a link to a post in OOT - hatred of atheists

[Prodigy54321]

here's a link to the thread in OOT (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=exchange&Number=9161179&p age=0&fpart=1) about a discussion on CNN show Paula Zahn Now

there's also a couple good links a way down the first page

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
here's a link to the thread in OOT (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=exchange&Number=9161179&p age=0&fpart=1) about a discussion on CNN show Paula Zahn Now

there's also a couple good links a way down the first page

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. I love how her example of 'Atheism run amok' is that some groups made some kids say Muslim prayers or read the Koran. Yeah, thats typical atheist agenda for you...!??!?

[ojc02]

Oh man, that video was ridiculous.

After it was pointed out how stupid it was to have a panel on atheism with no atheists they asked Dawkins to speak (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR6Mu5JULBo&NR) and represent the atheist POV.

Ah, eases the pain /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ojc02]

CNN Atheism Panel 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lKNpcRP9kg) (now with atheists!)

And sigh, the reverend comes up with the same old BS: "Where do you get your morals from?"

[retleftolc]

I feel the same way when I see some of my beliefs misrepresented. The more I look into the debate of theism vs atheism the more it seems we are both arguing for different religions.

meh


Ret

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I feel the same way when I see some of my beliefs misrepresented. The more I look into the debate of theism vs atheism the more it seems we are both arguing for different religions.

meh


Ret

[/ QUOTE ]

The more you look into the debate the less you pay attention to what words mean or to what each side is arguing? Can you please explain why you think atheists are arguing for a religion? I'll take a shot at being probably the thousandth person to try and disabuse you of this notion.

[retleftolc]

I say that because the more I read and discuss it with others, both atheist and theist, the more I end up hearing similar complaints from both sides. Both sides are buying into something. One has "proof" the other has "faith".

And . . . Not that many people have tried.



Ret

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
One has "proof" the other has "faith".

[/ QUOTE ]

Who claims proof?

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One has "proof" the other has "faith".

[/ QUOTE ]

Who claims proof?

[/ QUOTE ]

He's saying they both claim proof.

[madnak]

Right, I'm asking which atheists, specifically, have claimed any proof.

[The Don]

I don't even care about the God/athiest debate, what pisses me off is that everyday people have no concept of a logically sound argument.

[mbillie1]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't even care about the God/athiest debate but it pisses me off that everyday people have no concept of a logically sound argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

So massively and tragically true.

[jogsxyz]

The universe is 13.7 billion years old. It's estimated at 156 light years wide. There's a distinct possibility that man is not the chosen species.

[retleftolc]

Shouldnt have used proof. Should have said science to back it up. Or- whatever.

And- I'm not attacking, and think one should use science(or whatever).


Ret

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Shouldnt have used proof. Should have said science to back it up. Or- whatever.

And- I'm not attacking, and think one should use science(or whatever).


Ret

[/ QUOTE ]

And we are asking you, what atheists are claiming they have science to back them up on the issue of God? Are there any, or are you just saying this in an attempt to oversimplify the issue?

My point is, I have no idea how you can say this is like one religion versus the other, and you haven't given me a single reason to think thats a valid comparison. Is it just because its a pithy thing to say?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
And we are asking you, what atheists are claiming they have science to back them up on the issue of God? Are there any, or are you just saying this in an attempt to oversimplify the issue?

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure there are - Dawkins claims scientific knowledge "backs him" on the issue of God, since there's no need to postulate God anymore, etc etc.

[ QUOTE ]
My point is, I have no idea how you can say this is like one religion versus the other, and you haven't given me a single reason to think thats a valid comparison. Is it just because its a pithy thing to say?

[/ QUOTE ]
It does seem like it (sometimes anyhow). Have you not read any of the posts where someone asks "How can people believe in God?" and an atheist responds "Because they are morons"? It's clearly not true of the reasoned or justified posts, but arguments against theism are not always rationally justified (even if the position is).

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And we are asking you, what atheists are claiming they have science to back them up on the issue of God? Are there any, or are you just saying this in an attempt to oversimplify the issue?

