Atheists delusional?

[Russell_SA]

What makes you think when Catholics get together we all sit around talking about how much we love the Pope and Jesus? LOL have you been on CAF lately?

Not sure why this was relevant, but I don’t believe Catholics sit around doing that. I’ve only attempted to point out what the institution puts forth through it’s leaders and its politics. Individuals in the pews seem to be irrelevant to me but I do find it distasteful that they keep giving lip service to the non-apologies that the vadican puts out and that they don’t rise up in solidarity with the rest of humanity to demand pedophile priests in the vadican to be released and prosecuted. I believe they know the leadership of the churches are as immune to their congregationalist as they are from other governments.

Christians equally don’t want to be told they can’t pray in public, or they can’t pray before a football game, or they can’t say the Pledge of Allegiance or have a cross on their desk that has nothing to do with you, but some one who doesn’t believe complains it’s oppressive and then the Christian is forced to remove it. Why?

You can still do all this in schools and government offices, just as an individual, not as a representative of the school or the government. It’s call coercion to children to lead them in school prayer. You can pledge, pray, etc. all you want in any building or event you want. Your particular favorite toy is not to be forced on the population. You are not to lead my children in your cultural myths and practices. That is the legal line. Sorry but not allowing your religion to be legally forced into our culture is not something we will ever allow again. We’ve ran that experiment already. Want to have your myths and legends be the norm of society, then you’ll have to convince society that it has value to be had and you’ll have to earn it instead of enforce it.

 

[Russell_SA]

Who on earth does this? I don’t go around saying, “Hi, I’m Pup7, I’m Catholic and my husband is Anglican.”

This is pretty normal from my experience. Politicians do this a lot for example. Typically exposed by people running for some sort of public office or group leadership role.

There is a difference in being skeptical and saying you’re an out and out humanist.

I separated skeptic world view and humanist world view. Lots of episcopals that I’ve ran into are humanists as well. You don’t have to be humanist and not religious as well.

Hitler wasn’t Catholic. Neither was Mussolini. Myth.

Didn’t say hitler was, just said that he was religious. Didn’t say that mussolini was either. I was talking about world views that promote the typical religious view of humanity towards their dear leader. Don’t have to be superstitious to still have that mindset. To need a dear leader to save you as a people because the people have not been taught how to do this themselves and to be brave enough to fail and get back up to make it right next time.

Myth

Long-Buried Vatican Files Reveal A New Indictment Of Pope Pius XII

Pope Pius XII helped Hitler destroy German Catholic political opposition. John Cornwell reports on this new discovery.

www.vanityfair.com

This isn’t North Korea.

Glad you see the similarity. But you don’t refute the points presented, just an assertion that it’s not. Well, I’ll have to use this again. “Assertions without explanation are dismissed without explanation.”

 

[Pup7]

This is pretty normal from my experience. Politicians do this a lot for example. Typically exposed by people running for some sort of public office or group leadership role.

It’s not normal. No one does that. I’ve never met anyone who does that in 44 years on this earth.

Didn’t say hitler was, just said that he was religious.

That’s a myth. He was not.

Well the leading organization involved with antisemitism and fascism of the 20th century in eastern Europe is just the catholic right. There’s just no other name for it. This is easily researched and well documented.

The main tenet of Communism is atheism. That there is indeed no God. They persecuted members of the Russian Orthodox Church and stomped out religious freedom in the East for decades. Lenin wasn’t a Catholic any more than Hitler was, and neither were the ones who followed him in power.

Glad you see the similarity. But you don’t refute the points presented, just an assertion that it’s not. Well, I’ll have to use this again. “Assertions without explanation are dismissed without explanation.”

Use what you will. That this isn’t North Korea IS my refutation. Nothing else needs to be said. Religion isn’t a Communist dictatorship with its people groveling to Dear Leader.

 

[Russell_SA]

That’s a myth. He was not.

He was religious, just not of a religious practice you preferred he profess or how he chose to exercise it. Sorry but being religious does not stop you from being a mass murder.

Religious views of Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia

It’s not normal. No one does that. I’ve never met anyone who does that in 44 years on this earth.

Okay, not my experience, but that’s true for you.

The main tenet of Communism is atheism.

