determine if it is valid to argue the point in the first place and continue on.

Very good perspective and advice. Thank you.

I guess I'm also concerned about what scoundrels may do in a not-so-free society. Seems the supporters of the current president of a certain country might want to use their guns someday to gain supporters of their cause.

tayla · Jul 15, 2019

Dan From Smithville said:
I do find that most of the fundamentalist, Evangelical Christians that I encounter on the internet are what I would call zealots and I would say that it is a prevalent behavior in that group.

The friends and family of mine in that category are nice people, but just look at how they vote to discover their true danger.

mikkel_the_dane · Jul 15, 2019

ecco said:
I really don't understand what you are trying to get at.

No. We cannot try to do a combination of science and religion. One is based on nature, the other is based on the supernatural.

What would a combination of natural and supernatural be? SemiNatural? SortaNatural?

Okay, the world/the universe/everything/reality is natural!

The problem is not that it is natural. It is that it is over-reductive. It reduces to much. It is not that it is simple, it is to simple.

Just like objective reality is to simple or that everything is form God. Both are to simple.

Indeed that I have wrong beliefs, is to simple. How? Because it is a fact, that I have them. So how can I have wrong beliefs in natural world? The moment you answer that without explaining it away as wrong beliefs, you leave the natural as the single factor in your model. I don't demand of you to become religious.
I am asking of you in the how it is relevant that I have wrong beliefs?
And the moment you explain that without explain it away as irrelevant then you leave a one factor model of either nature OR not nature.
I get you! You want good!!! You want good for as many people as possible, right?
You won't in effect by continuing this dichotomy of right or wrong. It is not that simple! It is to simple.

tayla · Jul 15, 2019

Dan From Smithville said:
Dawkins has some strong opinions regarding his views. I am not sure if they represent hatred, but they are definitely express a strong dislike of organized religion. While he has every right to express his views, I am more interested in his defense of science and I have often thought that his personal views about religion have made his support of science more difficult. He is an excellent teacher and his lectures on evolution are very inclusive and understandable.

I agree with everything he says except his insistence of materialism/physicalism and ideas springing from that. I don't mind his boldness, it makes it easy to understand what he is saying.

However, as the OP indicates, I have some concerns. Sadly, I neglected to document this with quotations so I should expect people to object as they have. I will be more scholarly in future threads now that I know how people respond to undocumented generalizations.

PruePhillip · Jul 15, 2019

ecco said:
Are you upset that executives and board members of private corporations have a right to discontinue allowing bigots to represent their products?
Attacked how?
It's interesting that you consider bigotry to be a religious freedom.

Voltaire wasn't the author of this quote but he was the most famous person to
use it, "I might not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your
right to say it."
Political Correctness is an intense form of bigotry. Its adherents have every
right to their views, but no right whatsoever to stop anyone else's point of
view.
Example, the bigotry which says you can't "culturally appropriate" another
culture's clothing. The bigotry which says I demand you call me by whatever
sexual pronoun I chose. The bigotry which says I find your speech "triggering"
and therefore you can't be in my presence. The bigotry which defines the works
of Plato, Aristotle, Bach, Beethoven and Shakespeare to be nothing more than
'dead white male privilege.'
Aand so on, so forth.

Activist atheism

Veteran Member

My dog's name is Tayla

My dog's name is Tayla

My dog's name is Tayla

My dog's name is Tayla

My dog's name is Tayla

My own religion

My dog's name is Tayla

My dog's name is Tayla

My dog's name is Tayla

My dog's name is Tayla

Veteran Member

My dog's name is Tayla

My dog's name is Tayla

My dog's name is Tayla

My dog's name is Tayla

My dog's name is Tayla

My own religion

My dog's name is Tayla

Well-Known Member