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure there are - Dawkins claims scientific knowledge "backs him" on the issue of God, since there's no need to postulate God anymore, etc etc.

[ QUOTE ]
My point is, I have no idea how you can say this is like one religion versus the other, and you haven't given me a single reason to think thats a valid comparison. Is it just because its a pithy thing to say?

[/ QUOTE ]
It does seem like it (sometimes anyhow). Have you not read any of the posts where someone asks "How can people believe in God?" and an atheist responds "Because they are morons"? It's clearly not true of the reasoned or justified posts, but arguments against theism are not always rationally justified (even if the position is).

[/ QUOTE ]

Dawkins makes it very clear that, on his scale from strong theism to strong atheism, he does not place himself at the top, which is a certain belief that God does not exist. He understands how foolish this is. Claiming scientific proof of the non-existence of God is a tactic reserved ONLY to theists.

What Dawkins does is show how scientific progress makes the traditional God of the Gaps unnecessary. He has an interesting position that his version of atheism was very untenable until Darwin. I don't know that I agree that it was impossible to be a content atheist before that, but it certainly must have been difficult. When there are huge, glaring fundamentally scientific questions that are completely unsolved, and that religion appears to do a fairly good job of answering, the agnostic or atheistic position is harder to maintain. Scientific progress eases the road a little.

This is NOT the same thing as saying science disproves God, nor that there is any proof whatsover of such a thing.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Dawkins makes it very clear that, on his scale from strong theism to strong atheism, he does not place himself at the top, which is a certain belief that God does not exist. He understands how foolish this is. Claiming scientific proof of the non-existence of God is a tactic reserved ONLY to theists.

What Dawkins does is show how scientific progress makes the traditional God of the Gaps unnecessary. He has an interesting position that his version of atheism was very untenable until Darwin. I don't know that I agree that it was impossible to be a content atheist before that, but it certainly must have been difficult. When there are huge, glaring fundamentally scientific questions that are completley unsolved, and that religion appears to do a fairly good job of answering, the agnostic or atheistic position is harder to maintain. Scientific progress eases the road a little.

This is NOT the same thing as saying science disproves God, nor that there is any proof whatsover of such a thing.

[/ QUOTE ]
No Dawkins doesnt say science disproves God - I didnt say that, and I dont think the original poster said that either. Dawkins does make the claim that scientific knowledge supports atheism.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dawkins makes it very clear that, on his scale from strong theism to strong atheism, he does not place himself at the top, which is a certain belief that God does not exist. He understands how foolish this is. Claiming scientific proof of the non-existence of God is a tactic reserved ONLY to theists.

What Dawkins does is show how scientific progress makes the traditional God of the Gaps unnecessary. He has an interesting position that his version of atheism was very untenable until Darwin. I don't know that I agree that it was impossible to be a content atheist before that, but it certainly must have been difficult. When there are huge, glaring fundamentally scientific questions that are completley unsolved, and that religion appears to do a fairly good job of answering, the agnostic or atheistic position is harder to maintain. Scientific progress eases the road a little.

This is NOT the same thing as saying science disproves God, nor that there is any proof whatsover of such a thing.

[/ QUOTE ]
No Dawkins doesnt say science disproves God - I didnt say that, and I dont think the original poster said that either. Dawkins does make the claim that scientific knowledge supports atheism.

[/ QUOTE ]

And it does, at least when faced with a finite number of specific Gods. Science DOES support a-Christianity. It does support a-Islam. At least, as those Gods are typically described by their followers, and allowing for the fact that there are as many Gods as there are believers.

But really, if thats all the previous poster was trying to say, that science supports atheism, then how is this considered a religion versus religion battle? That seems like an absurd redefining of terms. Why is the atheists use of science to show the absurdity of Biblical claims a 'religious' position, or argument? Its very much not.

[bunny]

I agree that science isnt a religion. As usual, I've stepped into what-I-think-he-meant mode so I'll leave off that. Where I think we should be careful is when we discuss science and use it to back up claims which are non-scientific. Science when done properly doesnt make claims about God since God is fundamentally untestable.

