The new Athiest Humanities downfall?

[mikkel_the_dane]

I might come close to that, apart from one word in #3. That's the word "know". My version might be something like...

3*. I accept the thesis that the universe is natural (in a very broad sense that includes not only physical fields but also things like logic, mathematics and the 'laws of physics') as an explanatory hypothesis, not as something that I actually know.

But yes, I agree that quite a few of our RF atheists seem to be metaphysical naturalists in the way you describe.

Well, I do it even more "loosely". I accept that it works for me to consider the universe as for it different levels as connected yet with different meanings for physical, logic/math, social and individual. There is even more, but that is a short dirty version.
Because to me I am in the universe and I am a part of the universe since I physically is made out of the universe.
I more and more do natural as what it means to be a human for our different experiences and how they apparently are connected in one sense and also different in other senses.

 

[lukethethird]

Except upon further reading many elements of the list are misrepresenting atheists. The first sign of trouble is typically enough to expect more trouble to follow when theists try to explain what an atheist is. Theists notoriously assume atheists are wrong ONLY because theists assume they are correct in their religious beliefs. This is a huge error of judgment and understanding.

Look at the response to TGMs post. Sure he was being judgmental, but that is justified given the long history of theists making untrue claims.

The funny thing is how theists are quick to pile on the condemnation EVEN THOUGH he is correct in his judgment about the list. The list is HIGHLY problematic and incorrect. It is incorrect from the first item. Actually, from the first sentence.

"A commitment to explicit, strong or dogmatic atheism as the only rational
choice for modern, independent, free thinking individuals."

Which of the new atheists actually stated this? In truth any assessment of religion that recognizes it lacks evidence IS adequately rational. There is no requirement for dogmatic atheism.

The title of the thread was my first clue.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The title of the thread was my first clue.

Yeah, but you properly consider this correct as with evidence and rationality.

There is no evidence for any religion.
Therefore it is irrational to believe in one.

 

[Yazata]

Continuing on with ideas that Mikkel's post sparked in my mind...

Well, here it is problem as I see it.
At least one atheist and agnostic on this site will claim the following.

1. I lack a belief in gods.

There's an ambiguity there. It could mean

1a. I lack belief in the existence of gods

Most atheists wear this on their sleeves. Just about all of them would embrace it. So would agnostics.

1b. I lack belief in the existence of any sort of 'supernatural' realities, whether personified or not'. That might include any sort of existent not detectable in our space-time-matter universe by the means of natural science.

This is widespread too, but perhaps not quite as universal among both atheists and agnostics.

But... your number 1 might arguably also imply these additional permutations as well:

1c. I lack belief in the non-existence of gods

I think that most atheists would disagree with this one even if they don't admit it. They believe strongly in the non-existence of gods but don't want to admit it because they fear that it would place a burden of proof on them. They love leveling their 'Where's the evidence?? challenge at others, but don't want it reflected back at them.

Agnostics might be more accepting of it, though there's probably lots of skepticism about the particular personified deities depicted in the various scriptures there too.

And...

1d. I lack belief in the non-existence of any sort of 'supernatural realities' not detectable in our space-time-matter universe by the means of physical science.

This is the one where atheists and agnostics are most clearly distinguished.

I think that many if not most (but not all) self-styled atheists wouldn't want to agree with this one either, though again they might be reluctant to admit that disagreement since they know that they would have problems defending it. Metaphysical naturalism seems to be implicit in a great deal of what many atheists say.

Agnostics would happily accept it and agree that they have no way of knowing about hypothetical realities like that, that exceed our powers of knowing. That one is more or less definitive of what agnosticism is.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Continuing on with ideas that Mikkel's post sparked in my mind...


There's an ambiguity there. It could mean

1a. I lack belief in the existence of gods

Most atheists wear this on their sleeves. Just about all of them would embrace it. So would agnostics.

1b. I lack belief in the existence of any sort of 'supernatural' realities, whether personified or not'. That might include any sort of existent not detectable in our space-time-matter universe by the means of natural science.

This is widespread too, but perhaps not quite as universal among both atheists and agnostics.

But... your number 1 might arguably also imply these additional permutations as well:

1c. I lack belief in the non-existence of gods

I think that most atheists would disagree with this one even if they don't admit it. They believe strongly in the non-existence of gods but don't want to admit it because they fear that it would place a burden of proof on them. They love leveling their 'Where's the evidence?? challenge at others, but don't want it reflected back at them.

