Atheism and a path forwards

[Uccisore]

Luke Razor

The question is not about religion being evil, it’s about not equiping children to enquire for themselves. It is brainwashing, and as such probably a form of child abuse. I really have to worry about things like “Jesus camp” and the hell houses. It makes me sick quite frankly. I realise it is the more fundemental housholds where this goes on and plenty of moderate people of faith are more than fair when it comes to this stuff.

The problem is, it’s none of your business, and if “Being Raised Catholic” for example equates in your mind to child abuse, then yes, you do have a very distorted image of what religion is, and that’s the part of the atheistic problem I’m talking about. I mean, I’m a pretty traditional, conservative Christian, and I would never say there’s anything wrong with Muslims raising their kinds Islamic, or atheists raising their kids atheistic, so clearly there’s no obligation on you to have this kind of distressing thought about people with different beliefs than you.
What you’ve essentially said is that raising your children with religion is tyranny and outlawing such is liberation. You act in the name of reason, but reason isn’t there.

I feel Richard Dawkins frustration when he, yet again, gets confronted by some idiot who denies the fact of evolution, while knowing nothing more than what his fundemental peers/parents have said.

You would think with all his education and renown, he could find something better to do with his time than arguing with idiots, yes? Like perhaps arguing with his fellow philosophers?

As for RD as a philisopher, he is not. He is a biologist, and scientist, and as such more than qualified to argue “creation” with fundemental types.

“More than qualified” indeed. That is precisely my point. If Dawkins is not a philosopher (which is debatable, he’s required reading in many philosophy classes), then that only goes to show that theistic philosophers would that much easier of a time curing him of his ills, if they wanted to ‘enlighten’ him.

I think this is really unfair. It is not like Dawkins, Hitchens et al go around guerilla filmaker/Borat/Micheal Moore style ambushing people as they come out of churches. Mainly they have moderated debates with theist thinkers who have agreed to participate.

Ah, but when they debate, they DO insist on debating things on the common-church goer level. I’ve listened. Dawkins has nothing to say about the Ontological argument or the sensus divinitatus, and a great deal to say about ‘special feelings’ and ‘blindly following tradition’. He aims his argument way beneath what he could be striking for.

Also I don’t think humanism does have the same problems as religion, because it is not coming from the point of view of “Truth”. Humanism is an expression of a “contract” that an individual makes with the society in which they live. I have not seen any humanist writing arguing from a position of the platonic “ideal” existence of “morals”.

 No, humanism doesn't have the same problems as religion, my point was that it has it's own problems and critics, just like religion [i]does[/i].  Again, if you perceive humanism as being clearly dominant over religious modes of thought, it's because you are envisioning religious [i]thinkers[/i] whom you personally dominate.  In the world, it is not so settled. 

Mad Man P

Yes, atheism has no dogmas or doctrines or other meaningful content, I agree. Nevertheless, there are such things as atheists, and they do have patterns they follow, and Luke Razor is demonstrating one of them.

Atheists do not assume religion to be evil… but they see it as a means to dominate the minds of those less critical minded individuals. Having intellectuals like dawkins point that out to mr and mrs avrage chruch goers is not a BAD thing…

So you’re saying the goal here is to fight the dominance of the minds of less critical individuals, by having Dawkins dominate their minds instead? If that’s not a BAD thing, then me educating ignorant atheists and starting them down a path of faith isn’t a bad thing either- and I can live with that.

anything he forces them to learn to question their faith and come up with some arguments to sustain it… or give it up. forcing them to realize the weak basis of their faith and either strengthen it or remain fools.

Yes, I certainly agree that atheism can be good for that. And I’m not saying that atheists shouldn’t talk to, or even argue with theists. That’s not my point. My point is that if you read a bunch of philosophy and become a sophisticated thinker, and you go out and make a fool out of people who disagree with you that haven’t educated themselves, that says nothing about your beliefs, and everything about you. I think there’s this common misperception among atheists that the fact that Dawkins can construct a better argument than their mothers or cousins says something meaningful about atheism, and it does not. My further point is that among equals, atheism does not enjoy the level of intellectual superiority some seem to think it does. It may be more popular in philosophy right now, but that popularity is actually slipping all the time, and theistic philosophers are just as competent- there’s nothing apparently brainwashed about them.

raising children to believe what you believe is fine… and acceptable… except if you believ that bombing innocents of the west gets you to heaven and awards you allot of virgin women… right?

