[quote="dartagnan"]Don't expect sensible conversation here.
---Your recent post seemed pretty sensible...(?)
Tal, didn't you know you're an atheist, "logically"?
---Are you speaking facetiously? I'd never call myself an atheist or a theist. I think I'm more of just a plain ignoramus on those sorts of things...:P
The Intellectual Crudity of Non-Theist Apologists
-
_dartagnan
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 2750
- Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm
-
_Dr. Shades
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 14117
- Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm
dartagnan wrote:Don't expect sensible conversation here.
Tal, didn't you know you're an atheist, "logically"?
Marg looked up something the ancient pagans said, and by that authority, says she can totally turn our understanding of the word on its head. And all this time I thought I was a theist. Those damn pagans screw me every time.
[MODERATOR NOTE: Kevin, while discussing things in the Celestial Forum, please don't make blanket condemnations like your first sentence. In the Celestial Forum, always act as though all the discussions that are or have ever taken place there were with your favorite grandmother.
Plus, please leave the word "damn" out of the Celestial Forum, too.
Thread moved.]
Last edited by Alexa [Bot] on Thu Mar 13, 2008 2:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
--Louis Midgley
--Louis Midgley
-
_Moniker
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4004
- Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm
Re: The Intellectual Crudity of Non-Theist Apologists
Tal Bachman wrote:I think that much of what passes these days for argument on behalf of non-theism is intolerably crude and embarrassingly naïve, and it's driving me nuts. Am I wrong about this?
Well, I'm rather naïve (I'm told often) and I should read the other replies before I answer. Yet, I don't really consider myself a non-theist apologist unless I'm posting on MAD -- then it becomes rather necessary, at times...
1.) Non-theists (call them NTs) never tire of proclaiming that while hundreds of thousands have been killed in the name of theism, that no one has ever been killed in the name of non-theism; but appalling ignorance of historical fact doesn't make that fact non-existent.
I'm a non-theist that has never proclaimed this or used this argument.
Conclusion: "belief systems" don't need to include a supernatural god to encourage or justify mass murder.
Agreed.
2.) While acknowledging that some religious beliefs may have had adaptive value and therefore selected for, non-theist blowhard Richard Dawkins paints religious belief largely as a "super-meme", as alluded to by Dartagnan in another thread. I find this characterization of religious belief problematic; but even if it were true, it would be as damaging to non-theism as to theism.
No comment...
3.) NTs often distinguish belief systems in terms of whether they are religious or non-religious, and then label the former as more "potentially dangerous.
This doesn't fit for me either...
I'm not a very good apologist! It must be that naïveté.
-
_dartagnan
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 2750
- Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm
marg, this was your argument a few days ago. You were so proud of it then. You even approved of my signature line, so what has happened in the past few days that would make you want to distance yourself from your own argument? Now you call it "fallacious ad hominem"? I'm simply reiterating the point you were so proud of making. We're all atheists you said.
"Logically" speaking, of course.
As far as relevance to the thread. Well, I see a lot of talk in this thread about theism and non-theism. So my post about your argument is entirely relevant to this discussion, especially if everyone here is "logically" an atheist! If not, then leave it to the thread author to file a complaint.
"Logically" speaking, of course.
As far as relevance to the thread. Well, I see a lot of talk in this thread about theism and non-theism. So my post about your argument is entirely relevant to this discussion, especially if everyone here is "logically" an atheist! If not, then leave it to the thread author to file a complaint.
Last edited by Guest on Thu Mar 13, 2008 2:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
-
_dartagnan
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 2750
- Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm
-
_marg
-
_Tarski
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 3059
- Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:57 pm
Tal,
you said that Marxism was a fundamentally non-theist ideology. Well, look, I could start up any ideology, one that promotes interspecies sex or racism or anything and then say that it was fundamentally non-theist--I might even make a charter or constitution declaring it so--but would it be really? I could say it, and I guess the Marxists did say it, to some extent. Certainly we grew up hearing how the Marxists were enemies of God and that it was all about atheism. But what if both the Marxists themselves and the John Birchers were just wrong. What if Marxism and Stalinism are not really in any way fundamentally atheistic despite claims from both sides? What were the arguments? How did marxism really follow from atheism?
