Jagella

This whole thread isn't worth reading.

Then why read it?

Jagella

 

You repeatedly define atheists as a group, and call for collective action - e.g.:

What you're saying here is equivocation. I was accused of trying to start a "club," and now you say I am defining atheists as a "group."

Actually, atheists are a group of people who don't believe in gods.

Why should personal religious belief or lack thereof have anything to do with not generally being a jerk to other people?

It's odd that you cannot see the impact beliefs can have on a person's actions. September 11 should have made that clear to all. If you tell people that their beliefs are their top priority, then people are a lesser priority.

It still doesn't explain your strawman equation of doesn't care about religion = doesn't care about morality.

Speaking of straw-man arguments! Please direct quote me (copy and paste) rather than make something up.

Jagella

 

You are interpreting what I said incorrectly. I don't care what religious beliefs others hold (provided they don't affect others negatively) - how you equated that to me not caring if people behave in a criminally antisocial manner seems to defy any logical explanation.

Earlier you said:

Just because we happen to not believe the same thing doesn't mean I want to be in a club with you - in fact that's exactly the type of club I'm trying to avoid having anything to do with in the first place.

I never asked anybody to join a club. You were putting words into my mouth. It just seemed to me that you were putting it that way to avoid acting on the issues I've raised throughout this thread.

Jagella

Actually, if you think that someone not caring about the existence of God or gods (and not wanting to get together with others who don't care) is equivalent to not caring about people, then that rather blows your atheist cover and confirms the "fundie" label. That would certainly explain why you created this thread to attack atheists.

 

Or is it just that you think Arete is the "wrong sort" atheist? Like some sort of heretic to be burned at the stake in the name of fairness, honesty, open-mindedness and peace.

OK. You caught me. William Lane Craig put me up to this. We fundamentalist Christians want to reinstate the inquisition, and atheists are at the top of our hit list.

Jagella

 

So personally, I'd say I was an apathetic, agnostic atheist.

 

I feel absolutely no desire to group together with other atheists - any more than I feel like grouping together with others simply because they don't play golf, or watch Seinfeld. Beseeching me and others of similar mindsets to do or not do something in the name of collective atheism is unlikely to yield significant results. Just because we happen to not believe the same thing doesn't mean I want to be in a club with you - in fact that's exactly the type of club I'm trying to avoid having anything to do with in the first place.

I must interpret what you're saying here as your not caring about about people being fair, honest, open-minded, or peaceful. Will you care if you are not treated fairly in court? Are you apathetic that a salesperson is honest with you when you buy a car? Won't you care if you are discriminated against because you are an atheist? And if peaceful behavior means nothing to you, then you won't mind one bit about being a victim of a violent crime--possibly attacked by religious terrorists.

OK. Suit yourself.

Jagella

The early Christians, the founders of the religion, were communist - for hundreds of years. We see that in the early colonization of NA by Christians - communes, often, some of which have persisted in some form or another to this day. You still see that in the organization of monasteries and priesthoods, as well.

 

Is that part of the bad track record?

 

I don't know if the communism of the early Christians led to social problems, but Christianity often has resulted in spcial problems.

Jagella is probably a fundie, trolling the forum.

Is that a joke, or are you serious?

Jagella

 

So you have found that religious people usually agree with your views then?

Religious people often are very offended by my opinions on religion. My skepticism about their claims tend to be upsetting to them.

Disagreements are not what I normally think of as intolerance. Trying to stifle free expression is very intolerant, in my opinion.

So you think disagreeing with people is a sign of intolerance? Does this mean that you never disagree with anyone?

I think the word "repugnant" is a bit strong for not agreeing with someone. However, I would have thought the points of disagreement were fairly obvious. For example:

Your attacks on atheists.

Your attacks on the religious.

Criticizing people is not necessarily an "attack." Unlike an attack, criticism can be very uplifting and constructive. I'm hoping that we atheists can do better than the religious.