If you believe that, then you’re my enemy and will probably end up killing each other. Within that context, though, there’s nothing wrong with you raising your children to have your beliefs- sure, they will be my enemy too, but it’s not like you’re especially evil through your consistency. Now, if you raised your children like that, but you didn’t believe it yourself, and you were doing it as some sort of prank, then yes, that would be especially evil.

I do not see the atheists wish to protect children from religious dogma until they are ready to understand it, as being unreasonable nor based on the assumption that religion is “evil”.

It’s the presumption of arrogance that it rests on that causes the problem. If you believe that religion is all completely unreasonable, then that’s because you’ve chosen to surround yourself with unreasonable religious people to puff up your own ego or beliefs. So the whole enterprise is flawed from there. Again, that’s precisely my point. Any atheist that isn’t willing to treat religious people as his intellectual equals has a seriously skewed view of reality, and any ideas they have on how to ‘save the world’ are going to be similarly screwed up. This is a real problem for you guys.

[d0rkyd00d]

The problem is, it’s none of your business, and if “Being Raised Catholic” for example equates in your mind to child abuse, then yes, you do have a very distorted image of what religion is, and that’s the part of the atheistic problem I’m talking about.

True. It’s none of my business whether a parent physically abuses their child either, but that doesn’t make it right, and eventually that child might grow up and shoot me because their childhood was so torturous.

It’s also none of my business of a parent raises their child to believe that blacks are inferior, and should be discriminated against, hanged, shot, spit upon, etc.

Now it’s true that these are extreme examples, but don’t try to argue that atheists have a distorted view of what religion is. My girlfriend was raised Catholic, and she had the fear of hellfire instilled in her since birth. Almost all Catholics, especially devout, have a fear of hellfire. I personally think teaching a child to believe they will burn eternally in hellfire and fall victim to a fate beyond all imagination, simply for being homosexual, or not using contraceptives, or not going to church every Sunday, IS destructive. And it’s NOT a misrepresentation of a large percentage of religious believers.

I mean, I’m a pretty traditional, conservative Christian, and I would never say there’s anything wrong with Muslims raising their kinds Islamic, or atheists raising their kids atheistic, so clearly there’s no obligation on you to have this kind of distressing thought about people with different beliefs than you.

It’s the turning a blind eye towards any other beliefs system outside of your own that most secularists find so dangerous. I am concerned about parents teaching their children that martyrdom will lead to heaven. I am concerned about parents teaching their children that homosexuality and stem cell research are sins. If the indoctrination of children had no effect outside of them believing a certain fairytale, that’d be fine, but it does influence their actions. It does influence that child to vote against stem cell research as an adult. It does influence the government to use tax-payers money for prayer groups. It does influence people to go to school to become lawyers to try to change the laws of the United States to fall in line with Christianity, or their own religious agenda.

At what point did you actually begin to believe that a person’s religious beliefs had no influence or effect on ME?

What you’ve essentially said is that raising your children with religion is tyranny and outlawing such is liberation. You act in the name of reason, but reason isn’t there.

What he’s essentially said is raising a child with religion is telling a child WHAT to think, not HOW to think. Nobody is talking about raising as an “atheist” (considering it’s not even a religion, that’d be a pretty simple task). If I raised my child with scientific facts, reason, education, and didn’t feed them myths to believe in, or lies about the purpose of life, then where is the lack of reason?

“More than qualified” indeed. That is precisely my point. If Dawkins is not a philosopher (which is debatable, he’s required reading in many philosophy classes), then that only goes to show that theistic philosophers would that much easier of a time curing him of his ills, if they wanted to ‘enlighten’ him.

And who has come forward to do so? If anybody has, where are there arguments so that the entire ILP forum could analyze them and see if they are somewhat intelligible? The only argument religion has is faith, which is why the only recourse the religious have is ad hom attacks on Richard Dawkins and the “why bother?” approach on religion.

Dawkins has nothing to say about the Ontological argument

There’s a chapter in Dawkins book dealing specifically with the ontological argument. I’m guessing you haven’t read it.

So you’re saying the goal here is to fight the dominance of the minds of less critical individuals, by having Dawkins dominate their minds instead? If that’s not a BAD thing, then me educating ignorant atheists and starting them down a path of faith isn’t a bad thing either- and I can live with that.

This is the same tired argument brought up over and over. For the last time, having somebody who “brainwashes” people to critically think, analyze, and examine evidence to base their conclusions froms is NOT THE SAME as a person who “brainwashes” people into believing they don’t HAVE to critically think and examine, but rather just follow a faith based belief to obtain rich rewards. IT IS NOT THE SAME THING! Why do the religious keep trying to make it appear the same?

make a fool out of people who disagree with you that haven’t educated themselves, that says nothing about your beliefs, and everything about you.

