Having criticized atheism, now it’s time to defend it against strawmen

by Guest Sun Feb 15, 2015 4:24 pm

It’s one thing to say, as I did yesterday, that atheists need to embrace a philosophy of self-reflection and self-policing that religions sometimes lack. But it’s another kettle of fish entirely to use the Chapel Hill murders as an opportunity to take a bunch of potshots at atheists that appear to be rooted in a resentment that has little to do with legitimate concerns about fanaticism, which is what Christian writer Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig did at the New Republic, using this murder to grind the hell out of an anti-atheist ax.

Led by luminaries such as the late Christopher Hitchens and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, New Atheism takes as its core creed a species of Enlightenment liberalism that exalts reason and free inquiry, without bothering to define reason or to explain what is worthy of inquiry, and why. For a school of thought that presents itself as intellectually robust, it is philosophically bankrupt and evidently blind to its similarities to the religions it derides.

I enjoy that she used one of the favorite denunciations that religious people lob at atheists: Oh yeah, well, you’re so bad you might as well be a religion! Since people who do this are trying to defend religion, it’s odd that they consider it an insult to equate something with religion. It’s a tacit admission that religion is silly and irrational or, to quote Bruenig, “philosophically bankrupt”. And sure, religious apologies do seem philosophically bankrupt to me, based more on wishing and hoping than on rational argumentation. But she baldly states that new atheism refuses to define its terms or ask what is worth inquiring, an accusation that is baldly false. Of course they do both, all the time. The God Delusion spends a huge hunk of its time laying out both why he thinks there is no god and why he thinks the question matters. You can disagree, I guess, but you can’t say Dawkins refuses to answer the questions.

Instead she says it’s just a bunch of white guys:

Because it is more critical of religion than introspective about its own moral commitments, it assumes there is broad agreement about what constitutes decency, common sense, and reason. Yet in doing so, New Atheism tends to simply baptize the opinions of young, educated white men as the obviously rational approach to complicated socio-political problems. Thus prejudice in its own ranks goes unnoticed.

She backs this up with statistics showing that it’s a lot of white guys. Which is true and no doubt a problem, but not for the reasons she thinks.
Look, if you have a problem with white men demanding you take their opinions as fact on the basis of authority—which is an understandable problem to have and one I share—start by hating on Christianity, which is basically that, but for 2,000 years. And believe me, there is a white guy mansplaining problem within the atheist ranks, as well. We are definitely not running short on dudes issuing dudely opinions on shit they do not understand and do not care to learn about because of their mistaken belief that they know all they need to know to be the authority on the subject. This is, indeed, the source of much racism and sexism in atheism—though even our worst offenders can’t hold a candle to the people who think all their dumb prejudices come into them straight from the Lord Above.

But you know what? While Richard Dawkins may speak out of his ass at times about race and gender, when it comes to atheism, it’s simply and demonstrably false that he is just issuing decrees he expects you to take on faith. If you bother to read The God Delusion, you’ll find that it’s a persuasive, well-thought-out argument that does not, in fact, assume very much. Here’s some excerpts, if you’re so inclined. And some more. Dawkins can be a thoughtless dick on the internet,* but when he writes books, he actually puts time and care into his arguments. Bruenig is right that Dawkins puts forward a bunch of prejudices as if they were fact—about Muslims and about women primarily—but on the subject of whether or not any gods exist, nope. On that subject, he has thorough and often insurmountably strong arguments.

I believe that atheists need to be self-policing about our own tendencies to engage in tribalism and excuse bigotries that come from “our” people. But, on the flip side, I am going to stand up against attempts to demonize and discredit atheism itself because some people in it are assholes. Fuck, that’s true of anything. I realize that it must be tempting as all get-out to use this murder in an attempt to discredit a movement because it threatens religious hegemony, much in the way that it’s tempting for the Bill Mahers of the world to use Muslim terrorism as a weapon to attack Muslims generally. But it’s intellectually dishonest. If the arguments in favor of atheism upset you, explain why they’re wrong. If you can’t do that, that’s your problem.
In sum, it’s one thing to call on atheists to police ourselves and to watch for rhetorical excesses that could lead to fanaticism. It’s another thing entirely to use this as an excuse to indulge the fantasy that atheists are taking their beliefs on faith just as much as religious people are. When it comes to the god question, that is demonstrably false.

*Let’s face it. All of us can be.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/having-criticized-atheism-now-its-time-to-defend-it-against-strawmen/

by Guest Sun Feb 15, 2015 5:42 pm

in general atheists are no better than what they decry

they are certainly no more "peaceable"
they are certainly no more "agreeable"

only...instead of screaming in your ear that "my god is best"

they scream (just as loudly and insitantly) "no god is best"....

by Guest Sun Feb 15, 2015 5:46 pm

darknessss wrote:in general atheists are no better than what they decry

they are certainly no more "peaceable"
they are certainly no more "agreeable"

only...instead of screaming in your ear that "my god is best"

they scream (just as loudly and insitantly) "no god is best"....

Really show me the atheist doctrine that states I have to follow anything?
I think you will find and look at another thread on here on atheist, which shows they as a group are far more tolerable than religious people. So every level you are equating atheists who are not bound by man made myths to make up their own minds through rational reasoning to people who take their views off something they cannot prove exists.
That is a no brainer on your part.
You certainly understand little about atheists.

Enjoy buddy, catch you tomorrow

by stardesk Sun Feb 15, 2015 9:14 pm

Well said, Brasidas...

by veya_victaous Sun Feb 15, 2015 9:19 pm

I found the biggest issue with atheists is close mindedness to non-abrahamic religions. A lot of atheist seem to treat it as Abrahamic god or nothing.
As opposed to infinite possibilities.

And also they still define the divine within the parameters of 'perfection' when that is only a requirement of the Abrahamic god.