Some of Dawkins's early books annoy me because he trundles along talking science, suddenly drops into "That's how we know there's no God" mode and then goes back to discussing science. He is clearer in the God Delusion about where his science ends and his theological/ethical position begins.

[vhawk01]

The thing that I 'think' ret meant when saying this was just another religion v religion debate was that he was expressing frustration about the fundamental and uncrossable divide between the two positions. This exists in all religion v religion debates, and the reason is simple: each side is arguing from a different set of unchangeable and unsupportable axioms, and they have absolutely no reason to change them, so the positions are unresolvable.

The reason I think this comparison is faulty is because atheists are arguing from a set of axioms that EVERYONE accepts.

[retleftolc]

I’m saying they have "proof"(use it liberally) of their religion (i.e. logic or science or whatever they hang their hats on). Not saying they have proof of no god, just proof of their religion.

Did I say atheist had proof of no god? If I did, I didn’t mean to.


Ret

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I’m saying they have "proof"(use it liberally) of their religion (i.e. logic or science or whatever they hang their hats on). Not saying they have proof of no god, just proof of their religion.

Did I say atheist had proof of no god? If I did, I didn’t mean to.


Ret

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't just call anything you want a 'religion.' Its a word with a definition. It is important that you qualified your use of the word proof, though. It is only proof is you mean that liberally, as you said. I don't have proof of anything.

[bunny]

Well it's clear him and I were saying different things. I was focussing on his use of the word "seems" - I dont think atheism is a religion, but it seems to me that some atheists speak like religious zealots.

I think it is in the atheist's interests to remain balanced, rational and clear and to let the argument do the work.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Well it's clear him and I were saying different things. I was focussing on his use of the word "seems" - I dont think atheism is a religion, but it seems to me that some atheists speak like religious zealots.

I think it is in the atheist's interests to remain balanced, rational and clear and to let the argument do the work.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I agree. Idiots of every stripe, and all that.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason I think this comparison is faulty is because atheists are arguing from a set of axioms that EVERYONE accepts.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think this is true actually. In the recent thread on this, it seemed to me that, although NotReady for example accepts rationality as being a good guide to knowing truth, he doesnt accept it as the best we have (which it seems to me is an axiom of most atheists).

I dont think it is too far off the mark to label any set of axioms as a religion (which would include atheism). Although I accept this is not the usual definition, it may be a useful idea to discuss different sets of axioms - at least as a way to engage theists.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The reason I think this comparison is faulty is because atheists are arguing from a set of axioms that EVERYONE accepts.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think this is true actually. In the recent thread on this, it seemed to me that, although NotReady for example accepts rationality as being a good guide to knowing truth, he doesnt accept it as the best we have (which it seems to me is an axiom of most atheists).

I dont think it is too far off the mark to label any set of axioms as a religion (which would include atheism). Although I accept this is not the usual definition, it may be a useful idea to discuss different sets of axioms - at least as a way to engage theists.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think there is anyone who does not accept my axioms, and if they do, I'd be extremely curious to know how they go about it. How can you function if you reject the idea that there is an external world? That causality applies? That there is a 'me?' What are your conversations like, what are your interactions like? No, I think that everyone does accept my axioms, they just think I have axioms that I don't. "There is no God" is not one of my axioms.

[retleftolc]

Im not saying it is a religion, and dont believe it is. I was getting at how people feel when somebody attacks their "world".

Ret

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think there is anyone who does not accept my axioms, and if they do, I'd be extremely curious to know how they go about it. How can you function if you reject the idea that there is an external world? That causality applies? That there is a 'me?' What are your conversations like, what are your interactions like? No, I think that everyone does accept my axioms, they just think I have axioms that I don't. "There is no God" is not one of my axioms.

[/ QUOTE ]
Surely you think that rationality is the best method we have to knowing the truth about that external world?