Dawkins isn’t making a fool out of anybody, he’s exposing people for the fools that they are.

I think there’s this common misperception among atheists that the fact that Dawkins can construct a better argument than their mothers or cousins says something meaningful about atheism, and it does not.

No. The fact that Dawkins can construct a better argument than most religious goons shows that atheistic arguments are better than those of religious goons.

It may be more popular in philosophy right now, but that popularity is actually slipping all the time, and theistic philosophers are just as competent- there’s nothing apparently brainwashed about them.

Do you have an atheist popularity poll to determine that it’s slipping?

It’s the presumption of arrogance that it rests on that causes the problem. If you believe that religion is all completely unreasonable, then that’s because you’ve chosen to surround yourself with unreasonable religious people to puff up your own ego or beliefs. So the whole enterprise is flawed from there. Again, that’s precisely my point. Any atheist that isn’t willing to treat religious people as his intellectual equals has a seriously skewed view of reality, and any ideas they have on how to ‘save the world’ are going to be similarly screwed up. This is a real problem for you guys.

I’m not going to treat those that base their decisions off of astrology and the stars as intellectual equals. I’m not going to treat those who “read minds” and “tell the future” by looking into a crystal ball as an intellectual equal. I’m not going to treat those who believe in something that has no factual, reasonable, or logical basis as intellectual equals (at least in matters of religion, morality, or the purpose of mankind). Period.

edit: important note. I’m not saying I’d treat them in our interactions differently, I just will not respect their beliefs in such matters whatsoever.

[Carleas]

But Uccs, if I’m surrounded by religous people who believe what they believe for no good reason, aren’t they wrong? What does it matter who’s doing the arguing? If someone can defeat Dawkins’ arguments, that’s all well and good, but if he can defeat the argument that Joe Churchpew’s faith is founded on, Joe should relinquish his faith. It’s not being intellectually honest to believe something because maybe there’s someone smarter who can defeat the argument in front of you.
In that sense, then, most atheists are probably in a more intellectually honest position than most religious people, simply because atheism is the rational default. I think it’s safe to say that the greater majority of church goers don’t critically examine their faith all that much. If someone constructs an argument that shows that if X Y and Z are your reasons for believing, then your beliefs are wrong, anyone who believes for those reasons shoulf be convinced, and, in the case of Dawkins’ extensive set of arguments, a good majority of the Joe and Jane Churchpews meet that description. Dawkins is making the argument that those people shouldn’t believe in god, and in the great majority of cases he may be write even if a better argument for god is out there.

[Carleas]

@Dorkydood

I’m not going to treat those that base their decisions off of astrology and the stars as intellectual equals. I’m not going to treat those who “read minds” and “tell the future” by looking into a crystal ball as an intellectual equal. I’m not going to treat those who believe in something that has no factual, reasonable, or logical basis as intellectual equals. Period.

And you’re not going to convince anyone with the argument “you only believe that because you’re stupid.” Fact is, there are not only your intellectual equals who believe those things, but your intellectual superiors as well.

[d0rkyd00d]

@Carleas

@Dorkydood

I’m not going to treat those that base their decisions off of astrology and the stars as intellectual equals. I’m not going to treat those who “read minds” and “tell the future” by looking into a crystal ball as an intellectual equal. I’m not going to treat those who believe in something that has no factual, reasonable, or logical basis as intellectual equals. Period.

And you’re not going to convince anyone with the argument “you only believe that because you’re stupid.” Fact is, there are not only your intellectual equals who believe those things, but your intellectual superiors as well.

Carleas, you’re not going to convince anybody with any argument. It’s obvious the conclusion that God exists is arational, and no rational argument would convince a die-hard theist otherwise.

I’m certainly not denying there are many who are intellectually superior to me that are theist. I had a genius in my Calculus class in high school was a Mormon. Based on this, I think it’s safe to say one can compartmentalize their mind to hold by rational and irrational/arational beliefs.

This doesn’t change the fact that I’m not going to view one who bases their entire life on the stars, crystal ball, or an imaginary man in the sky as a trustworthy source of critical thought when it comes to issues of morality or mankind’s purpose.