Atheism is not something that exists. It’s like a jury member coming to the conclusion of “not guilty” due to their “not-guilty-ism”. It’s not a world view or a belief. Our actions are dictated by our beliefs about reality, not about our disbeliefs about reality. You can keep stamping your feet again, but I have presented why atheism is not a world view that directs your actions and you have not. You can still be communist and religious as well. They are not exclusive. I have also pointed out how religion teaches people to need a dear leader that is infallible and you can have that mindset and not believe in the supernatural. What world view teaches that people are not to look for leaders to save them but that we can stand up as a group and save ourselves? What world view teaches that everyone is allowed to the discussion for what is the correct way to govern ourselves regardless of tribal identities? What world view values skepticism and critical thinking and excitement about not knowing the answer and going to to find it? That is about as opposite of what religious organizations teach as it gets. So when you are brought up around that all your life, but don’t believe in the supernatural, you’ll still get the same ignorant credulous Dear Leader worship as a result.

Nothing else needs to be said.

and there’s the wall.

 

[Pup7]

Atheism is not something that exists.

Not believing in a God is a BELIEF SYSTEM. And that’s okay. You either do, you might, or you don’t.

 

[Paddy1989]

The population of the world has increased and is due to still increase further but if current birth rates continue it is will peak later in the century and Decline. As for Secularists having less kids because they are more responsible? I think you missed what I was saying, secularists have the lowest birth rate and are declining due to such a low birth rate. Atheists are dying out, study finds

You also missed my point in a growing number of people trying to contact either the divine or the occult, it is done because more people than ever believe in it.

 

[Bradskii]

P: Do you believe in gods?
B: No.

And you describe ‘No’ as a system.

 

[Russell_SA]

there are only two responses to belief claims. You either believe or you don’t; there is no other third option. You can hold your disbelief or belief in various degrees of certainty but you can not hold both positions at the same time. Like the jury member finding the defendant not guity but can still understand that it could be possible the defendant actually did it, but they don’t believe the evidence and arguments justify believing the defendant actually did the crime.

 

[Pup7]

So all the beliefs that define an atheist doesn’t codify a belief system? All the statements above against any sort of religious code don’t define a system? So you have no moral sense, no belief in right or wrong, no concept of any sort of code that defines how you live?

Sure.

It’s as much a system as a non-denominational saying “yes” to the same question.

Interesting how you think it’s not, though. You’re reading way too far into the term.

 

[Bradskii]

So all the beliefs that define an atheist doesn’t codify a belief system? All the statements above against any sort of religious code don’t define a system? So you have no moral sense, no belief in right or wrong, no concept of any sort of code that defines how you live?

Sure.

It’s as much a system as a non-denominational saying “yes” to the same question.

Interesting how you think it’s not, though. You’re reading way too far into the term.

Yes, I do have a moral sense. But the fact that I describe myself as an atheist tells you zip about it. Except that it does not involve the belief in any god. Basing one’s moral outlook on a particilar philosophical outlook could be described as a belief system and the person espousing it could be an atheist (she could be a deist). But being an atheist in itself is not.

If you said that you don’t believe in any aspect of Hinduism or Jainism or Budhism then does that constitute a belief system on your part?

If it does then it appears that you have two. One belief system based on Christianty and one belief system based on the fact that you reject all other religious beliefs.

Not sure about you, but that sounds really weird to me.

 

[Pup7]

If you said that you don’t believe in any aspect of Hinduism or Jainism or Budhism then does that constitute a belief system on your part?

Yes, it does. Because those denominations aren’t in my belief system as a Christian.

If it does then it appears that you have two. One belief system based on Christianty and one belief system based on the fact that you reject all other religious beliefs.

No, because not believing in other religions are part of the Christian beliefs. Same way not believing in the Baptist beliefs are part of being a Catholic Christian.

 

[Russell_SA]

Couple of things:

World views that guide our actions - We use what we believe about reality to be true for these world views, not what we don’t believe about reality to be true since there is an infinite amount of ideas that we don’t believe about reality to be true.
Example - Say you live in a reality that presents three known truths about it, like people are social creatures, people have empathy, people have emotions. From that and having a goal of “human well-being” as the target of a world view, we can think up world views based on those three known pieces of information to strive towards the goal of “human well-being”. No one starts adding unknown truths about reality for this process until those imagined truths manifest in reality. Just like I can imagine unicorns having magical healing powers, but I am not going to implement that into my world view to strive to the goal of “human well-being” because it does not manifest in reality at all and thus has no bearing on the pathway to the goal of “human well-being”. This is why the statement, “I don’t believe X is part of reality” is not implemented as part of anyone’s world view and why you can not have a world view of what you don’t believe about reality. You can only have a world view about what you do believe about reality.