Come to think of it, Stalinism looks an awful lot like just an alternative theism in a sense, with Stalin playing the role of god.
Well, you might then claim that the inquisition, and the crusades were also not really fundamentally theistic. Or, even that Chrisitanity or Islam is not really fundamentally theistic.
Maybe,... but its sounds less plausible to me.
If you grant me that the Bible or Koran really are God's word, then I think a few terrible things really do follow!
The Dawkin's style atheists are atheists on the basis of opposition to nonevidence based beliefs and the fact that the scripture of most Abrahamic religions look very violent, intolerant, backward, and bellicose by modern moral standards.
The whole God thing is basically all about faith, that is, all about giving absolute credence to the idea of God's existence and absolute authority to his scripture. Evidence hardly plays into it except in a negative sense (Doubting Thomas was a cautionary figure, not a hero).
Dawkins would say that if there were sufficient evidence for God then he would accept it. He is also just as opposed to homeopathy and astrology as he is to religious beliefs. He would also be opposed to belief in any other unsupported claim or totalitarian idea, or person that demanded worship--be it Jesus or Stalin or Franko or our alien overlords. If either the very existence of the person/entity or the claims or powers of a real person are unsupported then that is to be opposed.
Finally, I have to go with my gut a bit here.
Imagine a Stalinist saying "I am killing you because I don't believe in God or religion" or "because my lack of belief in god demands it".
Now imagine a suicide bomber, or an Osama bin Ladin type declaring that they kill because of God's holy command. Or an abortion clinic bomber. Or how about sharia law?
Somehow I believe the second guy more than the first. The first one just sounds somehow "off" or disingenuous. The second guy means it. Plus I don't see the point of arguing with the second guy. He will just appeal to faith and to a holy book. The Marxist has to at least attempt to argue on the basis of reason (fail though he might).
In any case, in today's world, I am afraid of religion more than nonreligion--just as a matter of personal observation of the situation.
Zealously religious people scare me a bit and atheists don't scare me. I am not claiming this is a good or reasonable thing about me, its just true right now.
Is atheism dangerous? Well, if enough people get fed up with religion then someone might step in with an ideology that claims to be based on nontheism but is really just another opportunistic power grab. Then there could be trouble.
If someone claimed they had an ideology based on atheism I wouldn't even know what the hell they meant. An ideology should be based on something positive, like an evidence based ideology, or an ideology of love or tolerance or fair distribution of wealth or democracy or capitalism.
Dawkins at his best would or should say that he does not base his personal ideologies on atheism, but rather simply that atheism (strictly agnosticism) is just one consequence of the central role that science plays in his world view.
But, in my view we need more than what scientific evidence provides. We also need love and wisdom and host of other virtues that I cannot reduce to the language of hard science. Perhaps, in the end, we need some kind of "God", but why that may be, and what kind of god it may be, is still unclear.
you said that Marxism was a fundamentally non-theist ideology. Well, look, I could start up any ideology, one that promotes interspecies sex or racism or anything and then say that it was fundamentally non-theist--I might even make a charter or constitution declaring it so--but would it be really? I could say it, and I guess the Marxists did say it, to some extent. Certainly we grew up hearing how the Marxists were enemies of God and that it was all about atheism. But what if both the Marxists themselves and the John Birchers were just wrong. What if Marxism and Stalinism are not really in any way fundamentally atheistic despite claims from both sides? What were the arguments? How did marxism really follow from atheism?
Come to think of it, Stalinism looks an awful lot like just an alternative theism in a sense, with Stalin playing the role of god.
Well, you might then claim that the inquisition, and the crusades were also not really fundamentally theistic. Or, even that Chrisitanity or Islam is not really fundamentally theistic.
Maybe,... but its sounds less plausible to me.
If you grant me that the Bible or Koran really are God's word, then I think a few terrible things really do follow!
The Dawkin's style atheists are atheists on the basis of opposition to nonevidence based beliefs and the fact that the scripture of most Abrahamic religions look very violent, intolerant, backward, and bellicose by modern moral standards.
The whole God thing is basically all about faith, that is, all about giving absolute credence to the idea of God's existence and absolute authority to his scripture. Evidence hardly plays into it except in a negative sense (Doubting Thomas was a cautionary figure, not a hero).