[Carleas]

I disagree. I think it’s difficult, but I think it’s possible. You’ve got to understand, people’s religious beliefs are at the center of their whole web of beliefs. Questioning them can be traumatic and difficult. It requires finess, but it’s possible.
Think of it this way: people aren’t born religious, they are taught it. And surely you think children can be converted. So, at what age do they stop being convertable? Do they wake up one day dead set in their ways? That sounds odd, because that’s not how people usually work. Rather, it might get harder with every day, as people layer more and more beliefs on top of their religion, and connect new experiences into the old web, but there is never a point of no return.
You have such faith in reason and logic, and yet you reject that everyone believes it. If it is something that education can remove, what makes you think it’s better founded than the religious beliefs you hold it to oppose?

[d0rkyd00d]

I think it’s difficult, but I think it’s possible.

I agree in some remote cases it’s possible, but as long as a large enough population believe the irrational, I don’t think it’s possible to convince the majority through gentle conversation, encouragement, education, and reason.

I think the core of religious beliefs lie with peoples’ emotions. Believing in an afterlife is definitely more comforting when thinking about death for most people than a belief that we die eternally. Hell, I’d rather have a place in a paradise where eternal happiness and bliss is possible and inevitable rather than a hole in the ground.

And at the very least, I’d be much happier knowing that my loved one, after death, went to such a place, and that I’d be one day reunited with them. Because of these strong emotional bonds to such belief systems, I don’t think reason & education is going to be enough.

there is never a point of no return.

I’m sure there are cases that would prove impossible that could be mentioned, especially with the number of variables involved in whether or not somebody is going to change their mind about something.

I used to be a Jehovahs Witness, and I assure you there are many who are so steadfast in their faith, no amount of conversing, reason, education, or enlightenment would steer them off course.

[Carleas]

But what else can you do besides encourage, educate, and reason? I think Xunzian had some point when he waxed Dao in the OP: alienating people under the banner of atheism or reason or what have you is not going to do any good for that cause. On the most important level, religious people are people. If you think know better than them, that’s fine, but being hostile towards their beliefs is not going to get them to open up to your point of view. If you’re unwilling to approach their beliefs from their point of view and give them reasons that they can understand for why they should change, they not only won’t, but they shouldn’t.
There is a degree of incommensurability involved in the discussion, and ranting and raving, however emphatically, will not get your point across any better. This gets back to what Uccs is criticizing in atheist circles: you indignantly refuse to recognize the validity of someone’s beliefs and think them stupid for maintaining them, but you won’t talk to them within the framework of those beliefs. If people are wrong to be theists, then theistic beliefs should be internally inconsistent, and you should be able to demonstrate it cogently. Just as it’s intellectually dishonest to ignore an atheist argument because a better philosopher might be able to defeat it, it is likewise dishonest to consider a persons critical thinking to be faulty because they are theists.

Is it possible, Dorky, that there is a sound argument in favor of theism that you haven’t heard yet?

[Uccisore]

dorkydood

The only argument religion has is faith, which is why the only recourse the religious have is ad hom attacks on Richard Dawkins and the “why bother?” approach on religion.

Precisely the issue. By saying this, you’ve simply betrayed the fact that you haven’t bothered to study the subject you’re criticizing, and that is the problem. Anybody who had actually read theistic philosophers of the same acumen as Dawkins would know that what you just said is baloney. When you think “Christian” you think some guy sitting a pew that doesn’t know anything, and when you think “atheist” you think of a rhetorical expert.

Carleas

But Uccs, if I’m surrounded by religous people who believe what they believe for no good reason, aren’t they wrong?

To an extent, but where do we draw the line? If they’re 12 years old, or have only a passing interest in religious studies, what do we say? I think it’s perfectly valid to gain one’s religious values by listening to what one considers a wise authority and leaving it at that. I mean, is somebody’s grandmother who believes in God and Jesus because her family always has really guilty of bad reasoning if she’s been too busy raising kids and baking pies to read Aquinas or Dawkins or whomever? Even if she is, I think it’s the responsibility of the members of her tradition to educate her, not other people to convert her. It seems to weird to say that we all have to be philosophers before we’re allowed to believe anything.
At the same time, yes, there is such a thing as moral culpability when it comes to belief, certainly, and once a person starts to use their belief to affect other’s lives or to argue or advocate for it, then they should be doing what they can to make sure it’s true. I’m really not sure where to draw the line here.

If someone can defeat Dawkins’ arguments, that’s all well and good, but if he can defeat the argument that Joe Churchpew’s faith is founded on, Joe should relinquish his faith.