Beliefs are not choices you make, they are your conclusions based on what you understand how reality works and the data that reality presented. Simple example: A + B = C. The “A” and “B” is the data that reality has presented. The “+” and “=” is your application of your current understanding of how logic works in reality. The “C” is the conclusion you come to. The conclusion/belief is not something you choose. Real world example: Sit in a chair and then choose to believe you are not sitting in a chair. You can’t, it’s not possible. You can lie to everyone else and profess your belief that you are not sitting in a chair till they believe you, but you can not lie to yourself. You can not choose to believe otherwise until new information about the experience is presented and/or a new understanding of how to apply logic is shown to you. That means the equation changed from A + B = C to A + B + E = D. People who do not believe your claims of A + B + Magic = supernatural need you to explain the magic part more before they will conclude that the supernatural is there. Until then, they can not change their current conclusion about your reasons for why you believe in the supernatural. Maybe A + B + Magic = Supernatural works for you, but not for other people. The people who do not come to the same conclusion you did with the equation that worked for you are telling you how to make an equation that would work for them to conclude the supernatural exists. You have to use that approach, not the approach that worked for you.

 

[Pup7]

You just described a belief system. It’s not the anathema you’re making it out to be.

I’m honestly not concerned that you’re an atheist. It doesn’t bother me and it doesn’t affect me until a group tries to tell me that saying “God bless you” when someone sneezes infringes on their rights (and yes that has happened - not to me personally, but it has).

Atheism based on all these posts is more than a disbelief in God. And that’s fine. Because everyone has a construct in which they live - it’s part of being human.

 

[Russell_SA]

all belief systems do not implement what we do not believe about reality, only what we do believe about reality.

 

[Pup7]

all belief systems do not implement what we do not believe about reality, only what we do believe about reality.

Of course they do! And you have a belief that there is no God.

That is a belief. How you see and perceive the world is formulated by that belief. Thank you for making my point.

 

[Russell_SA]

when someone sneezes infringes on their rights (and yes that has happened - not to me personally, but it has).

Then they’re morons then.

Atheism based on all these posts is more than a disbelief in God.

There is no such thing as “Atheism”. Just like there is not such thing as “not-guilty-ism”.

That is a belief. How you see and perceive the world is formulated by that belief. Thank you for making my point.

The process to come to the conclusion is just someone’s understanding of how logic applies in reality. Such as a jar of marbles with an unknown number of marbles. Is it logical to conclude that there is an even or odd number of marbles? No, no it is not. Same with the question of the existence of a deity, it either exists or it does not. It is also not logical to conclude that it does or does not exist. People are just applying their understood logic to that question about reality. Just like seeing four apples is not logical to conclude there are 5 apples there. That is just applying logic, it’s not a philosophical world view.

We use logic to build a philosophical world view to reach a desired social target, like “human well-being” for example. That is what will direct our moral choices and what we understand to be moral actions or a-moral actions or immoral actions. Since people do not implement what they don’t believe about reality but what they do, for this process, atheists don’t bother with implementing supernatural into their world view to solve social problems. They could have logically concluded a world view would be skepticism, democracy, secular humanism, nihialism, communism, secular christianity, secular budhism, feudal system, something else-ism, etc. Those are world views, not the idea that you don’t believe X. Not believing X is just a single position on about a single topic.

How’s your day going Pup7?

 

[Pup7]

There is no such thing as “Atheism”. Just like there is not such thing as “not-guilty-ism”.

What?

There’s no such thing as not believing in God? That doesn’t even make sense.

That is just applying logic, it’s not a philosophical world view.

Really?

https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_logic.html

And…

http://cas2.umkc.edu/philosophy/vade-mecum/whylogic.htm

Sorry, but that falls flat.

We use logic to build a philosophical world view to reach a desired social target, like “human well-being” for example. That is what will direct our moral choices and what we understand to be moral actions or a-moral actions or immoral actions.

I’m so happy you’re codifying your belief system for all of us.

My day is great. A very good friend of mine is retiring from the Air Force today, so I’ll be heading out to his ceremony in a few. It’s gorgeous here today - if your weather is half as good as ours, you should have a nice day as well.