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason I think this comparison is faulty is because atheists are arguing from a set of axioms that EVERYONE accepts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think once you get through all the superficial arguments it comes down to materialism versus idealism, and I really don't think it's fair to say that everyone accepts the axioms of materialism. I'm not following a strict definition of idealism, more along the lines of saying that there could phenomena in the universe that fall outside the realm of what materialism can explain.

So in a sense, these arguments can seem like religious arguments. We have scientists like Dawkins claiming science will be able to explain all the phenomena in nature, and that's really just a belief at this point. Then we have the theists claiming there's phenomena in nature that are not, or will not be able to be quantified, objectified and falsified, which is also just a belief. So when two parties are arguing over what are essentially beliefs, it does have a tone of religious argument.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The reason I think this comparison is faulty is because atheists are arguing from a set of axioms that EVERYONE accepts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think once you get through all the superficial arguments it comes down to materialism versus idealism, and I really don't think it's fair to say that everyone accepts the axioms of materialism. I'm not following a strict definition of idealism, more along the lines of saying that there could phenomena in the universe that fall outside the realm of what materialism can explain.

So in a sense, these arguments can seem like religious arguments. We have scientists like Dawkins claiming science will be able to explain all the phenomena in nature, and that's really just a belief at this point. Then we have the theists claiming there's phenomena in nature that are not, or will not be able to be quantified, objectified and falsified, which is also just a belief. So when two parties are arguing over what are essentially beliefs, it does have a tone of religious argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am a materialist, I will grant you that, but I don't think I am fundamentally or axiomatically a materialist. I don't take as an unchallengeable axiom that nothing supernatural or 'immaterial' or whatever can exist.

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
So in a sense, these arguments can seem like religious arguments. We have scientists like Dawkins claiming science will be able to explain all the phenomena in nature, and that's really just a belief at this point. Then we have the theists claiming there's phenomena in nature that are not, or will not be able to be quantified, objectified and falsified, which is also just a belief. So when two parties are arguing over what are essentially beliefs, it does have a tone of religious argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

What Dawkins said there is not crucial to his argument. That's just him musing about the possibility of science eventually figuring everything out - and you're right, that's just his belief at this point.

What he does say is that concepts for which there is no evidence of their existence, and are un-testable can and should be ignored even though they are theoretically possible.

What he is saying in belief terms is quite the opposite of the theist argument.

Theist argument: I believe in things for which there is no evidence.

Dawkins argument: I will **not** believe in anything for which there is no evidence.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So in a sense, these arguments can seem like religious arguments. We have scientists like Dawkins claiming science will be able to explain all the phenomena in nature, and that's really just a belief at this point. Then we have the theists claiming there's phenomena in nature that are not, or will not be able to be quantified, objectified and falsified, which is also just a belief. So when two parties are arguing over what are essentially beliefs, it does have a tone of religious argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

What Dawkins said there is not crucial to his argument. That's just him musing about the possibility of science eventually figuring everything out - and you're right, that's just his belief at this point.

What he does say is that concepts for which there is no evidence of their existence, and are un-testable can and should be ignored even though they are theoretically possible.

What he is saying in belief terms is quite the opposite of the theist argument.

Theist argument: I believe in things for which there is no evidence.

Dawkins argument: I will **not** believe in anything for which there is no evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
"Anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that's the kinda quote I was searching for. Much punchier that way /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont think it is too far off the mark to label any set of axioms as a religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems pretty far off the mark to me. And, I'm sure, all the other opponents of religion here. There are no opponents of accepting axioms.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I think once you get through all the superficial arguments it comes down to materialism versus idealism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not a materialist, so this is clearly not universally true. Personally, I think it's a cop-out. Few people criticize religion because of its idealism, and in fact the most idealistic of the religious groups are the ones atheists are, by and large, the most "okay" with.

[Alex-db]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The reason I think this comparison is faulty is because atheists are arguing from a set of axioms that EVERYONE accepts.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think this is true actually. In the recent thread on this, it seemed to me that, although NotReady for example accepts rationality as being a good guide to knowing truth, he doesnt accept it as the best we have (which it seems to me is an axiom of most atheists).