That’s how I used to think too, but then philosophy becomes sophistry. The problem I have currently with this is that I, Uccisore, could go defeat Joe Churchpew’s arguments for Christianity and obligate him to be an atheist, and then tomorrow I could do it all again and make him a theist. I could just as easily make him a Muslim, Jew, or maybe even a follower of Voudun if I was of a mind to. What’s the bearing of all that on an honest quest for the truth? When does Joe Churchpew get to tell me to shut up, even if he’ll never be as good at arguing as me? This is something that’s been troubling me lately, so don’t expect me to answer these questions, they aren’t rhetorical.
Also, you’re kind of looking at this backwards from what I’m saying, I’m taking it from the atheist perspective- what I’m saying is that because you, Carleas, can argue JoeChurchpew into the ground doesn’t really say much for the truth of atheism, precisely because I could do the same thing, and because it was never a fair ‘fight’ between you and Joe in the first place. I bet you could convince most atheists to go to church if you felt like it.

In that sense, then, most atheists are probably in a more intellectually honest position than most religious people, simply because atheism is the rational default.

No, atheism is the default of babies and grasshoppers. Once you start talking about rational creatures, there is no default that I’m aware of. Besides, by your argument so far, it’s become a matter of fashion. If there was a theistic version of Dawkins running around making fools of atheists for a living, suddenly none of them would be rationally justified anymore unless they devoted their lives to catching up with his level of scholarship- which most would never do. Culture could easily shift that way, and then belief in God would be the rational default.

I think it’s safe to say that the greater majority of church goers don’t critically examine their faith all that much.

Agreed.

EDIT: One final point about “If the argument works” is that atheists in this discussion have referred to the exact same situation as ‘brainwashing’ when the theist has the upper-hand, so it seems that even when we’re right, we’re wrong.

[d0rkyd00d]

If people are wrong to be theists, then theistic beliefs should be internally inconsistent, and you should be able to demonstrate it cogently. Just as it’s intellectually dishonest to ignore an atheist argument because a better philosopher might be able to defeat it, it is likewise dishonest to consider a persons critical thinking to be faulty because they are theists.

Carleas, I personally think you’re viewing the situation through rose colored glasses. I’d be more than happy to view a discussion between you and Uccisore, in any way which you think proves most effective, and see if you’d convince Uccisore that God doesn’t exist. You could talk/reason/argue/discuss until you’re blue in the face, but I assure you Uccisore will not have a sudden change of heart as a result of such discussions. My proof? The months upon months of discussion that has taken place on this forum.

Yes, occasionally somebody will change their mind, but it will change when THEY want it to.

Is it possible, Dorky, that there is a sound argument in favor of theism that you haven’t heard yet?

Absolutely. I’d agree there are 100% logical arguments for the existence of God, based on false premises. I’d agree that there are 100% logical arguments based on premises that are completely unproveable, and unfalsifiable. Not that it matters. Again, to quote Carl Saga, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” And evidence is one thing all religion has always and will eternally severaly be lacking in.

Anybody who had actually read theistic philosophers of the same acumen as Dawkins would know that what you just said is baloney.

Again, another blank statement with absolutely no evidence to back your claim. I’m waiting for one of these theistic, fantastic and undisputable arguments or proofs for Gods existence. You keep making reference to them, but then fail to provide any.

That’s how I used to think too, but then philosophy becomes sophistry. The problem I have currently with this is that I, Uccisore, could go defeat Joe Churchpew’s arguments for Christianity and obligate him to be an atheist, and then tomorrow I could do it all again and make him a theist. I could just as easily make him a Muslim, Jew, or maybe even a follower of Voudun if I was of a mind to. What’s the bearing of all that on an honest quest for the truth? When does Joe Churchpew get to tell me to shut up, even if he’ll never be as good at arguing as me? This is something that’s been troubling me lately, so don’t expect me to answer these questions, they aren’t rhetorical.

It’s obvious in your posts that you’ve been struggling with this issue, and it seems to me that you don’t fully grasp that not every argument is equal. Not every belief system is equal. There is a difference between convincing people to do or believe something, and that something being true. God can’t be a Christian and a Muslim and a Hindu. God either exists or he doesn’t. And the arguments against God’s existence are either better than or worse than the arguments for God’s existence.

But the example you used is somewhat misleading. I honestly don’t think you couldn’t argue an orthodox Jew into becoming a Catholic. Or a Catholic a Muslim. Or a Muslim a Hindu. You couldn’t even argue the President of Iran into believing the holocast happened, and look how much evidence there is for that compared to a Christian, Muslim, or Hindu God(s).

One final point about “If the argument works” is that atheists in this discussion have referred to the exact same situation as ‘brainwashing’ when the theist has the upper-hand, so it seems that even when we’re right, we’re wrong.

