An unusual view of the neo-atheists

[MaxWeiss]

[ 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]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> Its particularly hard to spot a Satanist from an atheist. </font>

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]

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]

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]

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]

[ 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]

[ 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]

[ 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]

[ 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]

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.