An unusual view of the neo-atheists [Archive]

InTheDark

10-30-2007, 06:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Can you at least summarize? :\

[/ QUOTE ]

It's quite long but here is an excerpt

[ QUOTE ]
This sloppiness and lack of intellectual scruple, with the assumption of certainty where there is none, combined with adolescent shrillness and intolerance, reach an apogee in Sam Harris’s book The End of Faith. It is not easy to do justice to the book’s nastiness; it makes Dawkins’s claim that religious education constitutes child abuse look sane and moderate.

Harris tells us, for example, that “we must find our way to a time when faith, without evidence, disgraces anyone who would claim it. Given the present state of the world, there appears to be no other future worth wanting.” I am glad that I am old enough that I shall not see the future of reason as laid down by Harris; but I am puzzled by the status of the compulsion in the first sentence that I have quoted. Is Harris writing of a historical inevitability? Of a categorical imperative? Or is he merely making a legislative proposal? This is who-will-rid-me-of-this-troublesome-priest language, ambiguous no doubt, but not open to a generous interpretation.

It becomes even more sinister when considered in conjunction with the following sentences, quite possibly the most disgraceful that I have read in a book by a man posing as a rationalist: “The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live.”

[/ QUOTE ]

tame_deuces

10-30-2007, 06:23 PM

Sounds like your very classic rant vs strict empiricism, as for the book he 'reviews' I haven't read it so I can't really say if he hits the mark or not.

Subfallen

10-30-2007, 07:06 PM

Dalrymple makes his best point when he criticizes the neo-atheists' philosophical laxity. He's right: as moral philosophers, the neo-atheists are sloppy and (even worse!) shallow. The human spirit has suffered abysses darker and deeper than Dawkins et al. seem capable of imagining.

But I think it's simply because these neo-atheists are too healthy. The world makes sense to them. They see beauty and meaning everywhere. Now, we cannot blame them for wanting others to join their world! But perhaps we can blame them for not seeing that most others will be unable...

Anyways, Dalrymple ruins an otherwise good article by a long series of tedious quotations, so stop reading once you get to, "I recently had occasion to compare the writings of the neo-atheists with those of Anglican divines of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries."

madnak

10-30-2007, 07:50 PM

I read it. He makes some valid points, but he's supremely arrogant and I'm disgusted by his idealization of the past. It's just painful to read the mediocre writing that he quotes and then goes on about (explaining that nobody in the modern world can equal it, garbage garbage garbage).

InTheDark

10-30-2007, 08:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I read it. He makes some valid points, but he's supremely arrogant and I'm disgusted by his idealization of the past. It's just painful to read the mediocre writing that he quotes and then goes on about (explaining that nobody in the modern world can equal it, garbage garbage garbage).

[/ QUOTE ]

That was certainly the point in the article where my eyes glazed over but...Maybe his point was that even mediocre clerics had some important grasp lacking today. I dunno, I was never a good student in English.

luckyme

10-30-2007, 08:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I read it. He makes some valid points, but he's supremely arrogant and I'm disgusted by his idealization of the past. It's just painful to read the mediocre writing that he quotes and then goes on about (explaining that nobody in the modern world can equal it, garbage garbage garbage).

[/ QUOTE ]

I rather pity people who can't/don't understand "the Intentional Stance".

luckyme

Splendour

10-30-2007, 09:05 PM

I almost forgot he was an atheist after reading it. A lot to think about. I failed to detect any outrageous arrogance like others in this thread did.
What he said about moderation is particularly salutory in view of the extremes of cruelty and gross material excesses of the 20th century.

vhawk01

10-30-2007, 09:27 PM

MaxWeiss

10-31-2007, 01:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I almost forgot he was an atheist after reading it. A lot to think about. I failed to detect any outrageous arrogance like others in this thread did.
What he said about moderation is particularly salutory in view of the extremes of cruelty and gross material excesses of the 20th century.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. What is inherently bad about material things? Most "material things" are either forms of useful technology or of entertainment. Can you name one which is not? Those things have always existed throughout time. Their "gross excess" has nothing to do with whatever problem you have with them; it has to do with your view on how attached people are to them--but even then, so what? What is the harm or lack of productivity done by collection of these material things? As long as one can support himself and contribute to society and the world at large, what gripe do you have?

2. Moderation is certainly a good thing when both too much and too little of something is inferior to some median amount. However in the case of, oh let's say teaching creation (sorry, intelligent design--no religious content intended) in the science classroom, moderation is BAD. One who does not "take sides" on the issue is knowingly stunting the education of children. Moderation should only be praised when the median is the best stance.

That being said, I would like to point out that fighting for religious moderation IS a good stance, and moderation in this sense is good. I disagree with religion and faith itself, but that is a battle which cannot at present be won. What atheists should be doing is recruiting religious moderates in a combined fight against extremism for the current moment. (In this context, I define moderation as religion/faith kept privately, and extremism as religion/faith trying to be forced on others.) The enemy of my enemy is my friend, so to speak.

Splendour

10-31-2007, 03:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I almost forgot he was an atheist after reading it. A lot to think about. I failed to detect any outrageous arrogance like others in this thread did.
What he said about moderation is particularly salutory in view of the extremes of cruelty and gross material excesses of the 20th century.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. What is inherently bad about material things? Most "material things" are either forms of useful technology or of entertainment. Can you name one which is not? Those things have always existed throughout time. Their "gross excess" has nothing to do with whatever problem you have with them; it has to do with your view on how attached people are to them--but even then, so what? What is the harm or lack of productivity done by collection of these material things? As long as one can support himself and contribute to society and the world at large, what gripe do you have?

2. Moderation is certainly a good thing when both too much and too little of something is inferior to some median amount. However in the case of, oh let's say teaching creation (sorry, intelligent design--no religious content intended) in the science classroom, moderation is BAD. One who does not "take sides" on the issue is knowingly stunting the education of children. Moderation should only be praised when the median is the best stance.

That being said, I would like to point out that fighting for religious moderation IS a good stance, and moderation in this sense is good. I disagree with religion and faith itself, but that is a battle which cannot at present be won. What atheists should be doing is recruiting religious moderates in a combined fight against extremism for the current moment. (In this context, I define moderation as religion/faith kept privately, and extremism as religion/faith trying to be forced on others.) The enemy of my enemy is my friend, so to speak.

[/ QUOTE ]

Material things are not inherently bad. Its when you set them up on a pedestal or make keeping up with the Joneses your number one priority that you are in trouble. When I mentioned material excesses I wasn't referring to that though. I was thinking more about wastefulness and abuse of goods and nature and corporate corruption.

Many 3rd world countries are being rapidly deforested, they say the rainforests are disappearing, there was a Corporate CEO who defrauded his company for all kinds of crazy expenses like throwing his wife a million dollar birthday party.

" I define moderation as religion/faith kept privately, and extremism as religion/faith trying to be forced on others."-

If you define religious moderation as this then it could lead to the extinction of religious people. I don't believe in forcing anything on anyone either. However, the right to your own faith is an individual right. If you won't allow people to speak freely about it then you impact the individual rights of others (both the person speaking and the person listening). Not everyone is from a religious family. In fact sometimes family/friends have the least impact.

NasEscobar

10-31-2007, 05:25 PM

What is a neo-atheist?

Justin A

10-31-2007, 06:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What is a neo-atheist?

[/ QUOTE ]

A new atheist obviously.

Just kidding I don't know either.

The Dude

11-01-2007, 01:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I can read only so much philosophy before my eyes glaze over so I'd like to hear from others their impression of Dalrymple's opinions.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, I'm a neo-atheist, I suppose, so take that for what it's worth.

Dalrymple's major problem with us seems to be our adamant stance that people's religious beliefs should not be blindly respected. Sure, he lists a few other gripes, but I think he would change his mind on those if he switched positions on the respect issue.

From the article:
This sloppiness and lack of intellectual scruple, with the assumption of certainty where there is none, combined with adolescent shrillness and intolerance, reach an apogee in Sam Harris’s book The End of Faith. It is not easy to do justice to the book’s nastiness; it makes Dawkins’s claim that religious education constitutes child abuse look sane and moderate. Harris tells us, for example, that “we must find our way to a time when faith, without evidence, disgraces anyone who would claim it. Given the present state of the world, there appears to be no other future worth wanting.”
Harris and Dawkins - and I - are as close to certain as is reasonably possible. So close that it's reasonable to act in such a way we have no doubt whatsoever. To say that we proceed with "the assumption of certainty where there is none" is a gross misrepresentation of both the evidence and the authors' claims. Remember, they're claiming certainty against all specific religions, not the generalities of theism and deism. (There are very good reasons to reject those as well, but the degree of certainty is entirely different).

As for Dalrymple's claim that Harris is being outrageously nasty when he says "we must find our way to a time when faith, without evidence, disgraces anyone who would claim it," I am firmly on Harris's side. Why should I respect the belief that Jesus rose from the dead more than I respect the belief that Rex Grossman is a better quarterback than Peyton Manning? People need to have a positive reason to believe something. If somebody says "the stars line up well today, so I think I'm going to have a good day," they deserve to be laughed at, not respected. Especially when these outrageous beliefs lead people to make negative decisions (like suicide bombing, or opposing stem-cell research, or rejecting evolution). There are multiple chapters in the books Dalrymple criticizes devoted to this argument, and I suspect that he either hasn't read them or doesn't understand them. Or maybe he just wants to pick things to criticize so that he can look like a good and tolerant moderate.

madnak

11-01-2007, 02:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If somebody says "the stars line up well today, so I think I'm going to have a good day," they deserve to be laughed at, not respected.

[/ QUOTE ]

So all those who believe in astrology "deserve" (whatever that means) ridicule, and none of them deserve respect. That's the kind of baseless hogwash that makes religion dangerous. Disrespecting a given belief is just rationality - disrespecting a person simply because they hold that belief is hatred and elitism.

Subfallen

11-01-2007, 02:45 AM

Dude -

Especially by their tone, the neo-atheists are making at least one "assumption of certainty where there is none." They assume that religion's existential value cannot outweigh its cost in impaired rationality. But, for many people, they are simply wrong.

Rather ironically, although God Delusion pushed me over the edge to full apostasy, I still think it's an insultingly simplistic criticism of religion.

Somehow, Dawkins just can't grasp that religion IS NOT ABOUT RATIONAL METAPHYSICS. It's about morality and meaning. I mean, how can he really believe that something as trite as metaphysics inspired Pascal, Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky, etc. to wage such transcendent wars for their faith?

MaxWeiss

11-01-2007, 03:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
However, the right to your own faith is an individual right.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree, and that's why I used the term "force". I'm happy to let people talk about it and discuss it. I'm not okay with letting it get taught in the science classroom. I am, by the way, perfectly fine with creation being taught in schools as an optional non-science class. I would also not object to Christianity being taught in a required class which had an overview of all world religions, past and present, as well as non-theistic views.