This confused me. What do you mean?

[Uccisore]

dorkydood

Again, another blank statement with absolutely no evidence to back your claim. I’m waiting for one of these theistic, fantastic and undisputable arguments or proofs for Gods existence. You keep making reference to them, but then fail to provide any.

people.ucsc.edu/~kristina/jane.html

.

[felix_dakat]

As a spectator here, and other threads I seem to detect two sub-groups: the atheists e.g. Xunxian and Carleas and the anti-theists e.g perhaps d0rkyd00d.

[LukeRazor]

@Uccisore

That’s how I used to think too, but then philosophy becomes sophistry. The problem I have currently with this is that I, Uccisore, could go defeat Joe Churchpew’s arguments for Christianity and obligate him to be an atheist, and then tomorrow I could do it all again and make him a theist. I could just as easily make him a Muslim, Jew, or maybe even a follower of Voudun if I was of a mind to. What’s the bearing of all that on an honest quest for the truth? When does Joe Churchpew get to tell me to shut up, even if he’ll never be as good at arguing as me? This is something that’s been troubling me lately, so don’t expect me to answer these questions, they aren’t rhetorical.

aside
So many points so little time
Kudos to dorkydood for the fine post on page 1 =D>

The difference here is related to one of the points made by dorkydood ealier

An atheist will argue with “Joe” based on the process of “how” to think not “what”. Bouncing Joe from one faith based system to the next will not prepare him to resist the next onslaught of “what”. After a couple of rounds “how” though, hopefully Joe will be in a position to form some arguments himself.

This was the point I made earlier. The abuse happens (unwittingly perhaps) when children are not equiped (taught) to make up their own minds. This is especially obvious when we talk about creationism and other literal interpretations of the bible. These beliefs are in direct contradiction of the science of these areas, and it seems to be pure pig-headedness to continue to hold these beliefs.

If anyone cannot see that the “scientific process” is superior to “blind faith” for discovering issues of fact then, to paraphrase Penn Jillette “we’re all screwed”

[Uccisore]

LukeRazor

An atheist will argue with “Joe” based on the process of “how” to think not “what”. Bouncing Joe from one faith based system to the next will not prepare him to resist the next onslaught of “what”. After a couple of rounds “how” though, hopefully Joe will be in a position to form some arguments himself.

Riiight.  Because the atheist is [i]this[/i] kind of person, and the theist is[i] that[/i] kind of person. Same simple error.  As I said, if I wanted to play atheist, I could manipulate someone and make them one too, because I'm pretty well practiced at rhetoric.  It doesn't prove a thing. 

This was the point I made earlier. The abuse happens (unwittingly perhaps) when children are not equiped (taught) to make up their own minds.

.  Again, you're dancing all around the problem without addressing it.  You're telling me all the reasons  why it's magically different for you to raise your kids, because religious people are Stupid and atheists are Right.  But that [i]is[/i] the essential problem. Carleas, Xunzian, and maybe a couple others can see it:

As long as so many atheists remain so obsessed and utterly convinced of their own sense of superiority, they remain not only out of touch with the world, but apathetic and stagnant to developments in philosophy. For example:

This is especially obvious when we talk about creationism and other literal interpretations of the bible. These beliefs are in direct contradiction of the science of these areas, and it seems to be pure pig-headedness to continue to hold these beliefs.

 I've never read a theistic philosopher who endorses literal creationism, and I've read a few. Once more, you're insulting yourself without realizing it, by insisting that atheism is far superior to bottom-feeding intellectual trash.  Yes, I suppose it is.  Isn't there a point where that ceases being something to be proud of? Do you actually think you're interacting with religious philosophy when you talk about such things?

origins.org/articles/swinbur … heism.html

This is one paper, in a universe of papers. Flaunting your superiority over young-earth creationism is the philosophical equivalent of eating paste.

[LukeRazor]

@Uccisore

.  Again, you're dancing all around the problem without addressing it.  You're telling me all the reasons  why it's magically different for you to raise your kids, because religious people are Stupid and atheists are Right.  But that [i]is[/i] the essential problem. Carleas, Xunzian, and maybe a couple others can see it:

As long as so many atheists remain so obsessed and utterly convinced of their own sense of superiority, they remain not only out of touch with the world, but apathetic and stagnant to developments in philosophy. For example:

 I've never read a theistic philosopher who endorses literal creationism, and I've read a few. Once more, you're insulting yourself without realizing it, by insisting that atheism is far superior to bottom-feeding intellectual trash.  Yes, I suppose it is.  Isn't there a point where that ceases being something to be proud of? Do you actually think you're interacting with religious philosophy when you talk about such things? 