I dont think it is too far off the mark to label any set of axioms as a religion (which would include atheism). Although I accept this is not the usual definition, it may be a useful idea to discuss different sets of axioms - at least as a way to engage theists.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Atheism" can't be considered a 'religion' or 'axiom' in itself, since it is only the current result of a set of axioms based on commmon sense and knowledge.

These same 'atheistic' axioms would of course accept a religion if one was presented that wasn't fictional. So holding those beliefs can't be an alternative to religion or a religion in itself.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Im not saying it is a religion, and dont believe it is. I was getting at how people feel when somebody attacks their "world".

[/ QUOTE ]

Most athiests who argue their position strongly (sometimes too strongly) do not do so because theists are attacking their "world".

You are not going to shatter an athiest's worldview if you come up with irrefutable proof that god exists. Most would probably welcome the news, or be apathetic about it.

The rancor stems more from the frustration of debating with someone who has 100% belief in something that is untestable. All logical arguments are dismissed by faith, which makes for a very frustrating conversation.

But I think it's wrong to think that most athiests have some huge emotional stake in god not existing. I don't see it like that at all.

[retleftolc]

That's strange, because, as a Christian, I don't have a huge emotional stake in whether God exist or not.

I don't dismiss argument with faith that very often. It’s like the race card. When you throw it out all the time, it loses its value.

"But I think it's wrong to think that most atheists have some huge emotional stake in god not existing. I don't see it like that at all."

Most of the atheists I know aren't as emotionally attached to god not existing, but being right. They see their way of thinking being "the best" way of thinking.

My whole point was that whatever belief we cling to in life becomes the center of that life. As humans, we tend to want to defend our "baby" against all agitators.

Ret

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The reason I think this comparison is faulty is because atheists are arguing from a set of axioms that EVERYONE accepts.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think this is true actually. In the recent thread on this, it seemed to me that, although NotReady for example accepts rationality as being a good guide to knowing truth, he doesnt accept it as the best we have (which it seems to me is an axiom of most atheists).

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. Atheism logically follows from consistent rationality. The honest theist will admit he has faith, and move the debate to the more relevant epistemological question of reason vs. faith.

Science really has nothing to so with either atheism or theism, but rather it is the application of reason to acquiring knowledge.

As someone already pointed out, Dawkins' point is that science "supports" atheism only in that it explains phenomenon which has historically provided psychological motivation for many people to believe in god. Note that this motivation has changed over the years: at one time, starlight and the observed movement of celestial bodies was considered powerful "evidence" of a divine being.

[ QUOTE ]

I dont think it is too far off the mark to label any set of axioms as a religion (which would include atheism). Although I accept this is not the usual definition, it may be a useful idea to discuss different sets of axioms - at least as a way to engage theists.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with this. To label all axiomatic systems as a "religion" obscures a meaningful distinction between religion and other qualitatively very different modes of thought, such as that found in mathematics and (secular) philosophy. It is obvious why some theists seek to obfuscate that distinction.

I do agree, however, that the "religion vs science" debates often suffer from lack of focus on the fundamental issue or axioms as you say, which in this case is reason vs faith.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The reason I think this comparison is faulty is because atheists are arguing from a set of axioms that EVERYONE accepts.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think this is true actually. In the recent thread on this, it seemed to me that, although NotReady for example accepts rationality as being a good guide to knowing truth, he doesnt accept it as the best we have (which it seems to me is an axiom of most atheists).

I dont think it is too far off the mark to label any set of axioms as a religion (which would include atheism). Although I accept this is not the usual definition, it may be a useful idea to discuss different sets of axioms - at least as a way to engage theists.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Atheism" can't be considered a 'religion' or 'axiom' in itself, since it is only the current result of a set of axioms based on commmon sense and knowledge.