Agnostics might be more accepting of it, though there's probably lots of skepticism about the particular personified deities depicted in the various scriptures there too.

And...

1d. I lack belief in the non-existence of any sort of 'supernatural realities' not detectable in our space-time-matter universe by the means of physical science.

This is the one where atheists and agnostics are most clearly distinguished.

I think that many if not most (but not all) self-styled atheists wouldn't want to agree with this one either, though again they might be reluctant to admit that disagreement since they know that they would have problems defending it. Metaphysical naturalism seems to be implicit in a great deal of what many atheists say.

Agnostics would happily accept it and agree that they have no way of knowing about hypothetical realities like that, that exceed our powers of knowing. That one is more or less definitive of what agnosticism is.

Well, that is a good written post.

Well, as I would put it I am trying to remove any beyond the observable universe positive and negative claims, because I don't know.
Rather I would stated it like this: I trust the universe to be epistemologically fair. But what objective reality is in itself I know nothing about (Kant as das Ding an sich).

In other words I am not a metaphysical solipsist, but rather a methodological solipsist and skeptic, which believe that the universe is real. Well, to me, but what it really is, I don't know. But I do believe we are both real.

 

[Sheldon]

Actually, I see the theists doing this as their depiction of God evolves, or more properly, evaporates. Look at how many theists now describe God in vague terms like the source of everything. One poster essentially described a placebo god, one that gave him psychological comfort, but about which he claims to know nothing except to call it God.

Ah yes, the old god is the universe polemic, or god is energy, or god is love. These are deepities.

 

[F1fan]

Correct.



Not correct. Because I understand that there still people who believe and unless you want to claim that religion is not actually a part of the world as such, then it is not contrary to how the world works when it comes to religion.

I wasn't referring to the fact that there are theists and they still believe in various supernatural concepts. I was referring to WHAT they believe as not being consistent with what we understand of reality, namely that no supernatural phenomenon is known to exist.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I wasn't referring to the fact that there are theists and they still believe in various supernatural concepts. I was referring to WHAT they believe as not being consistent with what we understand of reality, namely that no supernatural phenomenon is known to exist.

Yeah, but it is consistent with how the world works. You are aware that I knowingly are playing with 2 different cognitive version of consistent.
We are doing this game.
There are people who in fact claim contradictions.
They shouldn't do that.

The first is a fact.
The second is a variation of an ought, but those are neither with evidence nor rationality.

I am a critical thinker and skeptic and if you have solved the is-ought problem, just tell us. If not, then check when you are doing facts and when you are claiming an ought.
That has nothing to do with religion or not.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It becomes a strawman once you attribute it to people who wouldn't at all agree to it. Like Dawkins. And the vast majority of atheists on this forum. In fact, I know of only one who'ld identify as a "gnostic atheist".

Well it was not aimed at any one, aspects of the list are used on RF, the total list would reflect a mindset, that if it was a movement, the question asked would it be the downfall of humanity.

So if you see the list has no content that any athiest would use, then that is great.

But personally I see it would be very ignorant to dismiss the list without comparing it against replies given on RF.

If one does aspects of the list stand out, others do not, they would be mostly one off replies. I have had a Militant reply from an RF poster, but I do not know if that poster would be Militant in real life.

The key to this OP is how will we find unity?

Thus people that push books against God, books such as the OP has quoted and have brought about the term New Athiest, will not aid in us funding that unity. Likewise Faith can not be pushed in to those that do not want it.

I know I can live with people that see life as an athiest, but to do this we must find a balance with core values and morals to build a united humanity.

Regards Tony

 

[Revoltingest]

I know I can live with people that see life as an athiest, but to do this we must find a balance with core values and morals to build a united humanity.

I observe that believers must find the same thing between each
other....not just with atheists. The faithful are a diverse bunch, eh.

There is 1 thing that so many of us all have in common....rejecting
other people's gods.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I observe that believers must find the same thing between each
others....not just with atheists. The faithful are a diverse bunch, eh.

There is 1 thing that so many of us all have in common....rejecting
other people's gods.

Well, that has nothing to do with gods in the end. It has to do with value systems. E.g. I reject this in its totality.
"...
Definitions
Atheism is the comprehensive world view of persons who are free from theism and have freed themselves of supernatural beliefs altogether. It is predicated on ancient Greek Materialism.