 

[Russell_SA]

An analogy of how I am describing the difference between logic and world views:
Logic is like studying mathematics
Then use mathematics to create a world view called Architecture.
That’s all I’m trying to describe.
Do you have a better way of how I should describe this then? I don’t know a better way how. Seems like we’re back to the slapping match of whose using the words correctly or not instead of trying to communicate ideas. You’re not letting me know why I am wrong in my discussion, just why I am using the words wrong to you. You’re not telling me what you think I am trying to say and then seeing if that idea is what I wanted to convey.

There’s no such thing as not believing in God? That doesn’t even make sense.

I believe you, but that is called an Atheist, not Atheism. An Atheist is a descriptor of someone’s conclusion about a single question on a single topic. Do you believe that the supernatural exists? No, no I don’t. That’s all it is. It’s the same 4 apples on the table and not believing there are 5 example. You can’t have a world view of not believing 5 apples are there.

Atheism - implies a belief system based around not believing in the supernatural. That’s not really anything at all. Just like the jury member that was not convinced the defendant is guilty and concluded they are not guilty. Does that jury member now have a world view of “Not-Guilty-ism”?

Correction from previous:

Of course they do! And you have a belief that there is no God.

An Atheist does not believe there are no gods, they do not believe your claim of why you believe there is a god. There is a difference between I do not believe your claim of deities existing and I believe there are no deities. Just like the marble jar example: no one can investigate the jar of marbles. There is either an even or odd number of marbles. Religion A claims there is an even number of marbles. The atheist does not believe that claim. That does not mean that they believe there is an odd number of marbles. They believe the claim of even or odd is not justified to make at this point. So the Religion B that claims there’s an odd number of marbles, the atheist also says, we don’t believe you either.

I think I see what the problem is here.
Would it be like a jury member, who is racist, concluding the defendant is guilty based on their racism. And you think that the person’s racists mindset is a world view that they see the world through or is it a misapplication of logic?
I could see an argument for a world view that tends to lead to racism, like social darwinism of your own race.
There could just be a correlation, but not a necessary causation. Like a world view of skepticism tends to have more atheists in it, but it’s not a necessary result since there are many christian apologists that are skeptics as well. Misapplying logic can lead someone to be racist as well. Like people that do not know that melanin has nothing to do with your culture, just your culture does. These people can have different world views and still be racist.

 

[Dan123]

So, few points to the original post. Hopefully not duplicating too much others have said.

Not all atheists are naturalists, and you should check out the difference between philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism. The latter simply avoids attributing things to supernatural causes when a natural one exists without making the claim no supernatural causes CAN exist, simply that they haven’t been shown to. I suspect you’d find most atheists who would agree they’re naturalists would be methodological naturalists not philosophical.

The second issue is you switch between two different concepts, first “there is no objective meaning/value/purpose” to the universe and our lives", and :“objectively there is no meaning/value/purpose to our lives”. They sound similar but they’re very much not. Consider ‘up’, if I asked two people standing on two different places on the Earth which direction was up, I’d get two very different answers. In fact ‘up’ is completely different to every one of us, imagine us each shining a laser pointer ‘up’ and then observing the Earth from the moon, you’d have 6 billion different definitions of ‘up’ and then of course you, standing on the moon, would have one different from all of theirs. So we can say ‘up’ is relative, ‘up’ depends on where we are, there is no objective ‘up’. But does that mean there is objectively no ‘up’? No, there is an up, there’s lots of ups. And people can agree on ‘up’ enough to get things done, we can build planes that go up and we can walk up stairs, we can stand up, sit up, pull up, all kinds of ups. If I was helping someone move a couch and one of us said ‘up, up,up’, we’d know the other should lift higher, even if objectively we can’t all have the same up, this person and I have a local reference point for ‘up’ that allows us to work together.

Okay so that’s a big metaphor to say, saying there’s no objective assigned meaning to our life is not the same as saying one can not consider their lives and consider what’s important to them, and find and assign meaning and value and purpose to their lives. Atheists can and do live their lives, valuing others and finding meaning just like everyone else, they just don’t attribute the source of that meaning to a deity.

 

[Pup7]

The second issue is you switch between two different concepts, first “there is no objective meaning/value/purpose” to the universe and our lives", and :“objectively there is no meaning/value/purpose to our lives”

Never did that, if that’s directed at me.

All you’re doing is codifying your beliefs - which is great.