Also although many atheists base their world view on science most don't necessarily understand that there is a whole host on undefined variables we are still looking for.
Take branes theory, it implies a massive force of energy holding the dimension with in the membrane. We have not even the slightest idea what/how this energy exists.

there is still plenty of scope for 'gods' within what we don't know. not the Abraham god or any defined deity but I see no reason why Gravity cant be called a god. It may as well be.
Similarly with stars. it simply depends on where you draw the line. about what is and isn't a god.

by Guest Sun Feb 15, 2015 9:20 pm

Hilarious.
So to Veya the biggest problem from atheists is they are not open to no evidence to a religion?
Is that what you are saying Veya?

by Guest Sun Feb 15, 2015 9:21 pm

there is no "doctrine" thats the point...just like govt to day...nowhere for the "buck" to stop...
a sort of collective "plausible deniabilty"

just like a certain religion

and yet the "leading lights" go on TV and are insufferably smug and exceedingly rude....
just like certain religious groups and sects

the atheists are NOT the shining example of tolerance and inclusivity they espouse to be....

those who choose to shout about it I have found just as objectionable as ANY fundie from ANY religion

by Guest Sun Feb 15, 2015 9:22 pm

Tell me what is different to the non Abrahamic faiths that I should be open minded about something that has no evidence that only relies on faith?
Are you having a bubble bath?

by Guest Sun Feb 15, 2015 9:24 pm

Brasidas wrote:Hilarious.
So to Veya the biggest problem from atheists is they are not open to no evidence to a religion?
Is that what you are saying Veya?

i doubt it...but i know what he means

lets face it an awful lot of the "hairy fringes " of physics requires a religious type of faith to even consider......

and thats not me saying it...

I dont, I must admit, remember who it was that made the point , but the cutting edge of physics has gone full circle from hard "physics" to philosophy ......(which it once was)

by Guest Sun Feb 15, 2015 9:26 pm

Brasidas wrote:Tell me what is different to the non Abrahamic faiths that I should be open minded about something that has no evidence that only relies on faith?
Are you having a bubble bath?

do you beleive in dark matter?

why?

it has no physical manifestation

it only exists atm as a "fiddle factor" in one particular mathematical descrition of the universe

it is by no means certain that this particular mathematical description is correct

...faith?

in what?

by veya_victaous Sun Feb 15, 2015 9:27 pm

Brasidas wrote:Tell me what is different to the non Abrahamic faiths that I should be open minded about something that has no evidence that only relies on faith?
Are you having a bubble bath?

can you be sure there is no soul?
there is no evidence there is not

what makes the difference between a cluster of molecules that is a speck of dust and the same set of molecules yet it is a bacteria?
what is the the cause of difference.
why dies 'life' dissipate from cells? where does that energy go?

by veya_victaous Sun Feb 15, 2015 9:30 pm

darknessss wrote:
Brasidas wrote:Tell me what is different to the non Abrahamic faiths that I should be open minded about something that has no evidence that only relies on faith?
Are you having a bubble bath?

do you beleive in dark matter?

why?

it has no physical manifestation

it only exists atm as a "fiddle factor" in one particular mathematical descrition of the universe

it is by no means certain that this particular mathematical description is correct

...faith?

in what?

Exactly and dark matter is just one of dozen of example is physic where the is a missing variable
Science actually admits there is something beyond what we our senses are allowing us to perceive
And we have actually found and made machines to allow us to perceive dozens of others variables beyond our senses. i.e gamma rays, x-rays, electromagnetism, Gravity etc.

by Guest Sun Feb 15, 2015 9:32 pm

unfortunately Veya.....it is both practically and philosophically IMPOSSIBLE to prove the non existance of anything.
whereas it is of course relatively easy to prove the existance of something (usually)

by Guest Sun Feb 15, 2015 9:36 pm

veya_victaous wrote:
Brasidas wrote:Tell me what is different to the non Abrahamic faiths that I should be open minded about something that has no evidence that only relies on faith?
Are you having a bubble bath?

can you be sure there is no soul?
there is no evidence there is not

what makes the difference between a cluster of molecules that is a speck of dust and the same set of molecules yet it is a bacteria?
what is the the cause of difference.
why dies 'life' dissipate from cells? where does that energy go?

I am not sure of many things.
For example how my day will be, but it is not directed by something I cannot prove exists.
Your views are not swayed by your own, but by others on belief.
So your questions are utterly stupid.
Faith is having faith in something you cannot provide evidence for or methodology.
Just because I do not know the answer does not mean religion answers that void

by veya_victaous Sun Feb 15, 2015 9:36 pm

and that is also and Issue if science names it it becomes not divine....

for all intensive purposes Gravity is a god that affects the entire universe and keeps it in motion, just because we work out some of the maths around its effects on earth does that mean that it is not a manifestation of the divine universe?

by Guest Sun Feb 15, 2015 9:46 pm

veya_victaous wrote:and that is also and Issue if science names it it becomes not divine....

for all intensive purposes Gravity is a god that affects the entire universe and keeps it in motion, just because we work out some of the maths around its effects on earth does that mean that it is not a manifestation of the divine universe?

Well many of of us do not look at anything religiously divine as athiests.

by veya_victaous Sun Feb 15, 2015 10:45 pm

Brasidas wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:and that is also and Issue if science names it it becomes not divine....

for all intensive purposes Gravity is a god that affects the entire universe and keeps it in motion, just because we work out some of the maths around its effects on earth does that mean that it is not a manifestation of the divine universe?

Well many of of us do not look at anything religiously divine as athiests.

And that can be a problem Not saying you personally but the over requirement of proof(where we subject to limitations) can limit philosophy and the there does not actually need to be line between Physic and Philosophy (just philosophy should give way to Physic when in contradiction)

Lawrence Krauss is my Favourite
the part from about 3:10

by Eilzel Mon Feb 16, 2015 12:35 am

The fact there is no proof of something NOT existing is not evidence of something existing.

In a court of law you can't claim that even though there is no evidence the defendent DID commit murder, there is no evidence he DIDN'T either, therefore he's guilty.