PairTheBoard

11-01-2007, 04:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Duke -
Harris and Dawkins - and I - are as close to certain as is reasonably possible

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Duke -
Remember, they're claiming certainty against all specific religions,

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Harris -
“we must find our way to a time when faith, without evidence, disgraces anyone who would claim it.

[/ QUOTE ]

And in case we need a Judge Dredd to abritrate evidence and enforce this imperative we have ...

[ QUOTE ]
Duke -
it's reasonable to act in such a way we have no doubt whatsoever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Happy Halloween.

PairTheBoard

The Dude

11-01-2007, 05:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If somebody says "the stars line up well today, so I think I'm going to have a good day," they deserve to be laughed at, not respected.

[/ QUOTE ]
So all those who believe in astrology "deserve" (whatever that means) ridicule, and none of them deserve respect. That's the kind of baseless hogwash that makes religion dangerous. Disrespecting a given belief is just rationality - disrespecting a person simply because they hold that belief is hatred and elitism.

[/ QUOTE ]
The people can be respected, but their beliefs shouldn't be. The three people whose character I respect most are all Christian. I don't think they're idiots, but their belief is irrational and wrong, and I refuse to give that area of their life respect, simply because society says I should.

I certainly don't think we should run around pointing fingers in every religious person's face saying "Haha! You're a dumbass." But remember two things. First, they bring the conversation up all the time. Second, their claims to respect have a dramatic negative impact on society. There's a fight right now about whether intelligent design and/or evolution should be taught in school. It's ridiculous. ID is a joke, and evolution is fact. That some people feel like it's disrespecting their religious beliefs should have zero bearing whatsoever.

The Dude

11-01-2007, 05:44 AM

PTB,

When asked why someone believes something, do you think it's reasonable to respond with something along the lines of "I have faith God exists, and you can't prove he doesn't?"

I have the general impression that you have specific reasons to think the Bible is legitimate evidence, and that's very different than saying "you can't prove the Bible isn't god's word." I'm firmly convinced you're wrong, but that's beside the point.

I am open and eager to have discussions with people about evidence and logic, but if someone falls back on the "you can't prove I'm wrong" defense, or says "because I have faith," the conversation is over. Until they abandon that ridiculous position there's nowhere else to go.

In this passage Sam Harris isn't claiming that everyone who seeks evidence and uses logic is going to come to all the same conclusions he is. He is simply saying we should all condemn the idea that faith is enough, and we don't need to seek evidence or think about things logically.

Do you really disagree with this?

MidGe

11-01-2007, 06:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
When asked why someone believes something, do you think it's reasonable to respond with something along the lines of "I have faith God exists, and you can't prove he doesn't?"

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not less reasonable or more reasonable than responding along the lines of "I have faith that the red herring, [Santa Claus, unicorns, fairies, etc..] exists and you can't prove they don't?"

InTheDark

11-01-2007, 08:27 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Especially by their tone, the neo-atheists are making at least one "assumption of certainty where there is none." They assume that religion's existential value cannot outweigh its cost in impaired rationality. But, for many people, they are simply wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I didn't see Dalrymple make this point specifically, I find it at the center of my own objection to neo-atheism. I am unable to point to the culture that is successful and atheistic. I believe that such a culture won't come to be and has never existed for long. When religion is purged from the elites and then the common man, failure of the society follows.

All the arguments of bootstrapping morality and such fall flat in the absence of a successful atheist culture, not to mention some very spectacular failures.

InTheDark

11-01-2007, 08:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Harris and Dawkins - and I - are as close to certain as is reasonably possible. So close that it's reasonable to act in such a way we have no doubt whatsoever. To say that we proceed with "the assumption of certainty where there is none" is a gross misrepresentation of both the evidence and the authors' claims. Remember, they're claiming certainty against all specific religions, not the generalities of theism and deism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is an interesting asymmetry. I can imagine a fantastic event that could very likely convert Dawkins, Harris or yourself to theism in a day. I can construct no such event that would work the reverse on the Pope.

luckyme

11-01-2007, 09:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Harris and Dawkins - and I - are as close to certain as is reasonably possible. So close that it's reasonable to act in such a way we have no doubt whatsoever. To say that we proceed with "the assumption of certainty where there is none" is a gross misrepresentation of both the evidence and the authors' claims. Remember, they're claiming certainty against all specific religions, not the generalities of theism and deism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is an interesting asymmetry. I can imagine a fantastic event that could very likely convert Dawkins, Harris or yourself to theism in a day. I can construct no such event that would work the reverse on the Pope.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why " It's true because I say it's true."

luckyme

luckyme

11-01-2007, 09:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]
When asked why someone believes something, do you think it's reasonable to respond with something along the lines of "I have faith God exists, and you can't prove he doesn't?"

[/ QUOTE ]

to be fair-
PTB isn't one of those "I can prove it to you logically". He's a "I have special powers/knowledge" guy.
It still ends up at the "you can't prove I'm wrong" as the 'blind faith' people but the route is different.

luckyme

Splendour

11-01-2007, 09:32 AM

Quote: I am unable to point to the culture that is successful and atheistic

I guess you would have to do a study of all time to see if there's every been a sucessful one. I can't point to one either.

Also the atheists never seem to have done an exhaustive study of history, anthropology, psychology and sociology where they were able to definitively point to religion as the root cause for all of society's evils. They are scientists and these multidiscipline studies seem to be outside their sphere. Have they done any cross comparison studies between religions to see if there are any inherent good things about one religion versus another that are manifested in the society in which the religion is present?

For a short time I worked in a field that handled domestic violence and abused children's issues. The social workers used to look for signs of religious life in the homes among other things that they looked for when assessing the child's family situation. Usually when they found it in the families they considered it a positive/hopeful sign. They actually went in and studied particular families, the family dynamics and the problems that families face. If they found any kind of religious base then there was a value base to work off of with the family. This is just one of the bases they looked at, of course.

Are we suppose to be guinea pigs and just blindly trust Dawkins, Harris et al's personal sweeping statement that they have the solution so we should just abandon all faith and institutions? Dawkins and Harris may not even be in agreement with the majority of all atheists' opinions. Hence we now have neo-atheists.

Is atheism sectarian then? If atheism came to be dominant in society would we see a division among atheists along different lines?

luckyme

11-01-2007, 09:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The social workers used to look for signs of religious life in the homes among other things that they looked for when assessing the child's family situation. Usually when they found it in the families they considered it a positive/hopeful sign.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah that helps explain why there is such a lop-sided percentage of theists in prison compared to percentage of atheists - the social workers switch to 'hope' when they find religion and when they find atheists they must work through the actual problem.

thanks, luckyme

Splendour

11-01-2007, 09:55 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The social workers used to look for signs of religious life in the homes among other things that they looked for when assessing the child's family situation. Usually when they found it in the families they considered it a positive/hopeful sign.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah that helps explain why there is such a lop-sided percentage of theists in prison compared to percentage of atheists - the social workers switch to 'hope' when they find religion and when they find atheists they must work through the actual problem.

thanks, luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Really more theists in prison? Where do you get your statistics from in support of this statement? Is it from Christian countries where theists outnumber non-theists. If so then it would be natural for more theists to be in jail because they would make up a larger percentage of the population.

tame_deuces

11-01-2007, 10:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Especially by their tone, the neo-atheists are making at least one "assumption of certainty where there is none." They assume that religion's existential value cannot outweigh its cost in impaired rationality. But, for many people, they are simply wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I didn't see Dalrymple make this point specifically, I find it at the center of my own objection to neo-atheism. I am unable to point to the culture that is successful and atheistic. I believe that such a culture won't come to be and has never existed for long. When religion is purged from the elites and then the common man, failure of the society follows.

All the arguments of bootstrapping morality and such fall flat in the absence of a successful atheist culture, not to mention some very spectacular failures.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe, just _maybe_ this is because only 15% of the world's population doesn't believe in a god and only 3% claim to be atheist.

Or instead of basing ourselves on the lack of probability of having enough atheists in one spot to form a large culture - we could go with some uneducated guesswork about the fallacies of large atheist cultures based on speculation and coloured by belief.

And please don't say Soviet or anything silly like that, practicing religion and being religious was common there too.

luckyme

11-01-2007, 10:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Quote: I am unable to point to the culture that is successful and atheistic

I guess you would have to do a study of all time to see if there's every been a sucessful one. I can't point to one either.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you actually have to look. Spinning around blindfolded only works in spin-the-bottle.

As an aside -
Year - 1000 BC -
Splendor , "Cretus, show me one democracy that has worked."

Year - 1775
Slendor, "Mr Jefferson, that's ridiculous, show me one example that worked. All men created equal, yadda ..gimmee a break."

Even though your spin-the-bottle research came up with the wrong answer, you'd be wrong to use that method to decide worthy ideas from poor in any field.

luckyme

Splendour

11-01-2007, 10:16 AM

I'm just saying that the hard science scientists are making sweeping statements about society. They don't study society. They study nature: petrie dishes, fossil samples, etc.
They are looking for the divine in the material and refusing to look to the evidence from people themselves. They sometimes don't even have a comprehensive grasp of history. At least a medical doctor can tell you that a person's personal faith sustained him through a fight with cancer and that another person's remission was an inexplicable miracle. They work with people and they listen to the symptoms and impressions expressed by people. Psychologists and sociologists would also tell you this isn't the easy call that a hard scientist thinks it is.

luckyme

11-01-2007, 10:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
At least a medical doctor can tell you that a person's personal faith sustained him through a fight with cancer and that another person's remission was an inexplicable miracle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, the doctors follow the procedures that the hard sciences provided for them. They've basically given up on trepanning unless hard-science research advises it for pressure release. They also turn to the hard sciences ( including mathematics) to determine if a specific treatment works. The field has mostly given up on divine intervention for cures and use hard science instead.

luckyme

tame_deuces

11-01-2007, 10:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Psychologists and sociologists would also tell you this isn't the easy call that a hard scientist thinks it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, we'd also tell you we can make the call easier than hard scientists. And this is true.

Splendour

11-01-2007, 10:42 AM

Actually there's now a lot of non-hard science things going on in medicine today. They call it alternative medicine. Doctors fully admit that hard science doesn't have the answer to everything and that they need to more fully explore other avenues to healing. This doesn't mean that they don't attempt to understand the hard science implications if they can find them.
That's why they are studying health globally and comparing methods. Some methods they are using include tai chi, meditation, homeopathic remedies, simple lifestyle changes.