I thought I made a clear distinction earlier between “moderate” and “fundemental” theist parents.

The only people I am attacking (at the moment) are the fundemental types, who do not teach their children critical thinking. In fact it seems they must teach their children to distrust critical thinking because how else could they justify their beliefs that contradict so strongly with the evidence and research in certain fields.

@Uccisore

This is one paper, in a universe of papers. Flaunting your superiority over young-earth creationism is the philosophical equivalent of eating paste.

I rely on the science of geology to do that for me Who knew paste could taste so good

[Bob]

Theism is more or less the belief that gods or deities exist. The question that comes to my mind is whether we can at all be agreed on what we are referring to, when we use the word “God” or “Deity”? According to St. Anselm, God is defined as the being of which nothing greater can be conceived; something which exists must be greater than something which does not; therefore God must exist. Aquinas basic argument is that the existence of the universe cannot be explained by things in the universe, and that there must be one first cause, itself uncaused. These classical arguments are however orientated on conjectural “external” evidence, not on spiritual “internal” experience.

If the awareness of the “presence” that is at the base of all theistic faiths, whether theistic, pantheistic or panentheistic, is at all genuine; that is, it is not something illusory, then the similarity in the descriptions of many mystics within these varying traditions becomes understandable. In addition, it becomes clear that there may well be a different dimension within the awareness of human-beings, with which we obviously do not all connect – for whatever reasons. What we do know, however, is that the hectic, the superficiality, and the loudness of our modern day is exactly the opposite to what the sages have recommended for seekers of that spiritual reality.

Atheism, as an absence of belief in any gods or deities, or a belief that gods or deities do not exist at all, lacks the evidence it requires from theists. Obviously it is nearly impossible to prove the “non-existence” of God, but could it be that the attempt to negate theism forgets that mystics have always used negative statements to describe God, “no-thing”, “darkness” etc. have attempted to point out that God isn’t a “Being” or even a “Creature”, but the Ineffable. In that way, the statements of Atheists could in a way blow in the same horn as the mystics, negating the fairy tale “God”, and saying that whatever God is, he is not what you imagine.

Shalom

[Uccisore]

LukeRazor

Really, the problem with such distinctions it that 'moderate' and 'fundamentalist'  doesn't denote anything specific.  To one person, a fundamentalist might be anybody who thinks God actually exists, and to another, it might have something to do with violence.  Also, I don't know if they are different schools of thought so much as different levels.  The Young Earth Creationists aren't really a different denomination or aspect of Christianity, they're just some Christians that aren't that well informed. If you got to the 'top' of pretty much any version of Christianity I'm aware of, you'll find people who accept evolution, or at least, don't see the issue as terribly relevant one way or the other, which is where I stand.

Bob
I’ve been saying mystics are blowing the same horn as atheists for a while now.

[LukeRazor]

@Uccisore

Really, the problem with such distinctions it that 'moderate' and 'fundamentalist'  doesn't denote anything specific.  To one person, a fundamentalist might be anybody who thinks God actually exists, and to another, it might have something to do with violence.  Also, I don't know if they are different schools of thought so much as different levels.  The Young Earth Creationists aren't really a different denomination or aspect of Christianity, they're just some Christians that aren't that well informed. If you got to the 'top' of pretty much any version of Christianity I'm aware of, you'll find people who accept evolution, or at least, don't see the issue as terribly relevant one way or the other, which is where I stand.

By fundemental I guess I am referring to biblical literallists, specifically the anti-intelectual ones who, to maintain their faith have to deny scientific fact. This is why I feel that it is an important issue, because it highlights a disturbing trend in modern (american) society for superstition over rationalism.

As for evolutionists at the “top”, when 3 of the republican presidential candidates say that they don’t believe in evolution we have a serious issue.

I wish I had time to read the whole of the link you posted (swnburne) but what I did read didn’t look like anything new.

[Uccisore]

Luke Razor

By fundemental I guess I am referring to biblical literallists, specifically the anti-intelectual ones who, to maintain their faith have to deny scientific fact. This is why I feel that it is an important issue, because it highlights a disturbing trend in modern (american) society for superstition over rationalism.

 Yeah, see, I was with you until you slipped in something about 'superstition'.  Now you sound like one of those that thinks every theist counts as a fundamentalist, which puts us right back where we started.  I just don't buy your line that you just want to control the 'bad' Christians. I'll stick with solidarity. 

