dartagnan wrote: You are bringing a strawman into the argument when you argue 'atheism doesn't foster reasoning. No one has argued that it does.
This has been strongly implied on numerous occassions on this forum. Where have you been? You should realize my comment was in response to the claim that Christianity doesn't foster reasoning. Apparently you guys cannot handle the prospect that all things are equal in this regard.
It's been implied that atheism fosters reasoning? By whom? Certainly not by Zoidberg with anything she wrote in this thread. Kevin please be open minded here. I'm not trying to criticize you. Atheism is not the polar opposite of theism. It is a default position. Christianity to my knowledge doesn't foster reasoning. Perhaps there are some aspects of it, that you are referring to that I'm not aware of. If you think it does please explain. With regards to your last sentence, I don't understand it. What "things are equal"? As I say, atheism is not the polar opposite of theism. Atheism is not anti-belief, it is a lack of belief of particular god beliefs.
And yes, I am perfectly aware of what atheism entails. But this has not prevented atheists from using their "non belief" in the most passionate and fanatical ways, reminiscient to the worst Evangelical bible-thumper. Again, I have seen antagonistic aggression from atheists on this forum, the same as I have received from Evangelicals in the past. Granted, it isn't to the same extent, but the emotional elements and lack of tolerance are still there. So while you can fall back on the technicality that atheists don't have a belief system, it is patently obvious that all the negative elements in theism can be present and abused by atheists just the same.
Of course, atheists can be fanatical about their own ideas. But atheists do not all think alike, reason alike, or anything alike. They simply have the common denominator of not actively accepting god beliefs presented to them. Atheists on the whole may very well be critical of organized religions and their various irrational religious claims. Do you not agree that rejection of irrational claims after critical evaluation is a preferable way to operate one's life generally than acceptance of irrational claims from people in authority solely because of their position of authority? Do you blame atheists for being annoyed by the irrational claims made by religious groups, when many of these religious groups are powerful in terms of finances and money and can use that power to force their beliefs onto others? It is not as if religious groups wait until individuals are old enough to critically evaluate, instead all organized religions if given the opportunity start early indoctrination before individuals have the maturity to reason well and critical evaluate those irrational claims they present. Many atheists on these boards may seem like they have a belief system to you but is is more likely what you are seeing is that on these boards people who actively oppose religion are opposing the irrational aspects of it in favor of evidence and rationalism. They are not all claiming "there is no God". Atheists in the media such as Dawkins may be presenting a more vocal anti God's existence position. I believe that is to counter the obvious strong marketing of " a Christian God exists made by powerful religious organized groups.
While at MAD I was gradually pushed away for not following the tribe's dominant point of view. I was constantly called to the carpet for being different. At times I sense the same tendency occurring on this forum with our resident atheists/deists who share common ground in criticizing religion.
Well yes, atheists will generally be critical of organized religion, as I explained previously. Mormonism is particularly threatening because it is so aggressive in its marketing and in accumulating assets, with the least amount of associated costs to do so. God beliefs per se are not a threat, it is how those God claims are used by organized religions which can be a threat to those who don't hold the same beliefs.
On the other hand Romney links religion to reasoning and further says that together they fight evil. If religion/theism is argued to fight evil then what does that imply about atheism
So you are relying on inference alone. I don't think it is a coincidence that the media embraced Romney's speech while those without religion despise it. Perspective is everything, and I am beginning to realize that atheists have the same tendency towards persecution complex as any other theist. This is a learning experience for me to say the least.
Well Zoid brought up that she sees little connection of reasoning to religion and I agree. I ask you previously above if you think there is a connection please explain.
The implication is at best atheism plays no role at worst atheism actually is part of the problem of "evil" which exists.
Romney was not making a theological declaration. Again, he is a politician playing to the hearts and minds of the majority of the nation.
It is irrelevant to my point what his motivation is. He specifically linked religion together with reasoning and said they fight evil. Where is the link of religion and reasoning being together? If religion/theism in the Christian and reasoning fights evil, then where does non belief/atheism fit it to this argument?
Zoid argued "religion does not foster reasoning". You have not successfully countered her point.
It is just an assertion. A popular one, but just an assertion nonetheless.
Religion are often rely on or promote faith in supernatural claims as opposed to requiring evidence. Supernatural claims defy natural physical laws. It is irrational to accept claims which defy natural physical laws. Lots of claims by organized religions are irrational and do not foster reasoning. If you think they do, then please explain.
Where is this link of religion to reasoning? Do you acknowledge that religion doesn't foster reasoning?
Sure, some religions don't. But Christianity does, I believe. Your reductionist approach, common among atheists, is a requisite I understand, but it also precludes you from understanding the situation properly. Not all religions are equal.
Again, if you think Christianity fosters reasoning please explain.
Do you acknowledge that many religions including Mormonism discourage critical thinking of church authority, church teachings and interpretations of text claimed sacred?
Of course. You aren't very familiar with my posts are you?
If you think I'm unfamiliar then why not answer my question. I'm not glued to this message board and following each post, nor yours and I haven't looked at the MAD board in years. I have some idea of your thinking. I did read recently that you no longer have a Mormon testimony. You tend to be an independent thinker. But I have noticed you really don't fully appreciate atheism yet.
Just look at that thread in the Celestial forum on polygamy and whether or not a God commands it to see suspension of critical thinking in action with religious belief being the cause.
Utter stupidity, I agree.
Good :)
But atheists who maintain their non belief with the same level of passion and zeal, might very well engage in the same sort of confirmation bias in order to maintain their disbelief.
Reasoning, I believe, is best fostered by abandoning one's presuppositions completely, and having an open mind. In this sense, I believe I was right when I said neither religion nor atheism fosters reasoning.
First of all I agree that reasoning is best fostered by abandoning one's presuppositions completely. I agree totally with that. Now because you don't understand atheism you think that saying "atheism doesn't foster reasoning" makes sense. How could any lack of belief in any God, whether it's a Christian , Mormon, greek, Am. Indian whatever God one can imagine..how could any lack of belief in those Gods ..foster reasoning?
However believing based on faith in any of those gods is irrational, it discourages reasoning. When it comes to good reasoning in this world we live in, by which we perceive with our senses, we reason from evidence. The better the evidence, the more it can be evaluated objectively as opposed to reliance solely on authority with no evidence for support, then the more reliable the claims are.
Religions generally do not offer reliable claims. Religions generally do not foster good reasoning when it makes claims of things interacting in the physical world which defy natural physical laws.
By the way, I came across this article written by a Christian scientist. He challenges the nation that Christianity and Science are at odds with another, and refers to it as myth.You might find it interesting:
http://www.irr.org/schaefer1.html
At this particular moment as I'm writing I don't have time, perhaps later. I will note however that those espousing religion often seek to tie religion and science together. I call it piggybacking of religion onto science
in order to enjoy the respect science receives.