Souls, gods and heaven fall into the same area of nonsense.

And the difference between faith is certain scientific claims and ideas, and faith in god/religion- is that scientists are open to being proved wrong- the religious wont/even consider the possibility. That is closed mindedness.

Now we can call things like gravity god, but we all know that in doing so we are moving away from what nearly world would consider a god to be- no one anywhere prays to gravity.

IF you want to ascribe 'god' to unconscious natural forces in the universe then yes those 'gods' we can a believe in- but that is distorting the argument in a rather pointless way isn't it.

by veya_victaous Mon Feb 16, 2015 2:53 am

Eilzel wrote:The fact there is no proof of something NOT existing is not evidence of something existing. in mathematics(and subsequently Physics) that statement is incorrect. the variable of zero is actually far more profound than any other other number.... and pretty much never the case.... this is why we know there are things we don't know like the higgs boson and dark matter

In a court of law you can't claim that even though there is no evidence the defendent DID commit murder, there is no evidence he DIDN'T either, therefore he's guilty. therefore it is possible, theories are not laws.

Souls, gods and heaven fall into the same area of nonsense. then explain what Science cannot... where the Energy comes from?... this is the point SCIENCE actually has a unknown variables in a lot of it's quantum formula, as soon as you take our ideas to space we realise there are massive amounts of energy/matter that we haven't accounted for and don't seem be able to find it the perceivable universe.
There is scientific possibility of an Animus type soul/energy, the Abrahamic idea of a soul as an 'individual' there if no realistic suggestion of.

And the difference between faith is certain scientific claims and ideas, and faith in god/religion- is that scientists are open to being proved wrong- the religious wont/even consider the possibility. That is closed mindedness. Not comparing Atheist to Religious Comparing Atheist to Spiritual.... an Atheist promote the idea 'there is nothing that cannot be proven' or "anything that cannot be proven is not" ... Science says there is infinite things within our universe we will never prove on a human time-scale

Now we can call things like gravity god, but we all know that in doing so we are moving away from what nearly world would consider a god to be- no one anywhere prays to gravity. No one ever prayed to the rainbow serpent either... the idea of a deity that gives a shit and will interact Is a highly limited way to view the divine..

IF you want to ascribe 'god' to unconscious natural forces in the universe then yes those 'gods' we can a believe in- but that is distorting the argument in a rather pointless way isn't it. No, most non-Abrahamic gods are manifestations of Physical phenomena THAT is the point, it is a good as being racist Just because Abrahamic religion frames the divine is such restrictive terms, doesn't mean all people have

by Eilzel Mon Feb 16, 2015 3:41 am

Perhaps the problem is the language then veya. But for the sake of discussion like these we use the word 'god' to mean a divine creator or divine pantheon one way or another. Changing that is a completely different discussion which would be great on another thread but is a sidetrack to what is actually being discussed.

by Guest Mon Feb 16, 2015 3:56 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

Well many of of us do not look at anything religiously divine as athiests.

And that can be a problem Not saying you personally but the over requirement of proof(where we subject to limitations) can limit philosophy and the there does not actually need to be line between Physic and Philosophy (just philosophy should give way to Physic when in contradiction)

Lawrence Krauss is my Favourite
the part from about 3:10

What a load of horseshit.
The problem has always been aorund religion and not atheism, because the later does not have daft rules that it has to abide by, where as in religion people do have daft rules.
There is no evidence of the existence of such a deity and people use faith only as a means to believe

by veya_victaous Mon Feb 16, 2015 4:23 am

Eilzel wrote:Perhaps the problem is the language then veya. But for the sake of discussion like these we use the word 'god' to mean a divine creator or divine pantheon one way or another. Changing that is a completely different discussion which would be great on another thread but is a sidetrack to what is actually being discussed.

Roman: Jupiter

Greek; Zevs

Scandinavian; Þôrr

Slavic; Perun

Celtic; Taranis

Baltic; Perkunas

Finnish; Perkele

All were responsible for the functions of Gravity
http://thuleanperspective.com/2013/01/30/science-in-scandinavian-mythology-gravity/
So Before Abrahamic religion dominated theology Gravity was a Divine aspect.

the Idea of being 'a creator' is Also NOT in anyway a universal aspect of Divine
Not in ANY of those pantheons listed Above is any of the gods 'creators' they are all still children of Higher beings than gods.

LIKE so many Atheist You only want to discuss the Divine in context of Abrahamic Ideals or Pagan beliefs filtered through the Abrahamic logic of 'what is divine'. Sorry but MOST religions are not so Narrow.
.. and exactly my original point that Atheists more often than not Still try to frame everything in the Abrahamic nonsense rather than considering the broadest definition of the divine they choose to restrict it to the most narrow and already disproved definition. So yeah Atheist arguments often boil down to limiting the divine to that which they already know they can dismiss, WHICH is no better than a religion limiting it self to review under it's own context.

What I am saying is not even new it was first put forward in the west by Plato.. this whole Abrahmic definitions is Rubbish that has interrupted a much more interesting conversation the Greeks were already well into
Having criticized atheism, now it’s time to defend it against strawmen 2794048296

Having criticized atheism, now it’s time to defend it against strawmen 2794048296

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul

The Ancient Greeks used the word for "alive" to also apply to the concept of being "ensouled", indicating that the earliest surviving western philosophical view believed that the soul was that which gave the body life. The soul was considered the incorporeal or spiritual "breath" that animates (from the Latin, anima, cf. "animal") the living organism.[citation needed]

Francis M. Cornford quotes Pindar by saying that the soul sleeps while the limbs are active, but when one is sleeping, the soul is active and reveals "an award of joy or sorrow drawing near"in dreams.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anima_mundi

The world soul (Greek: ψυχὴ κόσμου, Latin: anima mundi) is, according to several systems of thought, an intrinsic connection between all living things on the planet, which relates to our world in much the same way as the soul is connected to the human body. The idea originated with Plato and was an important component of most Neoplatonic systems:

Therefore, we may consequently state that: this world is indeed a living being endowed with a soul and intelligence ... a single visible living entity containing all other living entities, which by their nature are all related.[1]

The Stoics believed it to be the only vital force in the universe. Similar concepts also hold in systems of eastern philosophy in the Brahman-Atman of Hinduism, the Buddha-Nature in Mahayana Buddhism, and in the School of Yin-Yang, Taoism, and Neo-Confucianism as qi.