These same 'atheistic' axioms would of course accept a religion if one was presented that wasn't fictional. So holding those beliefs can't be an alternative to religion or a religion in itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a much better way of saying what I've been trying to say, thanks.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The reason I think this comparison is faulty is because atheists are arguing from a set of axioms that EVERYONE accepts.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think this is true actually. In the recent thread on this, it seemed to me that, although NotReady for example accepts rationality as being a good guide to knowing truth, he doesnt accept it as the best we have (which it seems to me is an axiom of most atheists).

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. Atheism logically follows from consistent rationality. The honest theist will admit he has faith, and move the debate to the more relevant epistemological question of reason vs. faith.

Science really has nothing to so with either atheism or theism, but rather it is the application of reason to acquiring knowledge.

As someone already pointed out, Dawkins' point is that science "supports" atheism only in that it explains phenomenon which has historically provided psychological motivation for many people to believe in god. Note that this motivation has changed over the years: at one time, starlight and the observed movement of celestial bodies was considered powerful "evidence" of a divine being.

[ QUOTE ]

I dont think it is too far off the mark to label any set of axioms as a religion (which would include atheism). Although I accept this is not the usual definition, it may be a useful idea to discuss different sets of axioms - at least as a way to engage theists.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with this. To label all axiomatic systems as a "religion" obscures a meaningful distinction between religion and other qualitatively very different modes of thought, such as that found in mathematics and (secular) philosophy. It is obvious why some theists seek to obfuscate that distinction.

I do agree, however, that the "religion vs science" debates often suffer from lack of focus on the fundamental issue or axioms as you say, which in this case is reason vs faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is fine, until the argument actually GETS down to this core issue, and we start to realize that faith isn't at odds with reason, at least not in practice, and is actually much more often simply reason gone astray. This is why people are Christians and not Faithians.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think once you get through all the superficial arguments it comes down to materialism versus idealism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not a materialist, so this is clearly not universally true. Personally, I think it's a cop-out. Few people criticize religion because of its idealism, and in fact the most idealistic of the religious groups are the ones atheists are, by and large, the most "okay" with.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't mean idealism in regards to ethics. I was thinking more along the lines of an objective (materialism) view of reality versus a subjective (idealism) view.

I think it really comes down to how we determine/define truth. The extreme materialist will say that truth is in a sense global and resides out there in the objective and verifiable world, while an extreme theist will say that truth resides within the mind.

Personally, I think both versions of truth exist, and try to keep them in their respective realms. Most of the conflicts, both within my mind and with others, seem to come about when one realm of truth challenges the other. I can't objectively prove something I know that's entirely subjective, and I don't feel I should be required to do so. But on the other hand, I can't claim an objective truth, that's based on subjective knowledge, without being required to prove it.

So I could say, I believe in God, know God, etc., and that's a subjective truth that's not open to challenge. But if I say, because I believe in God and the earth is 6000 years old, I've taken a subjective truth and made a conjecture to an objective truth. Then the age of the earth is open to challenge and I can't rely on my subjective knowledge to prove it. However, it works both ways - someone can't use the objective truth as to the age of the earth to then disprove my subjective knowledge of God.

This seems to be the area where most of the conflict arises. We have one person saying that they believe in a loving God (subjective knowledge) countered by a person giving examples from the Bible, the Crusades, etc., (objective knowledge). Then the theist gives an interpretation that corresponds to his belief, etc…

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont think it is too far off the mark to label any set of axioms as a religion (which would include atheism). Although I accept this is not the usual definition, it may be a useful idea to discuss different sets of axioms - at least as a way to engage theists.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with this. To label all axiomatic systems as a "religion" obscures a meaningful distinction between religion and other qualitatively very different modes of thought, such as that found in mathematics and (secular) philosophy. It is obvious why some theists seek to obfuscate that distinction.

[/ QUOTE ]
Just to clarify (responding to madnak as well) - I also think it is off the mark, just not too far.

