• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

New Atheists?

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
We are incapable of seeing the world as it is, we need to create some form of meaning for events that renders them more comprehensible to us. This is necessary for socialisation, culture, learning, ethics, laws, rights, self-esteem, etc.

Many atheists think that abandoning religion and adopting a rationalistic worldview means they "see the world as it is", but they are simply replacing what system of religious myth for another system of secular myth (ideology).

I'm not even sure what "seeing the world as it is" would entail given we are a bunch of atoms that sentient by chance and live in a purposeless universe which will eventually kill us all off and leave no trace. We have altruism and violence as part of our nature, can cooperate or exploit, be empathetic or cruel, etc.

But our base nature is not a basis for civilisation, that requires creating mutual bonds that bind us together yet don't really exist (like religions, or ideologies).

We have our own sense of identity and value that tells us what kind of behaviours are 'good' or 'bad', yet 'good' for us is 'bad' for others and vice versa.

Secular Humanism as a value system is no more "true" than Buddhism or Islam, it's just different and justified by different myths.

We all rely on these myths/fictions/narratives to mediate the world we live in and try to shape (parts of) it to our ends.
Rarely do I use this meme, but.... ^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^

Well put. Exactly what I'm driving at. "But it's not faith, it's not a religion, it's not a worldview..." It all is.

I've shared this story countless times, but for those who haven't heard it, it underscores this. A friend from Bible college days and I were out at lunch years after our graduating together. We were both now atheists. He said to me, "I'm so glad I have the truth now!". I said to him, "I remember both of us saying those exact same words when were were in school believing what we did back then." He paused a bit dumbfounded and then replied, "But the difference is, now I really DO have the truth".

When we are looking out through our eyes, we generally don't recognize that they are actually eyes we are looking through. We mistake the eyes seeing the world, as what the world actually is, as if there were no eyes at all. Willard Sellers calls this the Myth of the Given, I believe. Wilfrid Sellars (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
 
Last edited:

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Perhaps you should consider moving your post to the Scientism on Wikipedia thread, because repeated use of the words “the sciences” in this manner looks exactly like an incantation normally associated with religious ritual.

You were aiming for irony right? If so kudos, as the way the mere mention of science in any context, has you repeating your scientism mantra, definitely made that ridiculous claim an irony overload.
JYrZOW4.jpg
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
we also know there is more to reality than we perceive via experience and observation of that which we can perceive.

Sorry, lost me again, we perceive our perception can't perceive things properly? I'm seeing a paradox again.



I'd be quite careful of using the term 'reality' in this context.

The natural sciences are the best tool we have to better understand many aspects of the world we live in, sure.

Well I recognise there are claims that reality encompasses things like claims for religious experience, but I can't offer any opinion, as I have had no such experience, and those that claim to have seem to arrive had very different conclusions, and cannot demonstrate much beyond the claim itself to support it. However when I say reality, take it as a given I'm talking about the natural physical world and universe.

Hopefully they enable us to understand enough to be useful, even when not strictly 'true' or even explicitly wrong (like Newtonian physics).

One of science's greatest strengths is the ability to correct errors in line with new evidence, so we have every reason to hope it will remain useful, and relevant.

You can't understand disease well without understanding germs and viruses, but it's only quite recently we have been looking for these.

There are still countless areas where we are living in the equivalent of the "pre-germ theory" world.

Well of course, since science is not an infallible method, just a toolkit we keep adding to, there is no reason to believe it can't, or even won't, be improved as we learn more as well.
 
Sorry, lost me again, we perceive our perception can't perceive things properly? I'm seeing a paradox again.

Why would that be a paradox? Might want to retire that word now you've said it properly ;)

What we can perceive may tell us there are things we can't perceive.

Even a small child can intuitively work out that animals perceive things we don't, and thus we know there are many things beyond our perception.

Well I recognise there are claims that reality encompasses things like claims for religious experience, but I can't offer any opinion, as I have had no such experience, and those that claim to have seem to arrive had very different conclusions, and cannot demonstrate much beyond the claim itself to support it. However when I say reality, take it as a given I'm talking about the natural physical world and universe.

So am I.

I'm talking about reality in the natural/scientific sense, nothing to do with religion or the supernatural.

We are not 'neutrally' observing and measuring reality though, but interpreting limited data and information using a range of technical, conceptual and theoretical frameworks that we hope map on to reality sufficiently to be useful.

Just like out vision and hearing is limited, in the sciences, we don't take into account things we are ignorant of and are thus not looking for.

The sciences can help 'expand' our senses, but they are still not showing us reality, just a more detailed, yet incomplete, snapshot of a much larger dataset that we only understand in a limited manner.