Atheism involves the mental attitude that unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.

Materialism declares that the cosmos is devoid of immanent conscious purpose; that it is governed by its own inherent, immutable, and impersonal laws; that there is no supernatural interference in human life; that humankind, finding the resources within themselves, can and must create their own destiny. It teaches that we must prize our life on earth and strive always to improve it. It holds that human beings are capable of creating a social system based on reason and justice. Materialism’s ‘faith’ is in humankind and their ability to transform the world culture by their own efforts. This is a commitment that is, in its very essence, life-asserting. It considers the struggle for progress as a moral obligation that is impossible without noble ideas that inspire us to bold, creative works. Materialism holds that our potential for good and more fulfilling cultural development is, for all practical purposes, unlimited."
Our Vision

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, that has nothing to do with gods...

Different gods & different religions have led
to major hostilities & deaths.

 

[Sheldon]

The title of the thread was my first clue.

The fact that both links were both a Bahá'í perspective, on "new" atheism said it all. What other kind of perspective did anyone expect religions to hold on outspoken atheists, who have the temerity to write books and enter debates, that subject theistic beliefs to critical scrutiny, bless.

I mean the blind intolerance and aggression of new atheists like Dawkins...writing books for god's sake, and entering rational discourse in debates! The absolute horror... Countless theists must have lost their...cool?...over this unconscionable behaviour...I mean what next, those atheists will want an equal say, if this nonsense isn't nipped in the bud.

Hyperbole overload....

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Different gods & different religions have led
to major hostilities & deaths.

Yeah. a historical count of reasons for wars show about 7% being due to religion. So yeah, if that is major to you, I accept that. And then we disagree as usual.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The fact that both links were both a Bahá'í perspective, on "new" atheism said it all. What other kind of perspective did anyone expect religions to hold on outspoken atheists, who have the temerity to write books and enter debates, that subject theistic beliefs to critical scrutiny, bless.

Well, there are some points I can agree with even as an atheist.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Actually, I see the theists doing this as their depiction of God evolves, or more properly, evaporates. Look at how many theists now describe God in vague terms like the source of everything. One poster essentially described a placebo god, one that gave him psychological comfort, but about which he claims to know nothing except to call it God.

That is a sound thought, as it is also based in scripture.

We are told any conception we have of God would be just a vain imagination, God is beyond all we can comprehend.

The rest is another topic, as God is also beyond what science can find. So it will always come back to how did we find out about all we currently know of God?

Regards Tony

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah. a historical count of reasons for wars show about 7% being due to religion. So yeah, if that is major to you, I accept that. And then we disagree as usual.

I'm skeptical of your 7% figure.
But violence is more diverse than just wars, eg, terrorism,
assaults, murder, bombings, arson, assassinations.

 

[lukethethird]

I observe that believers must find the same thing between each
other....not just with atheists. The faithful are a diverse bunch, eh.

There is 1 thing that so many of us all have in common....rejecting
other people's gods.

That reminds me of an Ingersoll quote:

Do you not know that every religion in the world has declared every other religion a fraud? Yes, we all know it. That is the time all religions tell the truth - each of the other.

Atheists just go one religion further than the believers.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

The evaporation of religion is to be expected. It's natural, and will occur without any prodding. I see the religious phase of human history to be the time between when man first developed linguistic skills sufficient to wonder about and discuss nature, which they could only conceive of in terms of a conscious agency running the show that needed propitiation and demanded obedience, until he found his answers, none of which required supernaturalism. This is what is squeezing religion and the god of the gaps out, not an active or deliberate effort to convert the religious to atheism.

This is also contained in scripture for all to see. The world reflects this also in cycles. Everything has a cycle, even religion. The 4 season of religions are also spring, summer, autumn and then winter sets in.

Currently the world has just entered spring after a long dark and cold winter. So the opposite will happen. The light of God will penetrate our minds again in the coming decades and there is a wonderful summer on its way.

Regards Tony

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm skeptical of your 7% figure.
But violence is more diverse than just wars, eg, terrorism,
assaults, murder, bombings, arson, assassinations.

Yeah, the dear bumblebee. I know how to do it.
“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.”
That is proper science and it can't be doubted, because then you are evil.