Other resemblances can be found in the thoughts of hermetic philosophers like Paracelsus, and by Baruch Spinoza, Gottfried Leibniz, Friedrich Schelling and in Hegel's Geist ("Spirit"/"Mind"). There are also similarities with ideas developed since the 1960s by Gaia theorists such as James Lovelock.

by veya_victaous Mon Feb 16, 2015 4:26 am

Brasidas wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

Well many of of us do not look at anything religiously divine as athiests.

And that can be a problem Not saying you personally but the over requirement of proof(where we subject to limitations) can limit philosophy and the there does not actually need to be line between Physic and Philosophy (just philosophy should give way to Physic when in contradiction)

Lawrence Krauss is my Favourite
the part from about 3:10

What a load of horseshit.
The problem has always been aorund religion and not atheism, because the later does not have daft rules that it has to abide by, where as in religion people do have daft rules.
There is no evidence of the existence of such a deity and people use faith only as a means to believe

And here are you and Elizel telling me My definition of souls and Gods is wrong because it is different from the Abrahamic.

Seems YOU as an Atheist have far more rules than me...

by Eilzel Mon Feb 16, 2015 4:38 am

I have no rules veya, it is just far easier, for the sake of discussion, to refer to god rather than saying 'a divine, eternal, immortal conciousness that created the universe and life' everytime.

Kind of how we refer to a 'house' rather that say or type 'building designed for human habitation' everytime. You KNOW what we are talking about, but choose to twist it.

What god is is a fascinating debate, for another thread.

by veya_victaous Mon Feb 16, 2015 4:54 am

No it wasn't
You and Didge just PROVED the First line in the OP...

Atheists Need greater reflection... Atheist that Continue to use Abrahamism and its obviously faulty nature to 'prove' atheism are a problem. And the Claim they are like an Abrahamic religion is True. they are so similar to Abrahamic religion they don't like to accept that GOD or Souls or DIVINE is not a concept owned by Abrahamic religions.. And in fact Abrahamic religion is one of the worst most easily proven false religions the

The hypocrisy of saying "you admit religion is bad" by saying "Atheism may as well be a religion"... it is true both suck, because in both you are denying possibilities. there is literally no reason to believe that our universe can be defined by us, atheism is just as faith based as religion...
they have come to the conclusion there is nothing, when the evidence actually points to the conclusion that WE DON'T KNOW..
Sure some atheists ask more than Christians but Most will simply refuse to 'ask and consider' when the easy scored goals against Abrahamic religions are gone... they just have 'faith' in nothingness Rolling Eyes

and you could have said Abrahamic god, that is a real specific definition you gave there pretty much applies to no other supposed god but him.

by Guest Mon Feb 16, 2015 5:09 am

Never proved anything you are amusing because you are indeed held by your religious beliefs. There is nothing Eilzel or I have to conform to. We make up our own minds based on what is rational and logical.
Atheism has no doctrine or ideology to it and to associate this to religion is as stupid as it gets
It does not matter what religion somebody follows, they have the same problem all religious people have, How they prove their god is right and others are wrong. I though as an atheist am not constricted by needed to satisfy and insecurity of fearing death as most religious people do.
Most religious people believe out of fear as if you did not fear, you would not need to believe

by Guest Mon Feb 16, 2015 5:12 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

What a load of horseshit.
The problem has always been aorund religion and not atheism, because the later does not have daft rules that it has to abide by, where as in religion people do have daft rules.
There is no evidence of the existence of such a deity and people use faith only as a means to believe

And here are you and Elizel telling me My definition of souls and Gods is wrong because it is different from the Abrahamic.

Seems YOU as an Atheist have far more rules than me...

It is as wrong as anyone else no matter the religion because it has no evidence. It does not matter what religion, which is the point.
I have no rules, you are just getting upset like a child because you are being shown you have no evidence for your claims. You are the one bringing into this things I have not even stated
I have no rules, accept the ethical view of well being and equality.

by Ben Reilly Mon Feb 16, 2015 6:32 am

veya_victaous wrote:No it wasn't
You and Didge just PROVED the First line in the OP...

Atheists Need greater reflection... Atheist that Continue to use Abrahamism and its obviously faulty nature to 'prove' atheism are a problem. And the Claim they are like an Abrahamic religion is True. they are so similar to Abrahamic religion they don't like to accept that GOD or Souls or DIVINE is not a concept owned by Abrahamic religions.. And in fact Abrahamic religion is one of the worst most easily proven false religions the

The hypocrisy of saying "you admit religion is bad" by saying "Atheism may as well be a religion"... it is true both suck, because in both you are denying possibilities. there is literally no reason to believe that our universe can be defined by us, atheism is just as faith based as religion...
they have come to the conclusion there is nothing, when the evidence actually points to the conclusion that WE DON'T KNOW..
Sure some atheists ask more than Christians but Most will simply refuse to 'ask and consider' when the easy scored goals against Abrahamic religions are gone... they just have 'faith' in nothingness

and you could have said Abrahamic god, that is a real specific definition you gave there pretty much applies to no other supposed god but him.

Atheism's a bit more complex than that. Most atheists don't completely discount the idea that something we might at present call "supernatural" could exist. We just tend to think that if it does, it doesn't affect material existence in a way that's tangible or supportable enough to merit anything like worship or even belief without proof.