As for evolutionists at the “top”, when 3 of the republican presidential candidates say that they don’t believe in evolution we have a serious issue.

How many of the presidential candidates of either party do you think could explain what the Ontological argument is? Politicians are not the ‘top’ I had in mind, not at all.

I wish I had time to read the whole of the link you posted (swnburne) but what I did read didn’t look like anything new.

Yes indeed. That it’s not anything new was precisely my point in posting it. I certainly don’t want this thread to be derailed by a discussion of that article, it exists purely as an example of something.

[Mad_Man_P]

@Uccisore

Mad Man P

Yes, atheism has no dogmas or doctrines or other meaningful content, I agree. Nevertheless, there are such things as atheists, and they do have patterns they follow, and Luke Razor is demonstrating one of them.

that’s not even worthy of a response… you might as well have said “Africans have a pattern they follow”…

Atheists do not assume religion to be evil… but they see it as a means to dominate the minds of those less critical minded individuals. Having intellectuals like dawkins point that out to mr and mrs avrage chruch goers is not a BAD thing…

So you’re saying the goal here is to fight the dominance of the minds of less critical individuals, by having Dawkins dominate their minds instead? If that’s not a BAD thing, then me educating ignorant atheists and starting them down a path of faith isn’t a bad thing either- and I can live with that.

Dawkins is not giving them an alternative… he’s just showing them the error of their way… aiming to free them from the dogma and letting them form their own opinion once free… you can hardly claim he is “taking the place of religion”.

anything he forces them to learn to question their faith and come up with some arguments to sustain it… or give it up. forcing them to realize the weak basis of their faith and either strengthen it or remain fools.

Yes, I certainly agree that atheism can be good for that. And I’m not saying that atheists shouldn’t talk to, or even argue with theists. That’s not my point. My point is that if you read a bunch of philosophy and become a sophisticated thinker, and you go out and make a fool out of people who disagree with you that haven’t educated themselves, that says nothing about your beliefs, and everything about you. I think there’s this common misperception among atheists that the fact that Dawkins can construct a better argument than their mothers or cousins says something meaningful about atheism, and it does not. My further point is that among equals, atheism does not enjoy the level of intellectual superiority some seem to think it does. It may be more popular in philosophy right now, but that popularity is actually slipping all the time, and theistic philosophers are just as competent- there’s nothing apparently brainwashed about them.

if i destroy someone elses worldview because he hasn’t educated himself that shows something about HIS WORLDVIEW… not mine. What it says is that the uneducated would benifit from a bit of education!

that might not be very pleasant to learn (that you are uneducated) but people who have spent their time and learned to think more efficiently should not be asked to silence themselves in the face of ignorance in order to spare the uneducated the realization that they are in fact uneducated. If anything their role should be to educate… and in fact show the ignorant the errors of their ways!

raising children to believe what you believe is fine… and acceptable… except if you believ that bombing innocents of the west gets you to heaven and awards you allot of virgin women… right?

If you believe that, then you’re my enemy and will probably end up killing each other. Within that context, though, there’s nothing wrong with you raising your children to have your beliefs- sure, they will be my enemy too, but it’s not like you’re especially evil through your consistency. Now, if you raised your children like that, but you didn’t believe it yourself, and you were doing it as some sort of prank, then yes, that would be especially evil.

Raising children to hate is always a bad thing to my mind… raising children with beliefs, that if taken to their logical extention, will lead to hate is no better.

I do not see the atheists wish to protect children from religious dogma until they are ready to understand it, as being unreasonable nor based on the assumption that religion is “evil”.

It’s the presumption of arrogance that it rests on that causes the problem. If you believe that religion is all completely unreasonable, then that’s because you’ve chosen to surround yourself with unreasonable religious people to puff up your own ego or beliefs. So the whole enterprise is flawed from there. Again, that’s precisely my point. Any atheist that isn’t willing to treat religious people as his intellectual equals has a seriously skewed view of reality, and any ideas they have on how to ‘save the world’ are going to be similarly screwed up. This is a real problem for you guys.

I deal with arguments… not people. When i argue against religion i argue against an idea… not a person… when i criticize i do so with the idea in mind… not the person.

From your assumption follows that you do not do so yourself… since you would accuse me of tearing on people rather than their ideas… which says more about you than it does about me or any atheist.

As for me judging people’s intelligence… I do so exactly as you would. I do so based on their reasoning.

I have never (nor will i ever) claim that theism requires stupidity… only that it thrives apon it.