I was more speculating that it may be a useful way to engage with theists to accept their contention that atheism is "just another religion". It at least avoids the "Your faith in evolution is the same as my faith in God" distractions.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
"Atheism" can't be considered a 'religion' or 'axiom' in itself, since it is only the current result of a set of axioms based on commmon sense and knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are misunderstanding me. I am suggesting that the following four axioms taken together could be labelled a religion:

1.There is an objective, real world.
2. Rationality is the best guide we have to learning the truth about that world.
3. We appear to have free will.
4. We should only believe statements which can be justified through evidence and/or rational argument.

Taken together, these make claims about how the world is and suggest ways of acting as being better than others. They are believed without justification. How is this very different from a religion?

(Again, I accept it is different and that this is not what people mean by religion - nonetheless I would contend that it's not far off and further that it may be useful when arguing with a theist to accept this charge and let the "religion" of atheism stand on its own merits (namely the fact that the axioms are "more obviously true" than those axioms accepted by christians)

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think once you get through all the superficial arguments it comes down to materialism versus idealism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not a materialist, so this is clearly not universally true. Personally, I think it's a cop-out. Few people criticize religion because of its idealism, and in fact the most idealistic of the religious groups are the ones atheists are, by and large, the most "okay" with.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't mean idealism in regards to ethics. I was thinking more along the lines of an objective (materialism) view of reality versus a subjective (idealism) view.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understood what you meant. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Atheists are almost exclusively concerned with Western religion, which makes direct, objective claims. When was the last time you saw Buddhism, paganism, Baha'i, or other subjective faiths criticized by atheists here? I'm not saying it doesn't happen, and sometimes even with good cause, but at worst such religions are minor annoyances to us. And the more subjective the practice is, the fewer problems we have with it (for instance, I think very few atheists have a problem with Zen - when we hate on Buddhism, it's the dogmatic sects).

[ QUOTE ]
I think it really comes down to how we determine/define truth. The extreme materialist will say that truth is in a sense global and resides out there in the objective and verifiable world, while an extreme theist will say that truth resides within the mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Because my experience is that I deny objective morality and encourage people to seek individual spirituality instead of authoritarian religion... And then the theists explain that there is an objective morality, and one objective God, and that my subjectivism is insidious and wrong. Do you need links to when this has happened? I'm even preparing to go and defend solipsism, of all things. And my problem is that I'm too focused on the objective?

[ QUOTE ]
This seems to be the area where most of the conflict arises. We have one person saying that they believe in a loving God (subjective knowledge) countered by a person giving examples from the Bible, the Crusades, etc., (objective knowledge). Then the theist gives an interpretation that corresponds to his belief, etc…

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Most of the conflict occurs when a person says, for example, "I believe in the Christian God." There are two essential problems that arise. The first is when we consider the semantics of the term "Christian." The second and more substantial is when, after it's been established that the Christian God is the God of the Bible (an objective, external source), we discuss the God of the Bible and the actions he takes. In this case we're discussing whether a mass murderer is good or bad - it's subjective on both sides, but I can certainly understand why you'd think the "bad" side has an inherent objective advantage, given that we are talking about a character who is a mass murderer.

If religion were about the subjective, then codes of rules and external objects like the Bible would not exist. In fact, they would be seen as anathema to religion, which would be seen as having to spring from within. You're confusing religion and spirituality, and you're doing it in an irrational way. It's true that some spiritual people try to reconcile their beliefs with religion - it's usually an arduous process that frequently involves departing from convention, accepting objective conclusion that are not feasible, and bending over backward to cast stories of torture, rape, and atrocity in a positive light.

It's pretty sad that they have to do this. As you say, spirituality is subjective. If these spiritual people had realized that, instead of being brainwashed into thinking it comes from an objective source such as the Bible, the world would be a much better place.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Atheism" can't be considered a 'religion' or 'axiom' in itself, since it is only the current result of a set of axioms based on commmon sense and knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are misunderstanding me. I am suggesting that the following four axioms taken together could be labelled a religion:

1.There is an objective, real world.
2. Rationality is the best guide we have to learning the truth about that world.
3. We appear to have free will.
4. We should only believe statements which can be justified through evidence and/or rational argument.