The new term is "integrative heath".

http://www.drpelletier.com/

Don't miss this link where you can buy a book explaining the following: http://www.drpelletier.com/sound_mind/index.html

It explores how personal health practices and a sense of meaningful purpose play a major role in both inner fulfillment and professional success, and offers practical, effective techniques to help anyone achieve physical, mental, and emotional equilibrium and enjoy a lifetime of optimal health.

vhawk01

11-01-2007, 10:54 AM

vhawk01

11-01-2007, 10:55 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At least a medical doctor can tell you that a person's personal faith sustained him through a fight with cancer and that another person's remission was an inexplicable miracle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, the doctors follow the procedures that the hard sciences provided for them. They've basically given up on trepanning unless hard-science research advises it for pressure release. They also turn to the hard sciences ( including mathematics) to determine if a specific treatment works. The field has mostly given up on divine intervention for cures and use hard science instead.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah but we still let patients say all kinds of stupid things like "No I dont want the epidural" and "Double D cups, please"

manbearpig

11-01-2007, 10:59 AM

luckyme

11-01-2007, 11:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Psychologists and sociologists would also tell you this isn't the easy call that a hard scientist thinks it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, we'd also tell you we can make the call easier than hard scientists. And this is true.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmmmm. I thought statistics played a huge role in those fields . oh well.

luckyme

tame_deuces

11-01-2007, 11:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Psychologists and sociologists would also tell you this isn't the easy call that a hard scientist thinks it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, we'd also tell you we can make the call easier than hard scientists. And this is true.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmmmm. I thought statistics played a huge role in those fields . oh well.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to admit I don't get it. Yes we use a good bit of statistics but like statistics in any field it is just a tool.

Subfallen

11-01-2007, 12:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I am unable to point to the culture that is successful and atheistic. I believe that such a culture won't come to be and has never existed for long. When religion is purged from the elites and then the common man, failure of the society follows.

[/ QUOTE ]

China's elite is overwhelmingly atheistic; do you suspect China is about to fail and disappear?

And I think someone pointed it out, but your assumptions of causality here are specious at best. Atheists will probably never be a high enough % of the human population for any country to be predominantly atheistic for very long at all.

Religion is waaayyy too popular for that to happen.

kurto

11-01-2007, 12:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Here is an interesting asymmetry. I can imagine a fantastic event that could very likely convert Dawkins, Harris or yourself to theism in a day. I can construct no such event that would work the reverse on the Pope.

[/ QUOTE ]

You realize that's a testiment to their openmindedness and a good criticism of the problem with the Pope.

kurto

11-01-2007, 12:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I am unable to point to the culture that is successful and atheistic. I believe that such a culture won't come to be and has never existed for long. When religion is purged from the elites and then the common man, failure of the society follows.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm -- this is bad. You have no decent samples and any examples you have are not controlled (in other words, you can't compare societies where all constants are the same except for religion).

Furthermore - Of all the societies/countries that have failed throughout history - I suspect you'll find that the vast majority of them were religious.

Your assumptions don't seem well founded. (though I suspect this argument is made on some Christian apologist site somewhere since it is often repeated but never backed up.)

kurto

11-01-2007, 12:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
where they were able to definitively point to religion as the root cause for all of society's evils.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one has ever argue that religion is teh root cause for all of society's evils so what would the point be?

You can always count on Splendour to mis-state the issues.

Splendour

11-01-2007, 01:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
where they were able to definitively point to religion as the root cause for all of society's evils.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one has ever argue that religion is teh root cause for all of society's evils so what would the point be?

You can always count on Splendour to mis-state the issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh so you deny that people have been blaming God on this forum for things like the recent San Diego County fires ranging over to the tsunami that hit Indonesia and 16 other countries a couple of years back?

Don't atheists routinely state that religion is the cause of wars without even examining other political/economic/historic and social causes that might also have been relevant?

Isn't it odd that atheists bring up blaming God if they don't believe in him?

It seems like you may be the one changing your side of the argument in every strong wind Kurto and how do I know this? Because I've had a "God is to blame" post almost every day of the week since I arrived in this forum.

The funny thing is you don't have as much trouble identifying the theists as the non-theists in this forum. You can't tell if the non-theist is neo-atheists or some other type of atheist or if they are a Satanist masquerading as your common hot house atheist, or if they're an agnostic.

Its particularly hard to spot a Satanist from an atheist. He'd be a lot easier to spot amongst a lot of theists, but mixed in with the atheists he's very hard to identify.

The interesting thing about a Satanist is the fact that he's very much aware that there is a God. He just choses not to follow him. A lot of people could easily follow a Satanist thinking he's an atheist because the Satanist could mimic an atheist and the atheist would never be the wiser.

vhawk01

11-01-2007, 02:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
where they were able to definitively point to religion as the root cause for all of society's evils.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one has ever argue that religion is teh root cause for all of society's evils so what would the point be?

You can always count on Splendour to mis-state the issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh so you deny that people have been blaming God on this forum for things like the recent San Diego County fires ranging over to the tsunami that hit Indonesia and 16 other countries a couple of years back?

Don't atheists routinely state that religion is the cause of wars without even examining other political/economic/historic and social causes that might also have been relevant?

Isn't it odd that atheists bring up blaming God if they don't believe in him?

It seems like you may be the one changing your side of the argument in every strong wind Kurto and how do I know this? Because I've had a "God is to blame" post almost every day of the week since I arrived in this forum.

The funny thing is you don't have as much trouble identifying the theists as the non-theists in this forum. You can't tell if the non-theist is neo-atheists or some other type of atheist or if they are a Satanist masquerading as your common hot house atheist, or if they're an agnostic.

Its particularly hard to spot a Satanist from an atheist. He'd be a lot easier to spot amongst a lot of theists, but mixed in with the atheists he's very hard to identify.

The interesting thing about a Satanist is the fact that he's very much aware that there is a God. He just choses not to follow him. A lot of people could easily follow a Satanist thinking he's an atheist because the Satanist could mimic an atheist and the atheist would never be the wiser.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one is SERIOUSLY blaming God for all those things. We are SARCASTICALLY blaming God for those things to point out how OBVIOUSLY stupid it is to people like you, who DO blame God for other things, things you've decided are good.

kurto

11-01-2007, 03:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Oh so you deny that people have been blaming God on this forum for things like the recent San Diego County fires ranging over to the tsunami that hit Indonesia and 16 other countries a couple of years back?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

And please note - you're still mixing everything up. There's a big difference between 'people blaming God for a Tsunami' and 'people blaming all of society's ills on religion.'

NONE of the atheists are blaming God for the Tsunamis or the fires. If you believe that is there argument it goes a long way to explain your posts. Not a single Atheist believes God is blame for any of the above.

Note - your reaction here still does nothing to address what I pointed out you said wrong earlier. EVEN if someone thought God caused these disasters, that doesn't show that people think "RELIGION" is the cause of ALL of a societies problems.

Here's the key -- RELIGION is not GOD. There can be no God and there can still be a religion.

Also-- I was taking issue with your use of the word "ALL" as in 'religion causes ALL of a societies evils.' No one has said that. Not Dawkins, no one this forum.

[ QUOTE ]
Don't atheists routinely state that religion is the cause of wars without even examining other political/economic/historic and social causes that might also have been relevant?

[/ QUOTE ]

They have never said religion is the only cause of war. But religion has certainly been a factor in many wars throughout history. No one has blamed religion alone.

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it odd that atheists bring up blaming God if they don't believe in him?

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, no atheists have blamed God. It makes one wonder what goes on in your head.

[ QUOTE ]
Because I've had a "God is to blame" post almost every day of the week since I arrived in this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

You see it every week but don't understand it. That's the amusing part. They're saying IF there was a God (and they're not saying there is a God), and if you believe he is active in the world, then it can be held responsible for bad things too. You seem to miss the entire 'hypothetical' aspect of the posts.

[ QUOTE ]
The funny thing is you don't have as much trouble identifying the theists as the non-theists in this forum. You can't tell if the non-theist is neo-atheists or some other type of atheist or if they are a Satanist masquerading as your common hot house atheist, or if they're an agnostic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Usually people are pretty open about what they follow. The confusion is probably more in your head.

[ QUOTE ]
Its particularly hard to spot a Satanist from an atheist. He'd be a lot easier to spot amongst a lot of theists, but mixed in with the atheists he's very hard to identify.

[/ QUOTE ]
I doubt there are any satanists here. Though a satanist is still a theist. So most of the atheists, I would guess, would look at a Satanist no differently then they do a Christian.

[ QUOTE ]
The interesting thing about a Satanist is the fact that he's very much aware that there is a God. He just choses not to follow him. A lot of people could easily follow a Satanist thinking he's an atheist because the Satanist could mimic an atheist and the atheist would never be the wiser.

[/ QUOTE ] No. Because an atheist would think a satanist was irrational and goofy. Do you just make this stuff up?

Splendour

11-01-2007, 04:07 PM

Here's a short bio on somebody who understands subtleties in religion that you obviously don't.

William James
U.S. psychologist and philosopher William James (1842-1910) is regarded by most psychologists of religion as the founder of the field. He served as president of the American Psychological Association, and wrote one of the first psychology textbooks. In the psychology of religion, James' influence endures. His Varieties of Religious Experience is considered to be the classic work in the field, and references to James' ideas are common at professional conferences.

James distinguished between institutional religion and personal religion. Institutional religion refers to the religious group or organization, and plays an important part in a society's culture. Personal religion, in which the individual has mystical experience, can be experienced regardless of the culture. James was most interested in understanding personal religious experience.

If personal religious experiences were what James preferred, dogmatism was something he disliked. The importance of James to the psychology of religion - and to psychology more generally - is difficult to overstate. He discussed many essential issues that remain of vital concern today.

In studying personal religious experiences, James made a distinction between healthy-minded and sick-souled religiousness. Individuals predisposed to healthy-mindedness tend to ignore the evil in the world and focus on the positive and the good. James used examples of Walt Whitman and the "mindcure" religious movement to illustrate healthy-mindedness in The Varieties of Religious Experience. In contrast, individuals predisposed to having a sick-souled religion are unable to ignore evil and suffering, and need a unifying experience, religious or otherwise, to reconcile good and evil. James included quotations from Leo Tolstoy and John Bunyan to illustrate the sick soul.

William James' hypothesis of pragmatism stems from the efficacy of religion. If an individual believes in and performs religious activities, and those actions happen to work, then that practice appears the proper choice for the individual. However, if the processes of religion have little efficacy, then there is no rationality for continuing the practice.

Here's Sam Harris in contrast:

Harris tells us, for example, that “we must find our way to a time when faith, without evidence, disgraces anyone who would claim it. Given the present state of the world, there appears to be no other future worth wanting.” I am glad that I am old enough that I shall not see the future of reason as laid down by Harris; but I am puzzled by the status of the compulsion in the first sentence that I have quoted. Is Harris writing of a historical inevitability? Of a categorical imperative? Or is he merely making a legislative proposal? This is who-will-rid-me-of-this-troublesome-priest language, ambiguous no doubt, but not open to a generous interpretation.

It becomes even more sinister when considered in conjunction with the following sentences, quite possibly the most disgraceful that I have read in a book by a man posing as a rationalist: “The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live.”

Maybe you can study the contrast and arrive at a better understanding of the complexity of the problem.

Sephus

11-01-2007, 04:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Its particularly hard to spot a Satanist from an atheist. He'd be a lot easier to spot amongst a lot of theists, but mixed in with the atheists he's very hard to identify.