Dawkins would say that if there were sufficient evidence for God then he would accept it. He is also just as opposed to homeopathy and astrology as he is to religious beliefs. He would also be opposed to belief in any other unsupported claim or totalitarian idea, or person that demanded worship--be it Jesus or Stalin or Franko or our alien overlords. If either the very existence of the person/entity or the claims or powers of a real person are unsupported then that is to be opposed.
Finally, I have to go with my gut a bit here.
Imagine a Stalinist saying "I am killing you because I don't believe in God or religion" or "because my lack of belief in god demands it".
Now imagine a suicide bomber, or an Osama bin Ladin type declaring that they kill because of God's holy command. Or an abortion clinic bomber. Or how about sharia law?
Somehow I believe the second guy more than the first. The first one just sounds somehow "off" or disingenuous. The second guy means it. Plus I don't see the point of arguing with the second guy. He will just appeal to faith and to a holy book. The Marxist has to at least attempt to argue on the basis of reason (fail though he might).
In any case, in today's world, I am afraid of religion more than nonreligion--just as a matter of personal observation of the situation.
Zealously religious people scare me a bit and atheists don't scare me. I am not claiming this is a good or reasonable thing about me, its just true right now.
Is atheism dangerous? Well, if enough people get fed up with religion then someone might step in with an ideology that claims to be based on nontheism but is really just another opportunistic power grab. Then there could be trouble.
If someone claimed they had an ideology based on atheism I wouldn't even know what the hell they meant. An ideology should be based on something positive, like an evidence based ideology, or an ideology of love or tolerance or fair distribution of wealth or democracy or capitalism.
Dawkins at his best would or should say that he does not base his personal ideologies on atheism, but rather simply that atheism (strictly agnosticism) is just one consequence of the central role that science plays in his world view.
But, in my view we need more than what scientific evidence provides. We also need love and wisdom and host of other virtues that I cannot reduce to the language of hard science. Perhaps, in the end, we need some kind of "God", but why that may be, and what kind of god it may be, is still unclear.
when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion". -Beastie
yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore.-Buffalo
yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore.-Buffalo
-
_dartagnan
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 2750
- Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm
Is atheism in and of itself a "belief system"?
No, of course not.
What I have argued is that some atheists have actually created a religion of their own. The assumption that religion is strictly theistic is a common faux pax. There are non-theistic religions and humans tend to gravitate towards one form or another.
Now the atheists I see on these forums (not all) can be as dogmatic and fanatical as any fundamentalist theist. The dogma of this religion comes in the form of materialism and scientism. Their scripture is the word of their own authorities whose professions tend to be science related. Their faith is expressed in their belief that these authorities have the answers because they are smart dudes. Their models and theories that have holes in them. Well, they have faith that science will eventually figure it all out. Kinda like Mormons have faith that archaeology will eventually prove the Book of Mormon. I seriously doubt many atheists who rely on them really understand much of what they're saying. But they come across as confident and authoritative, so that's gotta count for something.
Another anecdote worth mentioning is that trends tend to ignite passion and eagerness when they challenge the status quo. This is the stuff that sells books, and people like Dawkins realize this. This is why the erstwhile innocuous zoologist derailed from his field of expertise and presumed to tell people that the vast majority of the planet suffers from a mental defect akin to a virus. People would be drawn out of theism, if for no other reason, just to prove they don't have the virus. The fact that virtually everyone has some kind of bad experience with theistic religion, only adds fuel to the new movement that can only be understood as another form of religion.
The fact that humanity is, for the most part, theistic, makes it all the more hip to think you can be a part of that 1% that knows something the other 99% doesn't. They're all wrong except for the few and their elite religious authorities who have been, to some extent, enshrined as idols in their own ivory towers. I see this same kind of zeal and fanaticism to "spread the word" with the people who insist 9-11 was a conspiracy by the Bush administration. It is something nobody else knows except a few geeks on the web who became self-ordained experts in structural engineering overnight. But hey, they have the "truth" just as JAK does when he arrogantly declares to the world that all religions are inherently dangerous. He has taken it to a new level and engaged in alarmism. But at least he has company.