Let's say that Aries, Vishnu, the Serpent or even Jealous really do exist. If they affect my life or the material universe in some way that we can demonstrate, then I'd propose further investigation into how that works. If not, why should I worry about them any more than I concern myself with what's going on in the rings of Saturn?

by Ben Reilly Mon Feb 16, 2015 6:37 am

Just to expand that a bit, it's a truly skeptical way of life, not believing in "nothing." I am a big proponent of human potential, but that's something that I can demonstrate with the vast majority of people who have ever lived. Not to say I "believe" in human potential as some sort of universal truth, because I can also show how it's not universal.

I don't accept anything on faith; I will accept things that are supportable. If there's a question, or the evidence is vague or needs more exploration, I'm neutral.

by veya_victaous Mon Feb 16, 2015 8:28 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:No it wasn't
You and Didge just PROVED the First line in the OP...

Atheists Need greater reflection... Atheist that Continue to use Abrahamism and its obviously faulty nature to 'prove' atheism are a problem. And the Claim they are like an Abrahamic religion is True. they are so similar to Abrahamic religion they don't like to accept that GOD or Souls or DIVINE is not a concept owned by Abrahamic religions.. And in fact Abrahamic religion is one of the worst most easily proven false religions the

The hypocrisy of saying "you admit religion is bad" by saying "Atheism may as well be a religion"... it is true both suck, because in both you are denying possibilities. there is literally no reason to believe that our universe can be defined by us, atheism is just as faith based as religion...
they have come to the conclusion there is nothing, when the evidence actually points to the conclusion that WE DON'T KNOW..
Sure some atheists ask more than Christians but Most will simply refuse to 'ask and consider' when the easy scored goals against Abrahamic religions are gone... they just have 'faith' in nothingness

and you could have said Abrahamic god, that is a real specific definition you gave there pretty much applies to no other supposed god but him.

Atheism's a bit more complex than that. Most atheists don't completely discount the idea that something we might at present call "supernatural" could exist. We just tend to think that if it does, it doesn't affect material existence in a way that's tangible or supportable enough to merit anything like worship or even belief without proof.

Let's say that Aries, Vishnu, the Serpent or even Jealous really do exist. If they affect my life or the material universe in some way that we can demonstrate, then I'd propose further investigation into how that works. If not, why should I worry about them any more than I concern myself with what's going on in the rings of Saturn?

Are you not concerned with what is going on in the rings of Saturn confused

Do you believe Newton's Laws of Gravity?

Because they are just a perspective and actually incorrect from a greater perspective.

While they concept of what goes up must come down is true on earth
that is simple looking at a very narrow view of the y axis (vertical)

what if you change your perspective from newton under an apple tree to 'a fixed point' above earth.
then the apple moves up and down on the y axis while Moving alone the x axis at hundreds of kilometers an hour on a sphere rotating on the y axis (depending on location at hundreds of kilometers an hour)

move out again to solar system now you have that sphere moving at thousand of kilometers and hour along the z axis around a fixed point (the sun)

move out to galactic level and that fixed point is moving at godly speeds.

and we still haven't moved to universe level yet the centre point of our galaxy may be rotating around a centre point of the universe...

then we add branes or any multiverse theory ...

Anyway the point is all we really know is it Fucking complex and... If you as an Atheist accept that we are nothing but a tiny carbon life form on a tiny rock going around a tiny ball of gas in a tiny galaxy.... Why would expect for the divine to make sense?

Having criticized atheism, now it’s time to defend it against strawmen IC-1101-compared-to-Milky-Way1-1024x563

Having criticized atheism, now it’s time to defend it against strawmen IC-1101-compared-to-Milky-Way1-1024x563

this is why i say one of the few things i would say is a rules of my faith is that "Mortals cannot fully understand the divine, and no mortal language/communication could ever accurately portray it"
But we can't understand the rings of Saturn fully either.. I don't think that means we shouldn't try Wink

by veya_victaous Mon Feb 16, 2015 8:47 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:No it wasn't
You and Didge just PROVED the First line in the OP...

Atheists Need greater reflection... Atheist that Continue to use Abrahamism and its obviously faulty nature to 'prove' atheism are a problem. And the Claim they are like an Abrahamic religion is True. they are so similar to Abrahamic religion they don't like to accept that GOD or Souls or DIVINE is not a concept owned by Abrahamic religions.. And in fact Abrahamic religion is one of the worst most easily proven false religions the

The hypocrisy of saying "you admit religion is bad" by saying "Atheism may as well be a religion"... it is true both suck, because in both you are denying possibilities. there is literally no reason to believe that our universe can be defined by us, atheism is just as faith based as religion...
they have come to the conclusion there is nothing, when the evidence actually points to the conclusion that WE DON'T KNOW..
Sure some atheists ask more than Christians but Most will simply refuse to 'ask and consider' when the easy scored goals against Abrahamic religions are gone... they just have 'faith' in nothingness

and you could have said Abrahamic god, that is a real specific definition you gave there pretty much applies to no other supposed god but him.

Atheism's a bit more complex than that. Most atheists don't completely discount the idea that something we might at present call "supernatural" could exist. We just tend to think that if it does, it doesn't affect material existence in a way that's tangible or supportable enough to merit anything like worship or even belief without proof.

Let's say that Aries, Vishnu, the Serpent or even Jealous really do exist. If they affect my life or the material universe in some way that we can demonstrate, then I'd propose further investigation into how that works. If not, why should I worry about them any more than I concern myself with what's going on in the rings of Saturn?

Gravity and Jupiter, and the dance between them that has shielded our planet from the majority of space projectiles that would have wiped our fragile existence out before it started
Helios/Ra/'big ball of gas' whatever you want to call it prover of light and heat that sustains life. watching over and nurturing since the age of algae
sunny

<= this guy Having criticized atheism, now it’s time to defend it against strawmen 3201073460

by veya_victaous Mon Feb 16, 2015 8:57 am

The 'Jesus Stars' that died long ago in which the very molecules in your body were formed...