Your assumption that all atheists should behave the same way.

 

I'm not sure why you object to my expecting atheists to be rational, just, and peaceful not to mention truthful. What moral tenet on my list do you have a problem with?

Jagella

 

Are you open to the possibility that religion can cause hatred toward atheists?

 

There's always a possibility that their being religious did cause them to persecute non-believers. Again, please keep an open mind to possibilities.

Religion can inspire hatred toward anybody. Did I say it cannot inspire hatred?

Jagella

 

That would be great. But why are you insisting that people who don't have a particular belief should behave like that? Why doesn't it apply to everybody?

 

Again, you seem to be setting a large, heterogeneous group on a pedestal for no other reason than that they don't share a belief. This doesn't seem very rational.

 

Again, why are you picking on atheists? And what is your evidence that "many atheists do not respect justice, rational thought, and peace"? And where is the evidence that (more) religious people do?

 

Do you have any evidence for that? There are religious people who support it as well? And do you have any evidence that it is (a) dangerous and (b) an ideology?

 

I wish you would stop using "we" as if atheists were a homogeneous group. I do not wish to be associated with the views you have expressed in this thread.

I'm focusing on how many atheists act because lately I've experienced firsthand how intolerant and irrational many of them might be. That kind of behavior bothers me a lot.

Regarding euthanasia, I think it's dangerous because what is a "good" death and who should be allowed to die this good death often is decided by those other than the presumed beneficiaries (the elderly, the sick, and the disabled). Euthanasia does not have a good track record.

Finally, your telling me not to say "we atheists" is an example of such intolerance. May I ask which of my views you find repugnant? Free expression?

Jagella

How fortunate the n that there is no evidence of that happening (or, at least where it does, it's got nothing to do with atheism).

Where do you see atheists persecuting religion (or anyone else for that matter) because they are atheists?

Did I say that atheists--because they are atheists--have persecuted religious believers? I'm just open to the possibility that atheism can cause hatred toward theists. You should be open to that possibility as well.

As for atheists persecuting religious people, just check your favorite search engine for examples. There's always a possibility that their being atheists did cause them to persecute believers. Again, please keep an open mind to possibilities.

Jagella

 

This still sounds wrong. I certainly didn't give up anything. My belief system developed to a point where god(s) were an irrational option that was ineffective at explaining reality. I didn't decide one day to be an atheist; I realized at some point I squeezed the last bit of supernatural ignorance out of the gaps in my knowledge.

 

 

I'm also at a loss as to why you think atheists should be singled out for these standards you'd like people to follow. Aren't the standards, the non-religious standards we operate under as citizens in our various societies, enough to cover these "dangerous" ideologies you're worried about? Which particular ideologies do you think we're vulnerable to when atheists have them?

 

This seems like you're persecuting atheists for something anyone might do, and something our society probably already has a defense against.

Well, you can nitpick about how theism is lost, but if one loses religious faith, then the ills of such faith are no longer a factor in that person's life. That's important in a person's moral growth.

I'm discussing atheists respecting justice, rational thought, and peace for the simple reason that many atheists do not respect these important elements of a civilized society.

One dangerous ideology that many atheists support is that of euthanasia. While I certainly understand people wishing to control their own destinies, granting death to the elderly and disabled is not my way of solving their problems. I debated this issue with some atheists years ago in a forum, and I was insulted and cursed at. That's not my idea of people who are compassionate or reasonable.

I'm not persecuting anybody. That's silly. I just wish atheists would set good examples of how people should think and conduct themselves. I fear that we atheists will make the same mistakes as the religious.

Jagella

Religious groups pick on eachother. You don't need atheists for that.

 

In order to want God's nonexistence, you have to make some kind of investment on that assumption. A dedicated proponent of humanism, for example, might be reluctant to accept it since it would prove his efforts misguided.