The interesting thing about a Satanist is the fact that he's very much aware that there is a God. He just choses not to follow him. A lot of people could easily follow a Satanist thinking he's an atheist because the Satanist could mimic an atheist and the atheist would never be the wiser.

[/ QUOTE ]

you don't know what a satanist is. you're using the word to mean "someone who worships satan" but few people who call themselves satanists do that. many, possibly most, of the people who call themselves satanists are atheists.

kurto

11-01-2007, 04:17 PM

What does you bio serve? It doesn't address the fact that in your last posts you've made numerous errors:
(1) you misrepresent the position of atheists
(2) you confuse "Religion" with "God"
(3) you show a complete misunderstanding of the point of numerous points

How does that bio fix your endless errors, misunderstandings and misrepresentations? As usual, you love to cut and paste things that have NO bearing on the discussion.

My previous posts did little more then show how you posted false information. Your posting this biographical information goes a long way to explaining why someone earlier called you schizophrenic.

Your entire post doesn't address ANYTHING. You should just start a new thread if you want to change the subject. Posting what you did in response to my post makes no sense.

[ QUOTE ]

Maybe you can study the contrast and arrive at a better understanding of the complexity of the problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which problem? I was only addressing the problem of your posts constantly being dishonest or just wrong. You make claims that are completely false and inaccurate... then you say I don't understand the problem? Ironic.

Sephus

11-01-2007, 04:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Here's a short bio on somebody who understands subtleties in religion that you obviously don't.

Maybe you can study the contrast and arrive at a better understanding of the complexity of the problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

please explain the complexities of the problem, using analysis of the quotes you posted, including explanations of how the arguments are relevant to what's going on in this thread.

kurto

11-01-2007, 04:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's a short bio on somebody who understands subtleties in religion that you obviously don't.

Maybe you can study the contrast and arrive at a better understanding of the complexity of the problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

please explain the complexities of the problem, using analysis of the quotes you posted, including explanations of how the arguments are relevant to what's going on in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ha.

You know this usually leads to her cutting and pasting something else that may only vaguely relate to what she posted before?

I think Splendour is like an addiction. You know her responses are going to be maddeningly nonsensical and random, yet I keep replying as if its possible to have a sensible conversation with her.

madnak

11-01-2007, 05:07 PM

That's the definition of an effective troll - even when you know they're trolling, you still have to post.

kurto

11-01-2007, 05:13 PM

I don't want it to seem like I'm randomly attacking you. If I can show you from my perspective why your responses seem confusing....

HOW IT STARTED-
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
where they were able to definitively point to religion as the root cause for all of society's evils.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one has ever argue that religion is teh root cause for all of society's evils so what would the point be?

[/ QUOTE ]

Please notice: I only stated that no one has ever argued that religion is the root cause for all of society's evils.

YOUR RESPONSE TO THIS?
[ QUOTE ]
Oh so you deny that people have been blaming God on this forum for things like the recent San Diego County fires ranging over to the tsunami that hit Indonesia and 16 other countries a couple of years back?

[/ QUOTE ]

As you can see (and as I pointed out, yet you ignored) -- my original posting said nothing about blaming GOD (as GOD does NOT equal religion). Also, even if every atheist in the world blamed God for Tsunamis... it wouldn't show that they believed that "religion is the root cause for all of society's evils"

Do you see how your response doesn't make sense?

You then go one about how atheists say Religion is to blame for wars. Certainly even you would have to agree that religion has had a role in many wars, right? I don't think anyone has ever said that religion and religion alone caused all wars.

And then you drop this whammy (again... who does this relate to my pointing out that no one is saying religion is the root cause of all of the evils in society?)
[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it odd that atheists bring up blaming God if they don't believe in him?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you not understand that NO atheist believe God causes any of these things. They are just saying if God gets credit for doing good things (which atheists don't believe he gets credit because they don't believe in him) then you have to look at his role for bad things that happen.

Again-- this response still has NOTHING to do with my post to which you responded.

And then you go off on some rant about satanists which I don't believe any has talked about at all and has no bearing on the conversation at all.

I RESPOND:
I basically pointed out what I just stated above, namely:
* criticizing religion is not the same as criticizing God
* atheists don't believe in God
* No one has said religion is the sole cause of all wars
* no one was talking about satanists and its irrelevent to thread

YOU RESPOND-
You post a bio of a psychologist whose been dead for decades who doesn't address anything I said. Nor does your posting it have any bearing on this statement "no one has ever argued that religion is the root cause for all of society's evils."

You posted an inaccurate statement and I pointed it out. Nothing you have posted in anyway addresses your original mistake.

If you can explain how each post of yours in any way shows that atheists (or anyone) blame all society's evils on religion and religion alone; that would be very helpful.

Also- please point out where anyone was talking about satanists... then I can understand why you dedicated several paragraphs to satanists when noone was talking about them.

(prediction: you will cut and paste something from some other site that has nothing to do with anything.)

Thank you.

bunny

11-01-2007, 05:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Here is an interesting asymmetry. I can imagine a fantastic event that could very likely convert Dawkins, Harris or yourself to theism in a day. I can construct no such event that would work the reverse on the Pope.

[/ QUOTE ]
You can't imagine a devout believer losing their faith?

Sephus

11-01-2007, 05:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here is an interesting asymmetry. I can imagine a fantastic event that could very likely convert Dawkins, Harris or yourself to theism in a day. I can construct no such event that would work the reverse on the Pope.

[/ QUOTE ]
You can't imagine a devout believer losing their faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

or that the pope is already an atheist?

Splendour

11-01-2007, 06:14 PM

Let's just agree to disagree. Men are from Mars. Women are from Venus. Call it a basic communication barrier. I don't think women conceptualize in the same way men do if that helps. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Sephus

11-01-2007, 06:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Let's just agree to disagree. Men are from Mars. Women are from Venus. Call it a basic communication barrier. I don't think women conceptualize in the same way men do if that helps. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

did you go to college? did you ever have to make assertions and support them with evidence? if your professor was male, did you ever answer a question "why bother, you're a man"?

if you have a basic problem communicating with men on an intellectual level, why are you here? shouldn't you find a forum that isn't almost exclusively populated by men??

InTheDark

11-01-2007, 06:56 PM

InTheDark

11-01-2007, 07:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Especially by their tone, the neo-atheists are making at least one "assumption of certainty where there is none." They assume that religion's existential value cannot outweigh its cost in impaired rationality. But, for many people, they are simply wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I didn't see Dalrymple make this point specifically, I find it at the center of my own objection to neo-atheism. I am unable to point to the culture that is successful and atheistic. I believe that such a culture won't come to be and has never existed for long. When religion is purged from the elites and then the common man, failure of the society follows.

All the arguments of bootstrapping morality and such fall flat in the absence of a successful atheist culture, not to mention some very spectacular failures.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe, just _maybe_ this is because only 15% of the world's population doesn't believe in a god and only 3% claim to be atheist.

Or instead of basing ourselves on the lack of probability of having enough atheists in one spot to form a large culture - we could go with some uneducated guesswork about the fallacies of large atheist cultures based on speculation and coloured by belief.

And please don't say Soviet or anything silly like that, practicing religion and being religious was common there too.

[/ QUOTE ]

It very much easier to argue your position with your convenient exclusion. The Soviets were officially without religion. They represent one of the largest experiments in sociatal atheism to date and a spectacular failure. Ignore their example at your peril.

Sephus

11-01-2007, 07:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The Soviets were officially without religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

atheism is a religion LDO.

tame_deuces

11-01-2007, 07:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]

It very much easier to argue your position with your convenient exclusion. The Soviets were officially without religion. They represent one of the largest experiments in sociatal atheism to date and a spectacular failure. Ignore their example at your peril.

[/ QUOTE ]

Religion was common in soviet, I don't care if you don't know your history or don't know why it collapsed.

madnak

11-01-2007, 07:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The Soviets were officially without religion. They represent one of the largest experiments in sociatal atheism to date

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no such thing as "societal atheism." Atheism is a belief, not a social approach. This is like saying that Nazi Germany was an "experiment in evolution" because of the eugenics program, and trying to indict the theory of evolution on those grounds.

InTheDark

11-01-2007, 07:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It very much easier to argue your position with your convenient exclusion. The Soviets were officially without religion. They represent one of the largest experiments in sociatal atheism to date and a spectacular failure. Ignore their example at your peril.

[/ QUOTE ]

Religion was common in soviet, I don't care if you don't know your history or don't know why it collapsed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was hiding under my school desk before you were a gleam in your mother's eye.

Your ideological comfort requires Soviet atheism not to exist. Like Soviets of old you can make it so. Go edit Wikipedia.

ILOVEPOKER929

11-01-2007, 08:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Is atheism sectarian then? If atheism came to be dominant in society would we see a division among atheists along different lines?

[/ QUOTE ]

Since man by nature is xenophobic, the answer is most likely yes.

vhawk01

11-01-2007, 10:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
That's the definition of an effective troll - even when you know they're trolling, you still have to post.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know how sometimes you arent sure what you are really trying to Google, and you hit that Feeling Lucky button? Splendour is the SMP's "feeling lucky" button. I'm rarely satsified but nearly always mystified.

vhawk01

11-01-2007, 10:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It very much easier to argue your position with your convenient exclusion. The Soviets were officially without religion. They represent one of the largest experiments in sociatal atheism to date and a spectacular failure. Ignore their example at your peril.

[/ QUOTE ]

Religion was common in soviet, I don't care if you don't know your history or don't know why it collapsed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was hiding under my school desk before you were a gleam in your mother's eye.

Your ideological comfort requires Soviet atheism not to exist. Like Soviets of old you can make it so. Go edit Wikipedia.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think most Soviets were atheist? I'm sure the fact that you lived through the worst of the Cold War makes you FAR FAR less likely to be right on this. Billions of dollars were spent to make sure of it.

InTheDark

11-01-2007, 10:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It very much easier to argue your position with your convenient exclusion. The Soviets were officially without religion. They represent one of the largest experiments in sociatal atheism to date and a spectacular failure. Ignore their example at your peril.

[/ QUOTE ]

Religion was common in soviet, I don't care if you don't know your history or don't know why it collapsed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was hiding under my school desk before you were a gleam in your mother's eye.

Your ideological comfort requires Soviet atheism not to exist. Like Soviets of old you can make it so. Go edit Wikipedia.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think most Soviets were atheist? I'm sure the fact that you lived through the worst of the Cold War makes you FAR FAR less likely to be right on this. Billions of dollars were spent to make sure of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet another that prefers to argue against what you wish I'd write. Read what I wrote. Argue against that.

vhawk01

11-01-2007, 11:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It very much easier to argue your position with your convenient exclusion. The Soviets were officially without religion. They represent one of the largest experiments in sociatal atheism to date and a spectacular failure. Ignore their example at your peril.

[/ QUOTE ]

Religion was common in soviet, I don't care if you don't know your history or don't know why it collapsed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was hiding under my school desk before you were a gleam in your mother's eye.