One of science's greatest strengths is the ability to correct errors in line with new evidence, so we have every reason to hope it will remain useful, and relevant.

Well of course, since science is not an infallible method, just a toolkit we keep adding to, there is no reason to believe it can't, or even won't, be improved as we learn more as well.

Methods and understanding will improve, sure. But still won't give us "reality".

This is especially true in the social sciences as we often have to invent things in order to measure them (intelligence, happiness, etc.), but also in the natural sciences due to our limited understanding and limited technologies and methodologies.

In general it's better to think of them as (hopefully) helping us better understand aspects of the world we live in than thinking they show us "reality".
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
If i choose not to perceive there's a rock
in my sandal there wont be. Or perhaps its s lizard


If it feels like a stone in your shoe, you can assign a very high probability to it being exactly that. No need to complicate matters unnecessarily.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
They both use well-established arguments.

Never heard that one (and I've been doing this a while). Could you explain what it is? Thanks.

Again, I suspect that you are either making this up or have misunderstood someone's argument.

There is certainly an argument that an atheist's "good deeds" are more meaningful/"good" than a religionist's because they have nothing to gain from it. The only benefit is to the recipient. The religionist, on the other hand, has the threat of punishment and the promise of reward as motivation.
That doesn't mean that atheists are "more good", only that if an atheist does a good deed the motivation is probably less selfish that the religionist's.

Just (what seems like) a few years ago, most atheists would tell me good and evil are nonexistent abstractions.

Here, you've taken the argument that doing a deed with nothing to gain is better (or less selfish as you put it) than Christian behavior. Perhaps! Perhaps the Christian is seeking to honor their Creator and the atheist seeks to honor themselves only, but you are making a metaphysical intangible judgment of relative goodness. How is that possible?
 

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
Just (what seems like) a few years ago, most atheists would tell me good and evil are nonexistent abstractions.
I asked you to explain that, not simply repeat the original claim.

Here, you've taken the argument that doing a deed with nothing to gain is better (or less selfish as you put it) than Christian behavior. Perhaps! Perhaps the Christian is seeking to honor their Creator and the atheist seeks to honor themselves only, but you are making a metaphysical intangible judgment of relative goodness. How is that possible?
Hardly intangible metaphysics.
A helps others because the others need help.
B helps others because B will be rewarded if they do, or punished if they don't.
B's position is based on self-interest, A's is based on helping others.
Hardly rocket science.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
[QUOTE="KWED, post: 7520426, member: 73255A helps others because the others need help.
B helps others because B will be rewarded if they do, or punished if they don't.
B's position is based on self-interest, A's is based on helping others.
Hardly rocket science.[/QUOTE]I think there is some truth to this.

However, I also think a lot of Christians also do 'good' for it''s own sake, just as anyone else might.
 

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
I think there is some truth to this.

However, I also think a lot of Christians also do 'good' for it''s own sake, just as anyone else might.
They might do. The problem is there is no way of knowing.
Perhaps religionists could pray to their god to not include particular good deeds in their account for heaven.
I wonder if the same principle could apply to bad deeds as well?
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
If men of science stopped talking and listened.

You are ....a.....human..first.

Science...a...chosen...

Human practice belief.

Human first is not science.

Plain fact of human life.

If only you would stop talking theist.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
I asked you to explain that, not simply repeat the original claim.

Hardly intangible metaphysics.
A helps others because the others need help.
B helps others because B will be rewarded if they do, or punished if they don't.
B's position is based on self-interest, A's is based on helping others.
Hardly rocket science.

Again, born agains help other people because they love God--I only very rarely think in terms of punishment or blessing, just like a adult, not a child, pleases a parent or spouse because of love and care, not "they'll get me if I don't".

PS. Your moral code is backward--I'm good because I did something I'm not obligated to do... whereas Christ points out "When you make a feast, don't invite just friends, invite the homeless, the lost . . . "
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Have you learned anything yet?

Yes, quite a bit about the habits, beliefs, and
thought processes of Christians of divers sorts,
and fervent religionists of other faiths as well.

In the USA most encounters with Christians
were with " campus crusade", types, who I
quickly learned to avoid.

Looking puzzled then speaking Cantonese was a good way to deal with people trying to
missionary me.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
They might do. The problem is there is no way of knowing.
Perhaps religionists could pray to their god to not include particular good deeds in their account for heaven.
I wonder if the same principle could apply to bad deeds as well?
Who needs to know?

Also, most people feel good when they believe they've done something good. So it's not like it's only the 'heaven bound' that are being self-serving. The reason good is good is because it's good for everyone.
 
Top