Taken together, these make claims about how the world is and suggest ways of acting as being better than others. They are believed without justification. How is this very different from a religion?

[/ QUOTE ]

In particular, there is no collectivization (read: authority), and there is no codification (read: authority). It's likely that people had spiritual experiences well before the advent of religion - they may have spontaneously "worshipped" in many different ways, or even passed rituals from family to family. But the set of widely shared beliefs about the nature of reality doesn't seem to have appeared until the beginning of social stratification - in fact, religions (based on rites, rule codes, ornamentation, etc) formed in all the early societies at about the time that a certain group of people needed to exert influence over the general populace in order to organize labor-intensive projects. There is significant evidence that widely shared rules and beliefs about the world (religions) have their source in coercive authority. Without such authority, why should everyone believe the same thing? There's a strong indication that before the advent of civilization it was more beneficial for people to have different perspectives rather than for everyone to accept the same standards.

Also, even if we accept that your axioms represent a religion... I don't accept any of them. And I'm an atheist. Assuming (safely, I think) that there are some atheists who accept all of them, well, it's hard to call atheism a religion when we all accept different axioms. What remains consistent is pretty consistent through all humanity - for example, we all use rational ideas such as those of cause and effect to interpret events and objects that we experience in our daily lives, to organize our information, and to plan our actions. If that is a matter of axioms, then, as vhawk says, they must be axioms that virtually everyone agree with.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
And the more subjective the practice is, the fewer problems we have with it (for instance, I think very few atheists have a problem with Zen - when we hate on Buddhism, it's the dogmatic sects).

[/ QUOTE ]

Before my head clears in the morning, a fuzzy version of Zen is quite appealing actually.

luckyme

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
In particular, there is no collectivization (read: authority), and there is no codification (read: authority). It's likely that people had spiritual experiences well before the advent of religion - they may have spontaneously "worshipped" in many different ways, or even passed rituals from family to family. But the set of widely shared beliefs about the nature of reality doesn't seem to have appeared until the beginning of social stratification - in fact, religions (based on rites, rule codes, ornamentation, etc) formed in all the early societies at about the time that a certain group of people needed to exert influence over the general populace in order to organize labor-intensive projects. There is significant evidence that widely shared rules and beliefs about the world (religions) have their source in coercive authority. Without such authority, why should everyone believe the same thing? There's a strong indication that before the advent of civilization it was more beneficial for people to have different perspectives rather than for everyone to accept the same standards.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont believe religion necessarily involves authority so I include personal mysticism/spirituality as religion - I know you dont agree with this characterization, but I dont think it's universally derided.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, even if we accept that your axioms represent a religion... I don't accept any of them. And I'm an atheist. Assuming (safely, I think) that there are some atheists who accept all of them, well, it's hard to call atheism a religion when we all accept different axioms. What remains consistent is pretty consistent through all humanity - for example, we all use rational ideas such as those of cause and effect to interpret events and objects that we experience in our daily lives, to organize our information, and to plan our actions. If that is a matter of axioms, then, as vhawk says, they must be axioms that virtually everyone agree with.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not trying to argue that all atheists believe the same axioms(any more than I ever argued that all theists believed the same axioms). I would stress that my point is not "Atheism is a religion" (I dont think it is). My question is more "Is it near enough that we dont need to bother explaining to theists why it isnt a religion. We can work within their assumption that it is and still persuade them that a belief in God is not justified?"

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont believe religion necessarily involves authority so I include personal mysticism/spirituality as religion - I know you dont agree with this characterization, but I dont think it's universally derided.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the distinction is important. That's why I harp on the semantics.

[ QUOTE ]
I would stress that my point is not "Atheism is a religion" (I dont think it is). My question is more "Is it near enough that we dont need to bother explaining to theists why it isnt a religion. We can work within their assumption that it is and still persuade them that a belief in God is not justified?"

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that there are different arguments against religion, and this admission would be relevant to some of them but not to others. If we let it slide when it's not relevant, then we appear inconsistent.