Your ideological comfort requires Soviet atheism not to exist. Like Soviets of old you can make it so. Go edit Wikipedia.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think most Soviets were atheist? I'm sure the fact that you lived through the worst of the Cold War makes you FAR FAR less likely to be right on this. Billions of dollars were spent to make sure of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet another that prefers to argue against what you wish I'd write. Read what I wrote. Argue against that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok. Being "officially against religion" is a meaningless triviality.

I win.

You are saying that a country full of theists failed miserably, but since the leaders called themselves atheists and called the country atheist, this means that an atheist society failed. You see the error of this right? The US is nominally secular too. But most Americans are religious. As were most of the founders (theists at least). Do we get to count the US as our great success?

InTheDark

11-01-2007, 11:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It very much easier to argue your position with your convenient exclusion. The Soviets were officially without religion. They represent one of the largest experiments in sociatal atheism to date and a spectacular failure. Ignore their example at your peril.

[/ QUOTE ]

Religion was common in soviet, I don't care if you don't know your history or don't know why it collapsed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was hiding under my school desk before you were a gleam in your mother's eye.

Your ideological comfort requires Soviet atheism not to exist. Like Soviets of old you can make it so. Go edit Wikipedia.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think most Soviets were atheist? I'm sure the fact that you lived through the worst of the Cold War makes you FAR FAR less likely to be right on this. Billions of dollars were spent to make sure of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet another that prefers to argue against what you wish I'd write. Read what I wrote. Argue against that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok. Being "officially against religion" is a meaningless triviality.

I win.

You are saying that a country full of theists failed miserably, but since the leaders called themselves atheists and called the country atheist, this means that an atheist society failed. You see the error of this right? The US is nominally secular too. But most Americans are religious. As were most of the founders (theists at least). Do we get to count the US as our great success?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do some research instead of simply spouting what you wish were true. Maybe we'll try this again later.

Upon second thought we won't. Buh bye.

kurto

11-02-2007, 12:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Let's just agree to disagree. Men are from Mars. Women are from Venus. Call it a basic communication barrier. I don't think women conceptualize in the same way men do if that helps. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not a man/woman thing. There have been plenty of female/male threads without issues. There are consistantly issues that people have with YOU... but I would suggest it has nothing to do with gender.

The communication problems are usually nothing more then you ignore every comment posted, ignoring most questions/criticisms about your posts, and your apparent problems with basic reading comprehension. Your posts appear to be just just spam ie trolling.

We are interested in honest discussion here. But your posts constitute trolling/spamming.

PairTheBoard

11-02-2007, 01:27 AM

[ QUOTE ]
When asked why someone believes something, do you think it's reasonable to respond with something along the lines of "I have faith God exists, and you can't prove he doesn't?"

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's possible that "Faith" is just as much a divine mystery as divinity itself. If so, it is reasonable for someone who enjoys it to declare it as the reason for a belief in that which goes beyond the reach of the kind of evidence you insist on. I think it is just as unreasonable for you to pronounce certainty that this is not the case as it would be for you to pronounce certainty that "God Exists" is a false statement.

As I see more neoatheist writings I'm beginning to think that their key position is a new kind of hard atheism. Having abandoned the traditional hard atheism for the statement "God exists" they have adopted the new hard atheism on the statement "the divine mystery of faith exists".

Sklansksy really promotes this neohard atheism with his consistently slippery insistence that faith must be something that can be arrived at through an analytical examination of "evidence". He assumes this point in all his arguments. This neohard atheist position on faith is a little like insisting on discovering the taste of chocolate by examining its nutritional components.

There are sources of information about a religion that a believer can point to. Faith is not automatically produced by an analytical examination of that information. That information does not pass muster as "evidence" in that sense. Nevertheless, there are many people who find that the information touches them in some way that produces changes in their inner lives. Sometimes faith results. Notice people talk about "faith by grace". They mean that ultimately the grace has a divine source, that the faith by grace is essentially a "miracle".

What I think is that you are being unreasonable to assert certainty that you understand everything that's going on here wrt faith. I think you are especially unreasonable to take this unreasonable certainty and join the neohard atheist cultural crusade to,

[ QUOTE ]
we must find our way to a time when faith, without evidence, disgraces anyone who would claim it.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my opinion we will look back on the current popularity of the neo atheist shock authors as another shallow pop intellectual fad.

That's not to say that human beings don't have a long way to go in understanding the nature of their religions.

PairTheBoard

luckyme

11-02-2007, 02:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's possible that "Faith" is just as much a divine mystery as divinity itself. If so, it is reasonable for someone who enjoys it to declare it as the reason for a belief in that which goes beyond the reach of the kind of evidence you insist on. I think it is just as unreasonable for you to pronounce certainty that this is not the case as it would be for you to pronounce certainty that "God Exists" is a false statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

PTb is a 'special knowledge' advocate. He knows he is right by ways of knowledge not available who don't have that way of knowing, so when he says he knows something via this method it's useless to protest in any way. You don't have it. deal with it.
He is correct because just as you can't state with 100% certainty that god does not exist, you also can't prove he doesn't have this special source of knowledge. Ergo, he has it.

wtp.

luckyme

PairTheBoard

11-02-2007, 02:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think it's possible that "Faith" is just as much a divine mystery as divinity itself. If so, it is reasonable for someone who enjoys it to declare it as the reason for a belief in that which goes beyond the reach of the kind of evidence you insist on. I think it is just as unreasonable for you to pronounce certainty that this is not the case as it would be for you to pronounce certainty that "God Exists" is a false statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

PTb is a 'special knowledge' advocate. He knows he is right by ways of knowledge not available who don't have that way of knowing, so when he says he knows something via this method it's useless to protest in any way. You don't have it. deal with it.
He is correct because just as you can't state with 100% certainty that god does not exist, you also can't prove he doesn't have this special source of knowledge. Ergo, he has it.

wtp.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

"I think it's possible" = "he knows" ?

"divine mystery of faith" = "special knowledge" ?

Do you run everything through some kind of computer generated
English-->German-->Japanese-->English mistranslator?

PairTheBoard

kurto

11-02-2007, 11:27 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's possible that "Faith" is just as much a divine mystery as divinity itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's nothing particular mysterious about the human ability to delude themselves into believing what they want to believe. To label it a divine mystery is just ridiculous.

[ QUOTE ]
Sklansksy really promotes this neohard atheism with his consistently slippery insistence that faith must be something that can be arrived at through an analytical examination of "evidence". He assumes this point in all his arguments. This neohard atheist position on faith is a little like insisting on discovering the taste of chocolate by examining its nutritional components.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, I would argue that his belief that you should be able to find God through reason is quite sensible. As many have said, it would not make sense for a God to grant man reason and then expect him to deny that reason when dealing with him. Only through 'mysterious divine denial' does Sklansky's suggestion seem ridiculous.

[ QUOTE ]
Notice people talk about "faith by grace". They mean that ultimately the grace has a divine source, that the faith by grace is essentially a "miracle".

[/ QUOTE ] This, of course, only passes as rationality to a believer. A believer deciding he has faith because that what they want to believe has graced them with their belief... its circular logic and silly.

[ QUOTE ]
What I think is that you are being unreasonable to assert certainty that you understand everything that's going on here wrt faith. I think you are especially unreasonable to take this unreasonable certainty and join the neohard atheist cultural crusade to,

[/ QUOTE ]

You're saying that its unreasonable for him to ask people to pursue 'reason.'

[ QUOTE ]
In my opinion we will look back on the current popularity of the neo atheist shock authors as another shallow pop intellectual fad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shock authors? You can see why some atheists feel the need to speak out. Appealing for reason is considered "shocking."

PairTheBoard

11-02-2007, 03:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think it's possible that "Faith" is just as much a divine mystery as divinity itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's nothing particular mysterious about the human ability to delude themselves into believing what they want to believe. To label it a divine mystery is just ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you a strong atheist or a weak atheist? If you think the mystery of divinity is ridiculous and that all who believe in god MUST be deluded, then logically you must be a strong atheist. Regardless of how you pose yourself the truth of the matter is that you really BELIEVE that there is not and cannot be anything like a God. You have that belief just as surely as you have the belief that there is no Flying Spagetti Monster.

Your post really just illustrates the main point and insight of mine. NeoAtheists are really strong atheists posing as weak atheists to avoid the intellectual problems of outright strong atheism.

PairTheBoard

kurto

11-02-2007, 04:05 PM

1) First off - my statement about delusion extends far beyond religion. Its quite a common trait for people to delude themselves about things because they don't like the alternative. There is absolutely no rational reason to treat religion differently. Either there's a rational reason for beliefs or this isn't.

2) I veer towards weak atheist. Though its almost a trick question since the term "God" is completely vague. Do you believe in Odin? How about Quetzalcoatl? Are you enthralled with the Divine Mystery of Anubis?

What if there is a creature out there that can manipulate energy and time and is 1000 times more intelligent then humans? Would that be "A God"?

Btw- You keep posting "the mystery of divinity" -- as if the mystery is anything more then, "is there such a thing?"

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless of how you pose yourself the truth of the matter is that you really BELIEVE that there is not and cannot be anything like a God.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should not pretend to know what others believe. I can conceive of a creator. I can conceive of demons. I can conceive of Unicorns and dragons. I have no reason to believe so. And I would amused by someone who chose to believe despite having any decent evidence. But It doesn't mean that I deny the possiblities.

[ QUOTE ]
Your post really just illustrates the main point and insight of mine. NeoAtheists are really strong atheists posing as weak atheists to avoid the intellectual problems of outright strong atheism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't find it surprising that you have no evidence for your insight. I would expect you to be the type to use your feelings as objective proof.

PairTheBoard

11-02-2007, 05:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
1) First off - my statement about delusion extends far beyond religion. Its quite a common trait for people to delude themselves about things because they don't like the alternative. There is absolutely no rational reason to treat religion differently. Either there's a rational reason for beliefs or this isn't.

2) I veer towards weak atheist. Though its almost a trick question since the term "God" is completely vague. Do you believe in Odin? How about Quetzalcoatl? Are you enthralled with the Divine Mystery of Anubis?

What if there is a creature out there that can manipulate energy and time and is 1000 times more intelligent then humans? Would that be "A God"?

Btw- You keep posting "the mystery of divinity" -- as if the mystery is anything more then, "is there such a thing?"

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless of how you pose yourself the truth of the matter is that you really BELIEVE that there is not and cannot be anything like a God.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should not pretend to know what others believe. I can conceive of a creator. I can conceive of demons. I can conceive of Unicorns and dragons. I have no reason to believe so. And I would amused by someone who chose to believe despite having any decent evidence. But It doesn't mean that I deny the possiblities.

[ QUOTE ]
Your post really just illustrates the main point and insight of mine. NeoAtheists are really strong atheists posing as weak atheists to avoid the intellectual problems of outright strong atheism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't find it surprising that you have no evidence for your insight. I would expect you to be the type to use your feelings as objective proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not guessing at what you or the neoatheist shock authors believe. I'm drawing logical inferences from yours and their statements.