My guess is that scientists and those dedicated to finding the truth would be the least reluctant since, after all, there is practically nothing that could undercut their cause.

Yes, you don't need atheists to persecute religious people, but you sure don't need atheists to join the effort to persecute the religious.

I don't know if scientists are as open to truth as you seem to assume. For example, I recently debated the philosophy of mathematics in another science forum. My position proved to be very unpopular there. My stance that math is invented rather than discovered was dismissed as "lunacy." I argued as logically as I could and presented the best evidence I know of to support my position. The moderator there warned me to "stop posting crap." I was insulted numerous times. Their responses were almost completely devoid of any rational arguments or evidence. The entire thread was censored by the moderator at least twice.

What does this example demonstrate? I see some obvious parallels between this behavior and that of fundamentalist Christians. Many Christians will irrationally lash out at unbelievers--and so will some of those who claim to represent science. Both groups will censor heretical ideas.

Let us atheists and those who respect science not go down that road.

Jagella

 

So, again, you are arbitrarily inventing standards that you expect all people who don't believe in a deity to adhere to. For no real reason. Atheists are just as likely as anyone else to be violent, bigoted, fanatical or irrational. Or not.

 

But many communists have been religious. So what?

Yes. I've "invented standards" that I'd like people to follow. I'd like people to be rational, just, and peaceful. Do you have a problem with that?

I really don't wish to get into a lengthy debate about communism. My point is that many atheists can adopt dangerous ideologies. We atheists should address that issue. I think that giving up belief in gods is a step in the right direction, but it isn't enough. We need to make sure we don't make the same mess of the world as the religious have done.

Jagella

 

What is that "we" atheists preach?

 

 

So atheists should preach dangerous ideas?

 

 

Is it? There is nothing inherently atheist (not dangerous) about communism.

Many atheists criticize religion for its many evils including violence, bigotry, fanaticism, and irrationalism. Obviously, we should take care not to be violent, bigoted, fanatical, or irrational.

No, atheists should not preach "dangerous ideas." That's a strange question. Why do you ask?

You are correct that communism is not inherently atheistic, but many communists have been atheists. The two views go together according to Marx. I should point out that communism isn't necessarily bad, but those who have espoused it don't have very good track records.

In any event, I hope that as we shed the straight jacket of religion we do not don the straight jackets of any other nefarious ideologies.

Jagella

So do many people who wear hats, or who choose not to ride bicycles. Still searching for the relevance.

Again, I think that we atheists should take care to act rationally and morally. People may then be more likely to free themselves from religion.

Jagella

Really?

You don't see why someone wouldn't do something evil on the basis of a lack of belief in something.

You must have a very poor opinion of humanity.

People can be irrational, cruel, and stupid. Atheists can be that way along with theists. As for doing something evil as a result of a lack of belief, I suppose lack of belief that people should be treated well might result in evil. In addition, some people might need belief in a punishing god to keep them from hurting others. I've had at least one person tell me that that is his case.

By the way, if you ever debate a Christian regarding the atrocities of Stalin, and she blames those atrocities on Stalin's atheism, then ask her if she would commit genocide if she lost her belief in God. If she says yes, then it exposes her mentality, if she says no, then she confirms that atheism might not have been Stalin's motive.

Finally, I happen to see people as basically good. If we were not generally good, then we could not survive.

Jagella

But what does that even mean? You even said yourself that you cannot provide a single example of a crime committed "in the name of atheism" or based on the "atheist ideology." Do you know why? It's because there is no atheist ideology. It's not a worldview in much the same way that not playing baseball is not a sport.

What does what mean? If you are referring to doing evil "in the name of atheism," then it might refer to a person who has such a fanatical commitment to atheism that she or he might hurt others if those persons are seen as a threat to atheism.

I don't know if I agree that merely because I cannot cite examples of evil in the name of atheism, then such acts do not occur. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence in this case. Would you like me to try ask.com to see if I can find examples of evil inspired by atheism?