There is so much that is divine in existence, it is just whether you open 'yourself' to accept that there is more than you can understand

Book I contains a summary of Aristotle's method of investigation and a dialectical determination of the nature of the soul. He begins by conceding that attempting to define the soul is one of the most difficult questions in the world. But he proposes an ingenious method to tackle the question: just as we can come to know the properties and operations of something through scientific demonstration, i.e. a geometrical proof that a triangle has its interior angles equal to two right angles, since the principle of all scientific demonstration is the essence of the object, so too we can come to know the nature of a thing if we already know its properties and operations. It is like finding the middle term to a syllogism with a known conclusion. Therefore we must seek out such operations of the soul to determine what kind of nature it has. From a consideration of the opinions of his predecessors, a soul, he concludes, will be that in virtue of which living things have life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Soul

Therefore, we may consequently state that: this world is indeed a living being endowed with a soul and intelligence ... a single visible living entity containing all other living entities, which by their nature are all related.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anima_mundi

by Guest Mon Feb 16, 2015 8:58 am

What on earth are you going on about Newton as if his ideas are what binds atheists?
You are deflecting from the point at hand that atheists are not bound by any doctrine or ideology.

by veya_victaous Mon Feb 16, 2015 9:09 am

Brasidas wrote:What on earth are you going on about Newton as if his ideas are what binds athiets?
You are deflecting from the point at hand that Athiests are not bound by any doctrine or ideology.

NO Atheists by definition believe there is NO DIVINE that all that can be explained will be explained by Science...

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10]

In all Physic on this Planet Newton's is paramount he has written LAWS (not the criminal kind either) so IF you believe in Science... Do you believe in Science?
it would behoove would to read your Relevant books otherwise your not better than Christians..
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html

So Brasidas Why Don't you think Newtons links atheists
Do you have your own Laws of motion?
Are you a quantum physicist? because they are the only ones working with the concepts of gravity and motion in off this planet. Rolling Eyes

Maybe you are Agnostic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether or not God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable.[1][2][3] In the popular sense of the term, an "agnostic", according to the philosopher William L. Rowe, is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God, while a theist believes that God does exist and an atheist does not believe that God exists.[2] Agnosticism is a doctrine or set of tenets[4] rather than a religion as such.

by Guest Mon Feb 16, 2015 9:12 am

Again you are just inventing things to make your argument fit into something which is not a reality.
All you are doing is showing that science can show that Newton could be wrong.
Big deal, does that mean that science is wrong or that science again provides the answers?
So you are coming out with the biggest load of rubbish ever because again I am not held to any ideology or even scence itself.
You just presume to believe so.
Again what ideology or doctrine do I follow?

None

by veya_victaous Mon Feb 16, 2015 9:24 am

Brasidas wrote:Again you are just inventing things to make your argument fit into something which is not a reality.
All you are doing is showing that science can show that Newton could be wrong.
Big deal, does that mean that science is wrong or that science again provides the answers?
So you are coming out with the biggest load of rubbish ever because again I am not held to any ideology or even scence itself.
You just presume to believe so.
Again what ideology or doctrine do I follow?

None

What is your reality? that which is defined by science? Or something else?

You follow Atheism thus you make the claim that there is no 'divine'..

If you admit you don't know like I DO then you are Agnostic. (AND THEY ARE NOT THE BLOODY SAME !!! me and ben have made years worth of argument out of the difference Having criticized atheism, now it’s time to defend it against strawmen 2728977919

Having criticized atheism, now it’s time to defend it against strawmen 2728977919

)

My personal opinion is that if there is a god then there is many god because nothing in the universe exists in singularity. Indeed Quantum Physics points to the likelihood of Multiple universes So if even the universe is not singular I very much doubt the divine would be.

by veya_victaous Mon Feb 16, 2015 9:30 am

and it is not Newton Could be wrong it is perfect for use on a planet when you know the gravity of that planet Wink

Far more complex than that it is the perspective because as you increase the scope the Rules Change.. we 'know' an unknown fraction of one universe but really we never been past the small rock that orbits our planet.. we don't actually KNOW all that much in the universe.

We have a whole bunch of theories that we have worked out from watching radiation (and lack of it) and looking at things 1000s of times further away than our eyes can see on the clearest night.

It is fucking amazing the possibilities are ENDLESS.

by Guest Mon Feb 16, 2015 9:34 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Brasidas wrote:Again you are just inventing things to make your argument fit into something which is not a reality.
All you are doing is showing that science can show that Newton could be wrong.
Big deal, does that mean that science is wrong or that science again provides the answers?
So you are coming out with the biggest load of rubbish ever because again I am not held to any ideology or even scence itself.
You just presume to believe so.
Again what ideology or doctrine do I follow?

None

What is your reality? that which is defined by science? Or something else?

You follow Atheism thus you make the claim that there is no 'divine'..

If you admit you don't know like I DO then you are Agnostic. (AND THEY ARE NOT THE BLOODY SAME !!! me and ben have made years worth of argument out of the difference )

My personal opinion is that if there is a god then there is many god because nothing in the universe exists in singularity. Indeed Quantum Physics points to the likelihood of Multiple universes So if even the universe is not singular I very much doubt the divine would be.

Yet more babble
I do not discount that a God may exist
I do not however believe God exists or if one does it is nothing short of evil.
Your view on science also fails to understand anything, because science forever brings about changes in our understanding.
I am again not held to account by science itself, even though you wrongly think so

by Eilzel Mon Feb 16, 2015 11:54 am

Ben has really captured the essence here- atheists generally reject supernatural explanations of things. If your 'god' is not supernatural, then it is not the 'god' atheists reject the existence of.

by Original Quill Mon Feb 16, 2015 6:35 pm

veya_victaous wrote:
Brasidas wrote:Tell me what is different to the non Abrahamic faiths that I should be open minded about something that has no evidence that only relies on faith?
Are you having a bubble bath?

can you be sure there is no soul?
there is no evidence there is not

That is an issue with logic, not one of proof. The rule is, you can't prove a negative. You can't prove something which does not exist, because by its very premise it may not be conceived. If it cannot be conceived, it cannot be examined let alone proven.