PairTheBoard

tame_deuces

11-02-2007, 05:10 PM

Well, if strong atheism is an 'intellectual problem' then so is theism.

kurto

11-02-2007, 05:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not guessing at what you or the neoatheist shock authors believe. I'm drawing logical inferences from yours and their statements.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect you would have some difficulties with a logic test.

You'd actually have to believe the opposite of what I've posted to draw the inferences you do.

But feel free to make up whatever you want about people and then draw conclusions based on that. Its fun to watch.

IronUnkind

11-02-2007, 05:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Or maybe he just wants to pick things to criticize so that he can look like a good and tolerant moderate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or maybe being a bumptious a**hole is a genuinely censurable offense.

IronUnkind

11-02-2007, 05:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Duke -
Harris and Dawkins - and I - are as close to certain as is reasonably possible

[/ QUOTE ]

One of these skeptics is not like the others...

PairTheBoard

11-02-2007, 06:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not guessing at what you or the neoatheist shock authors believe. I'm drawing logical inferences from yours and their statements.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect you would have some difficulties with a logic test.

You'd actually have to believe the opposite of what I've posted to draw the inferences you do.

But feel free to make up whatever you want about people and then draw conclusions based on that. Its fun to watch.

[/ QUOTE ]

You display a common phenonmenon with many people.

[ QUOTE ]
kurto -
I don't find it surprising that you have no evidence for your insight. I would expect you to be the type to use your feelings as objective proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

PairTheBoard

PairTheBoard

11-02-2007, 06:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Well, if strong atheism is an 'intellectual problem' then so is theism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strong atheism has a logically self contradictory type of problem peculiar to itself. This is something well recognized by most of the self described weak atheists who post here. This is why my charge that the neoatheism being proclaimed by the pop shock authors is really strong atheism hiding under the cover of weak atheism should be viewed as a potent challenge to it.

PairTheBoard

MaxWeiss

11-02-2007, 06:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless of how you pose yourself the truth of the matter is that you really BELIEVE that there is not and cannot be anything like a God. You have that belief just as surely as you have the belief that there is no Flying Spagetti Monster

[/ QUOTE ]

This does not follow at all from his post. All he claimed was that reason and evidence should be used. Further, he never claimed that god cannot or does not exist, but that there was no evidence of his existence and (now I'm throwing in my belief) that his existence is on the same order of magnitude of probability as His Holiness the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

tame_deuces

11-02-2007, 06:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Well, if strong atheism is an 'intellectual problem' then so is theism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strong atheism has a logically self contradictory type of problem peculiar to itself. This is something well recognized by most of the self described weak atheists who post here. This is why my charge that the neoatheism being proclaimed by the pop shock authors is really strong atheism hiding under the cover of weak atheism should be viewed as a potent challenge to it.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

The only possible intellectual problem I see with strong atheism is that it makes an absolute statement.

But to see that as an intellectual problem you have to accept that god's existence is unprovable - but if you do that you will indirectly have to accept that any belief that describes god has zero chance of being logically correct, regardless if god actually exists.

Either that or you have say directly that strong atheists are wrong, and then you just lumped yourself into the same intellectual problem about absolute statements.

MaxWeiss

11-02-2007, 06:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not guessing at what you or the neoatheist shock authors believe. I'm drawing logical inferences from yours and their statements.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you're not--you only think you are. And this is exactly the problem--even smart, logical people (like you) make such egregious errors of logic and leaps and bounds away from reason, while still thinking its completely rational. If instead you drew a boundary between your logic and your beliefs and claimed faith or other personal reasons, that would be fine, but you truly believe in the logical steadfastness of your insanely weak argument. I'm sorry, but that's just not going to fly. You seem like a good and decent person and I like your other posts, so I'm sorry if it's insulting, but it's just not going to fly when you talk about logic.

PairTheBoard

11-02-2007, 07:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Regardless of how you pose yourself the truth of the matter is that you really BELIEVE that there is not and cannot be anything like a God. You have that belief just as surely as you have the belief that there is no Flying Spagetti Monster

[/ QUOTE ]

This does not follow at all from his post. All he claimed was that reason and evidence should be used. Further, he never claimed that god cannot or does not exist, but that there was no evidence of his existence and (now I'm throwing in my belief) that his existence is on the same order of magnitude of probability as His Holiness the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[/ QUOTE ]

He said that the possibility of a divine mystery of faith was ridiculous. The only way you can proclaim certainty that such a role by God in faith is ridiculous is to hold the belief that such a God is ridiculous. You have the positive belief that such a God does not exist. When you admit that to you God is comparable to the FSM you are admitting your are a hard atheist. You are deluding yourself if you think you are kidding anybody about your not being a hard atheist wrt the FSM.

PairTheBoard

PairTheBoard

11-02-2007, 07:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Well, if strong atheism is an 'intellectual problem' then so is theism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strong atheism has a logically self contradictory type of problem peculiar to itself. This is something well recognized by most of the self described weak atheists who post here. This is why my charge that the neoatheism being proclaimed by the pop shock authors is really strong atheism hiding under the cover of weak atheism should be viewed as a potent challenge to it.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

The only possible intellectual problem I see with strong atheism is that it makes an absolute statement.

But to see that as an intellectual problem you have to accept that god's existence is unprovable - but if you do that you will indirectly have to accept that any belief that describes god has zero chance of being logically correct, regardless if god actually exists.

Either that or you have say directly that strong atheists are wrong, and then you just lumped yourself into the same intellectual problem about absolute statements.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. The theist does not have to prove God exists. The theist can rely on faith. The strong atheist has to either prove god does not exist - which he can't do - or admit that his position requires his own kind of faith. But atheistic faith is self contradictory.

PairTheBoard

PairTheBoard

11-02-2007, 07:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not guessing at what you or the neoatheist shock authors believe. I'm drawing logical inferences from yours and their statements.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you're not--you only think you are. And this is exactly the problem--even smart, logical people (like you) make such egregious errors of logic and leaps and bounds away from reason, while still thinking its completely rational. If instead you drew a boundary between your logic and your beliefs and claimed faith or other personal reasons, that would be fine, but you truly believe in the logical steadfastness of your insanely weak argument. I'm sorry, but that's just not going to fly. You seem like a good and decent person and I like your other posts, so I'm sorry if it's insulting, but it's just not going to fly when you talk about logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

All I see you doing is speaking with a rhetorical voice of authority. That's not an argument.

PairTheBoard

madnak

11-02-2007, 09:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
He said that the possibility of a divine mystery of faith was ridiculous. The only way you can proclaim certainty that such a role by God in faith is ridiculous is to hold the belief that such a God is ridiculous. You have the positive belief that such a God does not exist. When you admit that to you God is comparable to the FSM you are admitting your are a hard atheist. You are deluding yourself if you think you are kidding anybody about your not being a hard atheist wrt the FSM.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. The question of the FSM is a valid question. Theists may be offended by this question, but that makes it no less valid.

Now, the question of the FSM is relevant only to very specific theistic claims, and only to the rational component of such claims. The FSM is a God, and thus, if the probability of any God existing is the same as the probability of the FSM existing, then the FSM can be the only possible God. This is similar to the strong atheist position. If the FSM and other specific deities have a similar likelihood, then the likelihood of the FSM existing must be considerably smaller than the likelihood of any sort of God existing.

In more precise terms... The FSM is a type of God. Therefore, if the FSM exists, God must exist. However, if God exists, that doesn't necessarily mean the FSM exists. So the probability of God is greater than or equal to the probability of the FSM. And if the probability of God is equal to the probability of the FSM, then the sum of the probabilities of all possible gods is equal to the probability of the FSM. Thus, all gods other than the FSM must have a probability of 0 (there's no such thing as a "negative probability"). So if the probability of the FSM is equal to the probability of God, you have the equivalent of a "strong" atheistic position.

Thus, any "weak" atheist must acknowledge that the total probability of God is greater than the probability of the FSM.

This does not affect the validity of the FSM analogy, however. Max, tame, and kurto are comparing the likelihood of the FSM to the likelihood of any specific God (such as the Christian God), not to the likelihood of God in the general sense.

PairTheBoard

11-03-2007, 12:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He said that the possibility of a divine mystery of faith was ridiculous. The only way you can proclaim certainty that such a role by God in faith is ridiculous is to hold the belief that such a God is ridiculous. You have the positive belief that such a God does not exist. When you admit that to you God is comparable to the FSM you are admitting your are a hard atheist. You are deluding yourself if you think you are kidding anybody about your not being a hard atheist wrt the FSM.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. The question of the FSM is a valid question. Theists may be offended by this question, but that makes it no less valid.

Now, the question of the FSM is relevant only to very specific theistic claims, and only to the rational component of such claims.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suggest you reread my original post and kurto's response to it. I talked about the possibility of a divine mystery of faith. I made no mention of specific religious doctrines or so called rational arguments for them.

The context in which you employ the logical tool of probability makes its use problematic.

PairTheBoard

Lestat

11-03-2007, 02:07 AM

I'm pretty sure this is a fact spendour. Try googling a Harris poll to find out for yourself. What's for sure, is that atheists do not represent the highest percentage of any prison populations.

Lestat

11-03-2007, 02:12 AM

Its particularly hard to spot a Satanist from an atheist. 

You're joking, right? Atheists think Satan is just as silly of an unfounded notion as the God of Abraham or any other imaginary being.

madnak

11-03-2007, 03:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure this is a fact spendour. Try googling a Harris poll to find out for yourself. What's for sure, is that atheists do not represent the highest percentage of any prison populations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Atheists are significantly under represented in the prison population (http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm). That's the important thing. That there are more theists than atheists is irrelevant. In fact, theists are pretty irrelevant (http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison.html) in general. The important thing is that self-described atheists are very unlikely to be criminals.

madnak

11-03-2007, 03:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I suggest you reread my original post and kurto's response to it. I talked about the possibility of a divine mystery of faith. I made no mention of specific religious doctrines or so called rational arguments for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you claimed is that the new atheists are actually strong atheists "in disguise." This is the claim kurto was dismissing. I don't know that I fully agree with him, and I think some of his characterizations have more to do with other threads than with this one, but however strangely-worded it may be your claim that there's a possibility of a "divine mystery of faith" isn't the claim he's taking issue with.

[ QUOTE ]
The context in which you employ the logical tool of probability makes its use problematic.

[/ QUOTE ]

The use of probability when considering fundamental propositions is always problematic. That has little bearing on this issue. Any theist retreating from the concrete elements of his religion to the claim that it can't be disproved is creating a context in which the claims of his religion are logically equivalent to any other unfounded claims. The FSM is an effective wedge here, forcing the theist into one of two positions - either the probability of his religion being correct is tiny, or his religion is non rational and can only be selected through some means other than reason. The first position effectively refutes the theist, and the second raises the question of the other means and the rational evaluation of those means.