I don't believe that there is any "atheist ideology," but many atheists may adhere to ideologies that might be dangerous. Communism is an obvious example.

In any case, we atheists need to practice what we preach. If we don't, then we are no better than religionists.

Jagella

Have atheists committed crimes? Yes, of course. Only a fool would argue otherwise, but the point you're trying to make is ultimately an irrelevant red herring.

 

You're basically comparing atheists who commit crimes in general against theists who commit them specifically in the name of their religion or belief system. Apples and oranges.

 

The challenge, as I'm sure you understand, is that atheism is not itself a belief system. It is not an ideology or worldview or religion any more than bald is a hair color or not collecting stamps is a hobby. The term atheist is not descriptive of a persons ideology in any way. It tells you nothing other than the person doesn't believe in god or gods. Full stop. End program.

 

Further, one cannot commit a crime in the name of atheism any more than one can commit a crime in the name of non-belief in the tooth fairy or lack of belief in puff the magic dragon. The concept is absurd on its face.

 

You know what we do see, however, and with heartbreaking despair-inducing regularity? Crimes and atrocities committed precisely because of ones religious beliefs, ideology, or the fact that they have differing worldviews from some other religious group or tribe (think Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, ISIS, the crusades, etc.)

 

Unfortunately, the only response I suspect you can offer to this is a No True Scotsman fallacy when defining religion or a strawman fallacy when defining atheism, neither of which are terribly helpful or convincing.

 

"There's simply no polite way to tell people they've dedicated their lives to an illusion."

― Daniel C. Dennett

You know what we do see, however, and with heartbreaking despair-inducing regularity? Crimes and atrocities committed precisely because of ones religious beliefs, ideology, or the fact that they have differing worldviews from some other religious group or tribe (think Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, ISIS, the crusades, etc.)

That's right, and we atheists need to take care not to act that way too.

I'm not comparing "crimes in general" which some atheists have committed to the crimes committed in "the name of religion." I'm speaking of crimes against unbelievers. Some atheists have persecuted the religious.

The challenge, as I'm sure you understand, is that atheism is not itself a belief system. It is not an ideology or worldview or religion any more than bald is a hair color or not collecting stamps is a hobby. The term atheist is not descriptive of a persons ideology in any way. It tells you nothing other than the person doesn't believe in god or gods. Full stop. End program.

That's my view of atheism. Other people may have different definitions.

Further, one cannot commit a crime in the name of atheism any more than one can commit a crime in the name of non-belief in the tooth fairy or lack of belief in puff the magic dragon. The concept is absurd on its face.

 

Sometimes people do things that may seem absurd to you. I see no reason why nobody could commit a crime in the name of atheism although I know of no examples.

Jagella

 

Without meaning to be argumentative, John, I'd say all your claims above might most charitably be described as dubious. (I've numbered them for convenience)

 

 

(1) The definitions are clear enough? This is news to me. Please share these definitions with us so that those poor beleaguered souls who've spent decades trying to explicate the concept of "evidence" in science, and meeting very little success, might finally rest. It seems to me that "evidence" in science is simply that which people commonly regarded as being involved in the scientific enterprise call evidence.

 

 

(2) Well, that's one opinion. It's not the opinion of Karl Popper and his followers, though, who renounce inductive confirmation (evidence) altogether, after all every Tom Dick and Harry (the Marxist, the Freudian, the Christian, the alien nut...) with a theory to hawk boasts a mountain of supporting evidence. Have a look at this summary:

 

http://schriftman.wordpress.com/2010/10/22/what-is-science-what-is-pseudoscience-karl-poppers-solution/

 

"Popper’s emphasis on criticism stems from his rejection of the most straightforward criterion of demarcation, according to which scientific claims are special because they are confirmed by observational evidence and because they explain observations.