It a rule of Positivism: "only statements verifiable either logically or empirically are cognitively meaningful." To disprove a negative, you would first have to have a positive, and then prove that it is not there. Since that is a self-contradiction, it is meaningless.

The supernatural is, by definition, not there: it is beyond natural (that which is there). Whether you say is is fiction to begin with, or you say it evaporates on its own accord is of no consequence. It is not there.

by veya_victaous Mon Feb 16, 2015 8:37 pm

Brasidas wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:
Brasidas wrote:Again you are just inventing things to make your argument fit into something which is not a reality.
All you are doing is showing that science can show that Newton could be wrong.
Big deal, does that mean that science is wrong or that science again provides the answers?
So you are coming out with the biggest load of rubbish ever because again I am not held to any ideology or even scence itself.
You just presume to believe so.
Again what ideology or doctrine do I follow?

None

What is your reality? that which is defined by science? Or something else?

You follow Atheism thus you make the claim that there is no 'divine'..

If you admit you don't know like I DO then you are Agnostic. (AND THEY ARE NOT THE BLOODY SAME !!! me and ben have made years worth of argument out of the difference )

My personal opinion is that if there is a god then there is many god because nothing in the universe exists in singularity. Indeed Quantum Physics points to the likelihood of Multiple universes So if even the universe is not singular I very much doubt the divine would be.

Yet more babble
I do not discount that a God may exist Okay so you are an Agnostic, what is so hard about admitting that. there is Nothing Wrong with admitting you don't know
I do not however believe God exists or if one does it is nothing short of evil.
Your view on science also fails to understand anything, because science forever brings about changes in our understanding. No Atheism is a definitive statement that there is ZERO, if you want to make a definite statement PROVE it if you act that You cannot then that is Agnosticism
I am again not held to account by science itself, even though you wrongly think so Not if you are agnostic but if you are atheist well again you should have some reason to back the definitive statement

by veya_victaous Mon Feb 16, 2015 8:55 pm

Original Quill wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:
Brasidas wrote:Tell me what is different to the non Abrahamic faiths that I should be open minded about something that has no evidence that only relies on faith?
Are you having a bubble bath?

can you be sure there is no soul?
there is no evidence there is not

That is an issue with logic, not one of proof. The rule is, you can't prove a negative. You can't prove something which does not exist, because by its very premise it may not be conceived. If it cannot be conceived, it cannot be examined let alone proven.

It a rule of Positivism: "only statements verifiable either logically or empirically are cognitively meaningful." To disprove a negative, you would first have to have a positive, and then prove that it is not there. Since that is a self-contradiction, it is meaningless.

The supernatural is, by definition, not there: it is beyond natural (that which is there). Whether you say is is fiction to begin with, or you say it evaporates on its own accord is of no consequence. It is not there.

Not at all
Atheism is just like religion in that it makes a definitive claim about something that it has no evidence for.. Nothing as a concept is something, there is a Zero when there is nothing. If you apply the rules of science then these formula should work as they are even when the perspective is moved out, they don't there is undefined variables that we are unable to perceive.

If the Universe is a mathematical formula Atheist clearly state there is a Zero in all divine variables
As an Agnostic I don't claim to know what number goes in there I Just know that you don't know it is 0. and if you were to do science with the presumption that it is 0 then that is bad science. (this is the difference between science/philosophy of Dawkins and Krauss)

Also further to the point Atheism is like Religion and differs from Agnosticism when extrapolated to the extreme.. i.e fundamentalism.
they are just as close minded and incapable of accepting the views of others because it has a definitive view and it's explanation of existence completely breaks if the number is not 0 (much like monotheism breaks in if the number is not 1) While fundamentalist Atheist aren't a problem now if it were the Dominate belief it would be promoted by FOX and all those people that watch FOX wont be smarter they will just hold Atheism with the same Ignorant passion they currently do Christianity.
A Fundamentalist Agnostic is just really passionate about that fact that They We Don't Know.
while the difference now might seem small at it's extremes it is the difference between being open to the fact that we don't know and being SURE of something you actually don't have a mathematically backed reason to be (thus it is little different than religious faith)

by Ben Reilly Mon Feb 16, 2015 8:57 pm

It's not babble; I couldn't make the claim that I know 100 percent for certain that there's not an invisible, weightless T-Rex living on top of my head ... but that doesn't mean I'm agnostic about it Smile

It's just part of a different mindset, in which certainty of anything is never 100 percent, but confidence increases with evidence.

by Ben Reilly Mon Feb 16, 2015 8:59 pm

Having criticized atheism, now it’s time to defend it against strawmen Godbusfront

"Probably," not "definitely" Smile

by veya_victaous Mon Feb 16, 2015 11:02 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:

"Probably," not "definitely"

the statement of an agnostic..
Probably? possibly?
these are not the words of a 'by the definition' atheist.
I win cheers

But more seriously I doubt you (or most posters here) would hold your claim to Atheism IF it became the dominate belief promoted with the same mindless obedience as Christianity is on FOX. (That is a complement Wink

)
My issue with it boils down to the fact that if promotes a finite definition (with out proof of their claims of Zero) that can easily be misinterpreted and used to oppress other people. AND often those loudly proclaiming it Don't actually understand what they are promoting.. they like to give the impression that we have answers for things we don't (much like many vocal Christians).
someone that Doesn't understand ALL the Quantum Physics really is not is position to Accurately say the answer is Zero.. So unless you are Steven Hawkins and even he ends up where he needs something made from nothing for the theory to exist without any 'external' energy force being applied to the universe. Also to the point that Mortal language cannot actually convey theories so deep Notice that time begins once and is singular yet there is many possible histories and many possible states... the very notion of different space-times(histories) and a singular space-time is sort of contradictory, but only in that words cannot express the complexity.

Therefore, time began at the moment of singularity, and this has likely occurred only once, Hawking said. The age of the universe — now believed to be about 13.8 billion years — fits that model, as the number and maturity of observed galaxies seem to fit in the general scheme.