Yes, materialism and scientism can be belief systems and they both resonate well with atheists, and this is to be expected. These belief systems provide atheists with that yellow brick road to "truth," the same as organized religion has done for theists for many, many centuries. The way I see it, essentially all they are doing is changing religions, assuming the former was a result of primitive thiking and the latter an enlightened view. This makes them feel especial since it suggests they are more evolved than the rest of us.
So you see, the religion practiced by many atheists contains some of the same elements that are integral to theistic religions. It is just a paradigm shift and in some cases it is more social than intellectual.
No, of course not.
What I have argued is that some atheists have actually created a religion of their own. The assumption that religion is strictly theistic is a common faux pax. There are non-theistic religions and humans tend to gravitate towards one form or another.
Now the atheists I see on these forums (not all) can be as dogmatic and fanatical as any fundamentalist theist. The dogma of this religion comes in the form of materialism and scientism. Their scripture is the word of their own authorities whose professions tend to be science related. Their faith is expressed in their belief that these authorities have the answers because they are smart dudes. Their models and theories that have holes in them. Well, they have faith that science will eventually figure it all out. Kinda like Mormons have faith that archaeology will eventually prove the Book of Mormon. I seriously doubt many atheists who rely on them really understand much of what they're saying. But they come across as confident and authoritative, so that's gotta count for something.
Another anecdote worth mentioning is that trends tend to ignite passion and eagerness when they challenge the status quo. This is the stuff that sells books, and people like Dawkins realize this. This is why the erstwhile innocuous zoologist derailed from his field of expertise and presumed to tell people that the vast majority of the planet suffers from a mental defect akin to a virus. People would be drawn out of theism, if for no other reason, just to prove they don't have the virus. The fact that virtually everyone has some kind of bad experience with theistic religion, only adds fuel to the new movement that can only be understood as another form of religion.
The fact that humanity is, for the most part, theistic, makes it all the more hip to think you can be a part of that 1% that knows something the other 99% doesn't. They're all wrong except for the few and their elite religious authorities who have been, to some extent, enshrined as idols in their own ivory towers. I see this same kind of zeal and fanaticism to "spread the word" with the people who insist 9-11 was a conspiracy by the Bush administration. It is something nobody else knows except a few geeks on the web who became self-ordained experts in structural engineering overnight. But hey, they have the "truth" just as JAK does when he arrogantly declares to the world that all religions are inherently dangerous. He has taken it to a new level and engaged in alarmism. But at least he has company.
Yes, materialism and scientism can be belief systems and they both resonate well with atheists, and this is to be expected. These belief systems provide atheists with that yellow brick road to "truth," the same as organized religion has done for theists for many, many centuries. The way I see it, essentially all they are doing is changing religions, assuming the former was a result of primitive thiking and the latter an enlightened view. This makes them feel especial since it suggests they are more evolved than the rest of us.
So you see, the religion practiced by many atheists contains some of the same elements that are integral to theistic religions. It is just a paradigm shift and in some cases it is more social than intellectual.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
-
_marg
dartagnan wrote:marg, this was your argument a few days ago. You were so proud of it then. You even approved of my signature line, so what has happened in the past few days that would make you want to distance yourself from your own argument? Now you call it "fallacious ad hominem"? I'm simply reiterating the point you were so proud of making. We're all atheists you said.
"Logically" speaking, of course.
I don't mind in fact I enjoy arguing with people with difference of opinion. I do not waste time with individuals who are consistently intellectually dishonest. If you want to focus on fallacious ad homs, take words out of context to argue against strawmen, flat out deny you've said something even when evidence is presented, derail threads etc...go right ahead.
But you have failed to argue successfully with me, because I'm not going to bother with you.
I had thought that at least in the Celestial forum a thread could evolve without fallacious ad homs and other fallacious argumentation, but apparently that isn't so. It seems that all one needs to do is write fallaciously and if it is pointed out, the thread gets moved, so that the offender can continue if he/she so wishes. So basically there is no forum on this board in which one can weed out disruptive, disingenous individuals.
If you think you are so smart and accomplishing something in discussion..go at it Kevin...live in your fantasy world.