Kasser explains Popper’s view that pseudosciences, such as astrology, are chock full of appeals to observational evidence. Hence, Popper thought, observation is cheap. It is essentially interpretation of experience in terms of one’s theory. The pseudoscientist finds confirming evidence everywhere (for example, in the many case studies of Freud and Adler).

 

Furthermore, apparent counterevidence can be turned aside or even turned into confirming evidence by a clever pseudoscientist. Freud and Adler had ready explanations for any observational result. For Popper, no evidence falsifies a pseudoscientific claim and almost everything confirms it. As a result, Popper came to see the two standard virtues of scientific theories as explanatory power and confirmation by a large number of instances as closer to being vices than virtues.

 

Fitting the data well is, thus, not the mark of a scientific theory."

 

 

 

(3) I don't have a particle accelerator in my basement. Or a Hubble telescope on the roof. How about you?

 

 

 

The moral of the story here, boys and girls, is a familiar one. Ask ten people, including scientists themselves, what constitutes scientific evidence and you're likely to get ten different answers. Same goes for the agenda of science, the Scientific Method, and so on, and so forth. Each one is convinced there is a simple (it's clear!) answer to the question. he has it (of course!), and presumably anyone who has a different answer is just plain wrong (duh!).

 

A bit like religion if you think about it.

Great response! I love science, but I hate intolerance of differing points of view.

Jagella

I think you are mistaken- the definitions of evidence are clear enough- there just isn't any for God.

What are those definitions, and who defined them?

Depending on which god we are considering, it is often claimed that there is evidence. Mormons have their eyewitnesses to the gold tablets given to Joseph smith by an angel. Fundamentalist Christians have their Bible prophecies. Muslims have a Koran written by an apparently illiterate man.

I find none of this convincing, but I don't dismiss it out of hand either.

Science has a very clear agenda- finding out what is supported by evidence. There's nothing intrinsically elitist about it. Anyone can do an experiment and, if it overturns a previously held belief in science then science will cough, splutter swear a bit (we are human, after all) and, eventually, accept the truth.

That's the way it should be in my opinion.

If, on the other hand someone shows religion to be wrong, or even just says that it might be, they risk getting killed for it.

I agree that such intolerance is abhorrent, but haven't some atheists committed the same crimes against those who disagree with them?

Now, remind me- who was being "picked on"? Oh yes, I remember now- the ones who kill the unbelievers.

As far as I know, John Lennox has never killed an unbeliever.

In any case, I'm not saying that the religious are being picked on. I'm just investigating the claim.

Jagella

Not a problem.

Just as soon as there's some evidence for God we will be happy to consider it coolly and rationally,.

Until then I will treat it like the existence of fairies at the bottom of my garden- i.e. not worthy of serious thought.

I don't know of any evidence for any gods that I find convincing, but the apologists claim they have evidence. What is or is not credible evidence is an issue in itself.

What bothers me about this issue is that science itself may get a bad reputation as being narrow-minded and elitist if it is seen as having an atheistic agenda. I hope you agree that science has no authorities. If censorship and dogma are some of the ill effects of religion, then such ills should have no place in science either.

Jagella

Worldwide, something like 80-90% of every human being on earth is considered religious to some extent. For as long as we have records, religion has been the dominant force in civilization, a proto-government, as it were. People who fail to practice their local religion or who think differently are as a general rule ostracized, outcast, and omitted from the groups protection and prevented from sharing in their resources.

 

...and the question is whether or not they're being treated unfairly? Seriously? I know the strain of persecution is strong in many religious narratives, but that's a bit much, wouldn't you say?

 

Are you asking me or the apologists? If the religious are being treated unfairly, then that's wrong even though they may have been unjust to others.

 

Similarly, why offer deference to religion when it's completely unearned?

 

If deference is unearned, then don't offer it. At the same time I say give them the chance to earn respect.

 

I understand the need to be respectful and kind to one another, but if religion or religious people do ignorant things or say something that's remedially false, or tries to claim that they should not be subject to the same level of scrutiny and scientific standards as everything else, then laughing and dismissing the claim is an entirely acceptable response.