In another observation of modern religion, Hawking noted that in the 1980s, around the time he released a paper discussing the moment the universe was born, Pope John Paul II admonished the scientific establishment against studying the moment of creation, as it was holy.

“I was glad not to be thrown into an inquisition,” Hawking joked.

He closed by outlining "M-theory," which is based partly on ideas put forward years ago by another famed physicist, Caltech’s Richard Feynman. Hawking sees that theory as the only big idea that really explains what he has observed.

M-theory posits that multiple universes are created out of nothing, Hawking explained, with many possible histories and many possible states of existence. In only a few of these states would life be possible, and in fewer still could something like humanity exist. Hawking mentioned that he felt fortunate to be living in this state of existence.

your statement about Invisible dinosaurs is something A Fundamentalist Agnostic would say tongue

by Ben Reilly Mon Feb 16, 2015 11:33 pm

The POOP you win. You don't have to be certain that something doesn't exist in order to not believe in it, that's preposterous.

That's like saying people of faith are 100 percent certain God (or whatever) does exist. Most of them have their doubts, even if they don't admit it. Does that mean that they're atheist or agnostic when they admit God might not exist? If so, we're just playing a silly semantics game ...

Like I've said before, I don't deal in certainty but in probability. I can't be certain that the supernatural doesn't exist, but I find it highly improbable, so I don't believe in it. If you have to label that, I'd prefer "atheist who remains open to contradictory, convincing evidence" Smile

by veya_victaous Tue Feb 17, 2015 12:20 am

You should be certain of something if you want to PROMOTE it. (like the OP) personal belief is just that AND not what the OP is talking about.

yes it does mean they are agnostic if the consciously acknowledge that they don't know and either is possible...

and if semantics is so silly why does a few vague mentions about men lying with men like a women make some people think that they should hate someone for who they love.. Maybe if Jesus had been a little bit more pedantic about the semantics. Rolling Eyes

Also the entire difference between Christians and Muslims is semantics one says literally son of god the other says he meant he was son of god in context that we are all children of god.. such a small semantic difference has lead to how many millions of deaths Suspect

like it or not Atheism is gaining a cult like following of people that do not understand it any more than the average Christian understands the bible. Even Atheist in OP admits it

atheists need to be self-policing about our own tendencies to engage in tribalism and excuse bigotries that come from “our” people. But, on the flip side, I am going to stand up against attempts to demonize and discredit atheism itself because some people in it are assholes.

the last part they are wrong they should discredit it because it is discreditable. it is already being taken over by people that don't actually understand or are of the opinion (hugely paraphrasing) that "if the divine doesn't make them go to building on Sunday and get on their knees they don't give a damn about it". they can easily create the same set of conditions that religious institution did forcing all knowledge seeking to be through a conformist perspective. sure this time it will be of nothingness than a single creator but still the same problem of IF that is wrong you're never gonna find the answer because you discounted it before you began.

Further admission of the issue from the OP.

We are definitely not running short on dudes issuing dudely opinions on shit they do not understand and do not care to learn about because of their mistaken belief that they know all they need to know to be the authority on the subject. This is, indeed, the source of much racism and sexism in atheism—though even our worst offenders can’t hold a candle to the people who think all their dumb prejudices come into them straight from the Lord Above.

also the OP states the following about Dawkins
which is untrue. he never even comes close to broaching the issues as defined by Plato. he disproves theology but not the divine by broad defintion.

but on the subject of whether or not any gods exist, nope. On that subject, he has thorough and often insurmountably strong arguments.

So straight up Plato would win since his is a more broad scope. Dawkins has plenty of valid arguments against the souls as theorised in the theocratic Abrahamism. But take the more simple idea of animus and he pretty much never addresses it.

by veya_victaous Tue Feb 17, 2015 12:34 am

Also Carl Sagan, in Pale Blue Dot, wrote:

How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant"? Instead they say, "No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way". A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.

Racist and ignorant... many forms of Buddhism DO accept it.
Having criticized atheism, now it’s time to defend it against strawmen Dalai-lama-science

Some people have views of God that are so broad and flexible that it is inevitable that they will find God wherever they look for him. One hears it said that 'God is the ultimate' or 'God is our better nature' or 'God is the universe.' Of course, like any other word, the word 'God' can be given any meaning we like. If you want to say that 'God is energy,' then you can find God in a lump of coal.

Weinberg is surely right that, if the word God is not to become completely useless, it should be used in the way people have generally understood it: to denote a supernatural creator that is "appropriate for us to worship".

as I have spent this thread showing that Idea that you can discount all but the Abrahamic definitions of the Divine is RACIST as fuck and plain cheating, NO!! Humanity is not limited to such pathetic idea as Abrahamism TO even suggest it just shows how little they have investigated the beliefs of billions of people that are not descended from Europe or with such closed mind as to not consider them on their own terms and only through he preconception of Abrahamism..

'Gods' in a lump of coal FITS fine in Shinto-ism. yet he claim this centuries old religion that has been followed by hundreds of million of people. Should not even be discussed since it varies too far from HIS personal preconceived ideas.

So the Complain laid against atheist that the OP tries to deny IS TRUE, even some of Atheists greatest contributors are guilty of it.
Seriously he says the word 'god' can only mean the very specific Abrahamic meaning! even though the Are hundreds of religions and thousands of gods that have been worshipped over history that do not in any way fit that description!
talk about racist whiteman syndrone and it is not Just Dawkins views on Muslims and women that are.

by Ben Reilly Tue Feb 17, 2015 12:41 am

Just because something is possible doesn't mean it's at all probable. I'm going with probabilities, you don't seem to accept that.

I've always promoted the idea that the supernatural's so improbable, it's not worth worrying about. If it is, show me how; that's all I'm asking.

by Eilzel Tue Feb 17, 2015 1:52 am

Veya by the definitions you are laying out 99% of the world is agnostic.

by Sponsored content