Justin A

11-03-2007, 04:30 AM

PairTheBoard

11-03-2007, 04:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
What you claimed is that the new atheists are actually strong atheists "in disguise." This is the claim kurto was dismissing. I don't know that I fully agree with him, and I think some of his characterizations have more to do with other threads than with this one, but however strangely-worded it may be your claim that there's a possibility of a "divine mystery of faith" isn't the claim he's taking issue with.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's exactly the claim he's taking issue with because that is the premise on which I make the argument that the neoatheists are in fact strong atheists.

I began my argument in response to The Dude ...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Dude -
When asked why someone believes something, do you think it's reasonable to respond with something along the lines of "I have faith God exists, and you can't prove he doesn't?"

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's possible that "Faith" is just as much a divine mystery as divinity itself. If so, it is reasonable for someone who enjoys it to declare it as the reason for a belief in that which goes beyond the reach of the kind of evidence you insist on. I think it is just as unreasonable for you to pronounce certainty that this is not the case as it would be for you to pronounce certainty that "God Exists" is a false statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Notice the issue I responded to was whether "God Exists" and whether a reply that stands on faith is reasonable. I went on to argue that this point is at the heart of the neo in neoatheism and shows it to be strong atheism. My premise being the possibility of a divine mystery of faith and my contention being that the neoatheist certainty that such a thing is irrational must come from a positive belief that such a God playing such a role in faith does not exist.

kurto attacked my contention by attacking my premise by opening his remarks with ...

[ QUOTE ]
kurto -
There's nothing particular mysterious about the human ability to delude themselves into believing what they want to believe. To label it a divine mystery is just ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

which I think ironically actually serves to prove my contention.

I don't see going much further with you on this.

PairTheBoard

madnak

11-03-2007, 06:54 AM

I think kurto was just pointing out that because we can easily explain religious behavior without invoking the divine, it's not valid to talk about a "mystery."

I agree that a faith-based position can't necessarily be ruled unreasonable, but I don't think the new atheist disagreement on this point constitutes a "strong" claim.

tame_deuces

11-03-2007, 07:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Well, if strong atheism is an 'intellectual problem' then so is theism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strong atheism has a logically self contradictory type of problem peculiar to itself. This is something well recognized by most of the self described weak atheists who post here. This is why my charge that the neoatheism being proclaimed by the pop shock authors is really strong atheism hiding under the cover of weak atheism should be viewed as a potent challenge to it.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

The only possible intellectual problem I see with strong atheism is that it makes an absolute statement.

But to see that as an intellectual problem you have to accept that god's existence is unprovable - but if you do that you will indirectly have to accept that any belief that describes god has zero chance of being logically correct, regardless if god actually exists.

Either that or you have say directly that strong atheists are wrong, and then you just lumped yourself into the same intellectual problem about absolute statements.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. The theist does not have to prove God exists. The theist can rely on faith. The strong atheist has to either prove god does not exist - which he can't do - or admit that his position requires his own kind of faith. But atheistic faith is self contradictory.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

1.) First of all, atheistic faith is NOT self contradictory. I have absolutely no idea where you got that notion. There is no atheistic bible which says atheists can't have faith, believe in the supernatural, accept the unprovable or have to follow logic or reason. So please just stop claiming this.

2.) Debating who should have the burden of proof is pointless, there are plenty of reasons both sides should have it.

3.) Thirdly, strong atheism for me is the notion that if god is unprovable for humans, then no description of him given to me by a human can hold true and the only conclusion becomes that god(s) as the symbolic expression used by humans do not exist.

This is not faith - it is simple logic based on the premise given to atheists by most theists.

MaxWeiss

11-03-2007, 08:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
All I see you doing is speaking with a rhetorical voice of authority. That's not an argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alright, I will pick a few of your choice posts and dissect them, as an example of some of the fallacies which you dub "logical inferences".

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's possible that "Faith" is just as much a divine mystery as divinity itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it's possible, but faith is also perfectly well explained in psychological/evolutionary terms. I see no necessity for faith to be a divine mystery, just as I see no evidence for god, though both could be true/real.

[ QUOTE ]
Sklansksy really promotes this neohard atheism with his consistently slippery insistence that faith must be something that can be arrived at through an analytical examination of "evidence". He assumes this point in all his arguments. This neohard atheist position on faith is a little like insisting on discovering the taste of chocolate by examining its nutritional components.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, we can arrive at what chocolate actually tastes like by surveying many people and asking them to describe it, and although some descriptions may differ a little, almost everybody would describe it similarly. Whether or not we could one day derive those descriptions from knowledge of the ingredients is irrelevant to the fact that we can of course determine what chocolate "tastes" like, with or without that ability. Whether or not some one likes chocolate on an individual basis has many other variables to it and cannot be determined except on a general statistical level, due to the numerous extra psychological and physiological variables which differ in each person.

Surely you agree (or not???) that we can determine what "red" and "purple" look like even though in reality they are merely differing wavelengths and not representative of what we call color. Our eyes (like our tastebudes) interpret the physical evidence, and we can all agree on how our bodies interpret it, and thus what red "looks" like and what chocolate "tastes" like.

Please explain your position more clearly and give us a better explanation of what you mean and what your view on how faith can be arrived at is. How do you define faith?

[ QUOTE ]
Faith is not automatically produced by an analytical examination of that information. That information does not pass muster as "evidence" in that sense. Nevertheless, there are many people who find that the information touches them in some way that produces changes in their inner lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, faith is by definition produced outside the realm of evidence and logical deduction. Otherwise it would be called science. Art produces the same feelings of awe, majesty, and a new lens with which to operate in the world in many people. Feeling a connection or deriving meaning or beauty from something invokes god only if you claim that such feelings come from god and not from within, from personal psychological and physiological reasons. Again, it is possible that it is god, but it is easily explained without him, thus negating the necessity that it is from him.

[ QUOTE ]
He said that the possibility of a divine mystery of faith was ridiculous. The only way you can proclaim certainty that such a role by God in faith is ridiculous is to hold the belief that such a God is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Because I don't see why those two must be interdependent. I am sure there are many people who believe in god who also think that faith is not a divine mystery. God was revealed to them (in some way) and that's that--no mystery. On what basis do you claim such interdependence? I personally think both are improbable because they can both be explained by other means without invoking god or divine mystery--I find them ridiculous for the same reasons but independent of one another.

[ QUOTE ]
If you think the mystery of divinity is ridiculous and that all who believe in god MUST be deluded, then logically you must be a strong atheist.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're going to need to define "strong" (or "hard") and "weak" (or "soft") atheists for me to be able to make a response. I assume you would call me a hard atheist. I do have a positive belief that god does not exist, and I will admit that that is a leap of faith from the actually probability of his existence, which is infinitesimal but still possible. I'm just rounding off to significant digits. But yes, I agree that it does logically follow that those who believe belief in god is a delusion are almost certainly atheists.

I hope you feel I have justly backed up my voice of authority. I figured speaking louder just wouldn't do the trick!

Splendour

11-03-2007, 11:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
 Its particularly hard to spot a Satanist from an atheist. 

You're joking, right? Atheists think Satan is just as silly of an unfounded notion as the God of Abraham or any other imaginary being.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well someone in this thread said a Satanist is actually a theist. If a theist is someone who knows God exists then a Satanist is a theist. But if a theist is someone who knows God exists AND chooses to follow him then a Satanist is not a theist. I haven't researched the definition of a theist fully, but I'm sure you can see a big distinction. Maybe there are 3 classes: theist, non-theists and satanists.

Anton LaVey claims to be an atheist yet he founded the Church of Satan in 1969. Others dispute his claim to atheism. They say he actually knew there was a God he just decided not to follow him.

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

Right now the majority of debate focuses on theists vs. non-theists. They have forgotten there is this third class. I read a quote somewhere from the guy that took over from LaVey. He said their church doesn't publish its numbers. LaVey felt they had more influence by keeping that a secret.

You can imagine what a theist thinks when they receive a particularly derogatory post in this forum with several posters chiming in re-inforcing it with sneers, mockery and jeers.

tame_deuces

11-03-2007, 12:02 PM

If someone worships Satan as a god, or believes gods exist, then he is theist. It isn't frightfully complicated stuff (this would be theistic satanism).

And yes most Satanists are in fact atheists, because they don't worship a being nor do they believe that god or the satan of the bible exists - Satan for them is a reflection on some admirable/built in human traits they feel religion oppresses.

Splendour

11-03-2007, 12:55 PM

A quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism

Among LaVeyan Satanists (followers of Anton Szandor LaVey), one of the more organized and visible Satanic groups in modern times, the term Satanism indicates "the first carnal religion in human history"[3]. Careful use of the word, according to one respected website, refers to a "small religious group that is unrelated to any other faith, and whose members feel free to satisfy their urges responsibly, exhibit kindness to their friends, and attack their enemies"[4].

You've got to wonder. If he's an atheist why is he starting a religious cult? The values of their group are the exact opposite of those expressed by Christianity and Greco-Judaic-Christian culture. I guess he's counter-culture to put it mildly.

This group in no way exemplies atheism as peaceful.

Besides we have no way of knowing if satanists aren't mixed in with the atheists in this group and a satanist's aims are possibly different from an atheist's.

People used to be able to discern good from evil quite easily, but it appears to be getting trickier and trickier today as we are being presented with more and more versions of the truth to choose from. Maybe the more we know the more we really don't know.

It makes me nervous to think every Tom, Dick and Harry trying to rely on his own judgment to indulge his "urges" responsibly. Because the CBS/NBC/ABC/CNN news networks keep broadcasting news that indicates all people aren't capable of this judgment. At least religion gives people some boundaries to keep in mind.

madnak

11-03-2007, 02:29 PM

There is no such thing as a satanist. There are isolated psychotic individuals who claim to believe in and worship Satan, and there are heavy metal bands that pretend to worship Satan, but these are the closest you can get.

tame_deuces

11-03-2007, 02:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There is no such thing as a satanist. There are isolated psychotic individuals who claim to believe in and worship Satan, and there are heavy metal bands that pretend to worship Satan, but these are the closest you can get.

[/ QUOTE ]

Theistic Satanists do exist, and they can go beyond your the simplicity of your average (usually fake) devil worshipper or 'evil worshipper' if you will.

But it is a complex issue, it is not all the typical characters in the bible that are always accepted as Satan pending on who you ask. For example if Lucifer is Satan or not isn't anything there is an agreement on, neither on the Beast of the revelation etc.

It comes in many flavors, but they do indeed exist. Come on, if it is possible to believe and has some mysticism to it, you'd usually find someone who is into it someplace in the world.

PairTheBoard

11-03-2007, 04:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I do have a positive belief that god does not exist, and I will admit that that is a leap of faith

[/ QUOTE ]

I rest my case.

PairTheBoard

madnak

11-03-2007, 05:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Theistic Satanists do exist, and they can go beyond your the simplicity of your average (usually fake) devil worshipper or 'evil worshipper' if you will.