 

If anybody says something that is false, then expose it as false. If they refuse to be scrutinized, then let them know that you cannot accept what they say until they allow their claims to be scrutinized. You are free to laugh and dismiss claims, but that's not my approach.

After all... that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Of course you can dismiss any claim. You have no burden of proof, but if evidence is offered, then fairly consider it.

Jagella

 

This seems like just a rewording of Pascal's Wager.

Actually, I believe Lennox is alluding to the "psychology of atheism" that is espoused by some Christian apologists. The basic claim is that some people have an emotional aversion to the idea of God and reject the idea out of bitterness or wanting to be free of God.

While I may not fully agree with such a claim, it does seem to me that atheism can be very emotionally charged. Such emotion can lead to bias and the refusal to fairly consider evidence that may prove one's predispositions to be wrong. I hope that atheists, especially those atheists that may be scientists, will approach the issue of the existence of gods coolly and rationally.

Jagella

I think you are misunderstanding science. It focuses on the study of fact. There is no proof god exists thus god cannot be a fact.

 

If we use your definition, then we need to know the facts before science gets off the ground. There is no proof that life exists beyond the earth, so such life's existence cannot be a fact?

Religion focuses on belief ie in the absence of fact what do you think happened.

 

 

Yes. That is a problem as far as science is concerned. Nevertheless, I think it might be a good idea to continue to investigate religious claims.

 

Jagella

Hi friends:

As some of you may be aware, it is common for religious apologists and creationists to claim that their views are treated unfairly by those who follow a secular agenda. John Lennox, for example, has said that atheism is wishful thinking in that it is the hope that atheists will never have to meet God. As a result, secularists have a bias against the supernatural and treat it unfairly by censoring it especially in regard to science.

Although I am an atheist, I must agree with Lennox in that I do hope I will never encounter his god! Atheists are as human as the religious and have biases and can act irrationally. I know I'm like that. Nevertheless, I do try to keep an open mind and dispassionately consider evidence whether it is consistent with my predispositions or not.

So is religion being unfairly excluded from the arena of modern thought? Is any mention of gods automatically to be censored from scientific discourse?

Jagella

I agree that it's important to know what a computer is doing. It's entirely possible to make errors with a computer.

Would you agree that it may be best to start out with pen and paper and then check your results with a computer? I often take that route.

My background in math involves algebra, geometry, trigonometry, linear algebra, abstract algebra, calculus, and statistics.

Jagella

Disagreeing with you should not be seen as discourteous. You understand that, right?

Yes, but I also prefer responses that are intelligent, honest, and relevant. Many people just rant.

Jagella

One of the most interesting and perhaps disturbing issues I'm aware of is that of online behavior. I've witnessed and experienced firsthand a lot of bullying. I can honestly say that I make an effort to discuss issues sensibly and courteously both online and offline. I discuss and debate online because it gives me an opportunity to intelligently exchange ideas with other like-minded people and with those who may disagree, or at least that's what I hope to do.

Allow me to post an example of a recent effort on my part. On a "science" forum (not this one) another member started a thread about the nature of mathematics. Is it invented or discovered? I take the stance that math is essentially invented. I soon found that my opinion is very unpopular with most of the other members in that forum. I made my best efforts to substantiate my position logically and with evidence, but I was told that what I was arguing was "lunacy." I met few if any intelligent counterarguments. Even the moderator told me to "stop posting crap" (whatever that means).

So why do people act like this? Some people posit that the anonymity and distance of the internet makes people more likely to speak their minds. Other people might simply enjoy being rude to others. Since ideas are exchanged online, it is inevitable that many people will encounter opinions that they find objectionable. Many seem to find those who disagree with them to be objectionable.

So how should we act online? I might ask everyone to be intelligent and courteous, and I hope that isn't asking too much.

Jagella