But it is a complex issue, it is not all the typical characters in the bible that are always accepted as Satan pending on who you ask. For example if Lucifer is Satan or not isn't anything there is an agreement on, neither on the Beast of the revelation etc.

It comes in many flavors, but they do indeed exist. Come on, if it is possible to believe and has some mysticism to it, you'd usually find someone who is into it someplace in the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they don't. Are you talking about Set worshippers? They're pagans, not satanists in the sense Splendour is talking about. They worship an Egyptian God. They do not accept the Christian mythology. Nobody worships the Christian Satan (again excepting the crazies mentioned above).

tame_deuces

11-03-2007, 05:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Theistic Satanists do exist, and they can go beyond your the simplicity of your average (usually fake) devil worshipper or 'evil worshipper' if you will.

But it is a complex issue, it is not all the typical characters in the bible that are always accepted as Satan pending on who you ask. For example if Lucifer is Satan or not isn't anything there is an agreement on, neither on the Beast of the revelation etc.

It comes in many flavors, but they do indeed exist. Come on, if it is possible to believe and has some mysticism to it, you'd usually find someone who is into it someplace in the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they don't. Are you talking about Set worshippers? They're pagans, not satanists in the sense Splendour is talking about. They worship an Egyptian God. They do not accept the Christian mythology. Nobody worships the Christian Satan (again excepting the crazies mentioned above).

[/ QUOTE ]

Christians also share the term Satan with Judaism, Islam, Druzism, Samaritanism, Children of Noah and many others

Of their theistic sects here are a few examples:

1. Luciferianism - which worships Lucifer of the bible, though most of them refuse that Lucifer is Satan, some of them do not.
2. Theistic LaVeyan Satanism, which is based on LaVey but rejects that Satan is not a being and worship him.
3. Polytheistic Satanism, which is probably what you refer to as Set-worshippers. They believe in many versions of 'Satan' collected from various religious mythoses.
4. Azazel-worshippers, many whom hold that Azazel is the 'true' Satan.

Even within solely Christianity there is not agreement on what Satan is or is not. For example many different Christian views are also split on if different names in the bible (Beelzebub, the Beast, Baal, Lucifer) are all actually Satan , none of them are or if some of them are. So worshipping the 'christian satan' is a bit moot, since they can't agree on him to start with.

madnak

11-03-2007, 08:11 PM

None of these groups resemble what the typical Christian describes as "Satanists." Splendour is talking about people who share her beliefs, but who choose Satan instead of God. Left-hand path sorts who use Lucifer as a symbol are a different story.

Of course, I suspect Splendour's view of satanists goes a step further - to the types illustrated in Chick tracts, the baby-sacrificing unholy orgy evil-worshipper cults, which are clear myths.

MaxWeiss

11-03-2007, 08:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I do have a positive belief that god does not exist, and I will admit that that is a leap of faith

[/ QUOTE ]

I rest my case.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

If you cared to read past that quote rather than being lazy and misrepresenting the one thing I said that might go for you, you would understand what I meant.

Seriously, you think that misusing that one quote gets you off the hook for the numerous errors you made??? No.

tame_deuces

11-03-2007, 08:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
None of these groups resemble what the typical Christian describes as "Satanists." Splendour is talking about people who share her beliefs, but who choose Satan instead of God. Left-hand path sorts who use Lucifer as a symbol are a different story.

Of course, I suspect Splendour's view of satanists goes a step further - to the types illustrated in Chick tracts, the baby-sacrificing unholy orgy evil-worshipper cults, which are clear myths.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah those, yeah myths and urban legends. Quite interesting to see how they have been used politically by churches though, which is probably also where the myths come from in the first place.

Its quite interesting that Satanists don't even top the charts of the group that gets accused the most of dark rituals and blood sacrifice - that 'honor' goes to the jews.

And to top it all of who do anyone think was accused of ritualistic murder, sinister rituals, evil practices and killing babies the most in 100-200 in the known world? That's right, the Christians! Ding ding ding.

So what we are seeing then is basically cultural persecution of Satanists, tsk tsk.

Splendour

11-03-2007, 09:09 PM

Quote-Its quite interesting that Satanists don't even top the charts of the group that gets accused the most of dark rituals and blood sacrifice

Maybe not they've only been officially around since 1969.

But it looks like a disciple of LaVey's Marily Manson is catching quite a lot of bad press right now. Journalists have been linking his music and imagery to the Columbine Shooting and another suicide-shooting in Cleveland.

tame_deuces

11-03-2007, 09:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Quote-Its quite interesting that Satanists don't even top the charts of the group that gets accused the most of dark rituals and blood sacrifice

Maybe not they've only been officially around since 1969.

But it looks like a disciple of LaVey's Marily Manson is catching quite a lot of bad press right now. Journalists have been linking his music and imagery to the Columbine Shooting and another suicide-shooting in Cleveland.

[/ QUOTE ]

Congratulations on missing the point so completely that I don't even know what end to start in.

Let's just leave it at the fact that accusations of satanic practices are thousands of years old (yes much older than christianity, you guys didn't invent satan) so 'since 1969' is completely meaningless.

The quote you made completely out of context refers to the fact that persecution of religious beliefs one fear is common, to the point of accusing them of diabolical practices - Christians were once believed to eat children you know.

The point on LaVeyan Satanism you made is an example of such a persecution, since it would seem you have very little knowledge of what that belief is about but still make connection between that and a heinous crime.

It is quite like saying Christians eat babies.

kurto

11-03-2007, 11:47 PM

its clear you don't understand what I said. Either I was unclear or are not getting it. I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt except that another poster also saw that you were putting words into my mouth.

Regarding the "divine mystery of faith" -- I merely said it may not be a mystery. And to label it 'divine' is to label it without a quality you have no evidence to label it so.

One does not need to resort to the Divine to explain the feelings of faith.

kurto

11-03-2007, 11:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think kurto was just pointing out that because we can easily explain religious behavior without invoking the divine, it's not valid to talk about a "mystery."

[/ QUOTE ]

bingo

kurto

11-03-2007, 11:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I do have a positive belief that god does not exist, and I will admit that that is a leap of faith

[/ QUOTE ]

I rest my case.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

If you cared to read past that quote rather than being lazy and misrepresenting the one thing I said that might go for you, you would understand what I meant.

Seriously, you think that misusing that one quote gets you off the hook for the numerous errors you made??? No.

[/ QUOTE ]

The funny thing is, I don't see how he feels his case is won. Even if he was right about you, that would prove that what he believes about all neoatheists is correct?

another simplistic logical fallacy

PairTheBoard

11-04-2007, 03:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
its clear you don't understand what I said.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's the other way around.

[ QUOTE ]
you were putting words into my mouth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I think you have it backwards. Notice I quoted you word for word.

[ QUOTE ]
Regarding the "divine mystery of faith" -- I merely said it may not be a mystery.

[/ QUOTE ]

Looks like you are the one putting new words in your mouth. What you said was, as I quoted before,

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
PTB -
I think it's possible that "Faith" is just as much a divine mystery as divinity itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kurto -
There's nothing particular mysterious about the human ability to delude themselves into believing what they want to believe. To label it a divine mystery is just ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

All I did was suggest the possibility that there is a divine mystery of faith. You responded to that suggestion by rejecting and dismissing the idea as ridiculous. I did not argue that faith must be a divine mystery. Only to consider the possibility.

[ QUOTE ]
One does not need to resort to the Divine to explain the feelings of faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course if you assume faith is a natural feeling with natural explanations then you can explain it according to that assumption. But what if that assumption is wrong? What if faith is a divine mystery? What if God does exist and does play a role in faith? If that is the case then the person who experiences God in the mystery of that faith is being much more reasonable in his appeal to that faith as reason for his belief than the neoatheist who insists the believer's appeal to faith must be irrational and a "disgrace".

For the neoatheist to claim certainty on that issue he must have a positive belief that your assumption is the correct one and the one I suggest is false. The neoatheist shows himself to have the positive belief that there is no possibility of a personal God. He shows himself to be a strong atheist.

I posted my argument originally in detail, and have now clairified it twice. You have misrepresented both my argument and your own. I suggest you think about it some more. I don't see much reason going further with you on it. I think we're just spinning our wheels.

PairTheBoard

kurto

11-05-2007, 03:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's the other way around.

[/ QUOTE ]

considering another restated what I said (perhaps better then I) I have to leave some room for misunderstanding at your end.

[ QUOTE ]
All I did was suggest the possibility that there is a divine mystery of faith. You responded to that suggestion by rejecting and dismissing the idea as ridiculous. I did not argue that faith must be a divine mystery. Only to consider the possibility.

[/ QUOTE ]
First off... it is a bit ridiculous. Primarily because its rathar self serving. I could suggest the possibility the your Faith is given to you by aliens beaming it into your help from Saturn...

It would also help if you defined more precisely what you mean... are you suggesting that people who have faith in ANY and all Gods are experiencing the Divine? And how does one distinguish divine faith from run of the mill human nature?

[ QUOTE ]

Of course if you assume faith is a natural feeling with natural explanations then you can explain it according to that assumption. But what if that assumption is wrong? What if faith is a divine mystery? What if God does exist and does play a role in faith? If that is the case then the person who experiences God in the mystery of that faith is being much more reasonable in his appeal to that faith as reason for his belief than the neoatheist who insists the believer's appeal to faith must be irrational and a "disgrace".

[/ QUOTE ]

But there's nothing rational about adding another layer of nonexistant unproveable evidence.

If I say that you're being manipulated by Aliens to feel the way you do about God... Certainly its a possibility. Does that mean it would be irrational for us not to give it serious consideration?

Certainly IF God existed he could touch you in a way to give you Faith and make you believe. But having Faith is NO evidence for God. (and by the way, your God would have to be imperfect to operate so poorly. He selects some people to give them Faith and save them... the rest burn in hell. Sounds pretty evil. But that's another whole thread)

[ QUOTE ]
For the neoatheist to claim certainty on that issue he must have a positive belief that your assumption is the correct one and the one I suggest is false. The neoatheist shows himself to have the positive belief that there is no possibility of a personal God. He shows himself to be a strong atheist.

[/ QUOTE ]

off you go again. There is No evidence to suggest there is any mystery about Faith. It is easily explained by studying human nature. It would require FAITH to believe FAITH was divinely inspired. There is no more reason to consider it the product of the divine then the product of manipulation by aliens. This does not make me a hard atheist. If there was decent evidence to suggest there was a supernatural being creating Faith, then I would look at it different.

Just because people don't want to give credit to your religious beliefs due to a lack of compelling evidence doesn't make them hard atheists. Just atheists.

By the way, do you consider that your Faith may be simply the manipulation of a psychic? Or perhaps Lodi... he was a trickster God? I assume you give all of these equal weight?

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see much reason going further with you on it. I think we're just spinning our wheels.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may be right there... as you're simply suggesting things that you wish to be true but for which there's no evidence to believe.