Fundamentalism and Atheism

[PEPCIS]

THis is twice now that on forums here i have been called a raving liberal, when in actuality, people tha actually know me know that i am right-center.

Well, not a “raving” liberal. But, why is that? It is because you are espousing ideas that are advanced by Liberals. You certainly do have a right of center position on many issues, but the fact that you think “Fundamentalism” is an ideology that is the equal of atheism makes such ideas dangerous.

I have a feeling that atheists probably agree with my assessment.

 

[CWBetts]

Well, not a “raving” liberal. But, why is that? It is because you are espousing ideas that are advanced by Liberals. You certainly do have a right of center position on many issues, but the fact that you think “Fundamentalism” is an ideology that is the equal of atheism makes such ideas dangerous.

I have a feeling that atheists probably agree with my assessment.

What Atheism and fundamentalism share is a complete disregard for all who are not one of them. Fundamentalists think everyone except themselves are hellbound. Atheists thiks that anyone in disagreement with them are idiots. Both are close-minded and blinded to the fullness of truth.

 

[bridgeforsale]

What Atheism and fundamentalism share is a complete disregard for all who are not one of them. Fundamentalists think everyone except themselves are hellbound. Atheists thiks that anyone in disagreement with them are idiots. Both are close-minded and blinded to the fullness of truth.

Let me get this right - you think you’re right, atheists & fundamentalists are wrong, and not only are they merely wrong but they’re blinded to the truth; and you’re picking a fight with them because they like to think they’re right, and everyone else is wrong

Gotta love it

 

[Elijah_Baley]

A few points, ignored earlier in favor of an off-topic easy target I introduced without thinking:

1. Men kill in the name of God just as they resign from public office to spend more time with their family. Keeping the men in power is not as simple as preemptively killing families left and right; just so, keeping men from killing is not as simple as ignoring God.
2. It seems this argument — not discussion, not discourse, but argument — has stumbled, drunkenly, into Fides et Ratio territory.

It’s a long, enlightening read, but you needn’t go further than the first graf for the gist:
John Paul II:

Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves.

“Unto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s” and all that.

Whatever the achievements of science, it is belief which gives science relevance and moral backbone. If man is no different from the animals in any sense, what purpose is there in any genius applying human ingenuity to any dilemma?

Secular humanism, while it promises similar morality, also ensures a kind of non-hierarchal groupthink. Secular humanism could not provide a moral backbone to anything, and so is a poor replacement for faith.

Scientists and thinkers mentioned earlier were strong, or noted for, their reason. There’s a similar laundry list of believers. While there is crossover, it is extremely rare for a man to be a noted genius as both a thinker and as a believer. If you measure influence by physical edifice erected because of scientific research, naturally few of them would be noted as believers.

In short, the reasoning of these arguments as laid out in this post as well in others:

1. Faith without reason — faith given carte blanche — gets us witch trials, the Inquisition, televangelists.
2. Reason without faith — amoral reason — gets us eugenics, slavery, abortion.
3. Faith and reason are coequal.

---

1. Faith draws its strength from belief in God, an entity ultimately supreme over each and every human.
2. Secular humanism specifically denies the existence of God, only in the individual.
3. Secular humanism cannot be as strong or binding as faith.

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

Well, not a “raving” liberal. But, why is that? It is because you are espousing ideas that are advanced by Liberals. You certainly do have a right of center position on many issues, but the fact that you think “Fundamentalism” is an ideology that is the equal of atheism makes such ideas dangerous.

What Atheism and fundamentalism share is a complete disregard for all who are not one of them.

The only one who seems to be espousing that understanding is YOU.

CWBetts:

Fundamentalists think everyone except themselves are hellbound.

That shows you not only the complete and utter lack of understanding you have on this subject, but your willingness to play along with the world’s propaganda regarding “Fundies.” If you listen to the mainstream media, I am a terrorist because I am a Fundamentalist, and therefore I am to be feared as equally as the Muslim who flies planes into buildings.

The fact that you’re researching this for a college paper shows that your professor, and most likely most of all the other teachers, have equal opinions on the matter. You would have gotten a better education at Bob Jones University.

CWBetts:

Atheists thiks that anyone in disagreement with them are idiots.

Not really. Atheists just think that anyone with FAITH is an idiot, because they are duped, in their opinion.

CWBetts:

Both are close-minded and blinded to the fullness of truth.

I think I understand. It’s only YOU who is enlightened? I must be lost and heading to hell, right?

 

[bridgeforsale]

1. Faith without reason — faith given carte blanche — gets us witch trials, the Inquisition, televangelists.
2. Reason without faith — amoral reason — gets us eugenics, slavery, abortion.
3. Faith and reason are coequal.

How does reason without faith necessarily result in abortion, eugenics, slavery, etc.? First, you might wish to reconsider laying something like slavery at the feet of secularists? That seems easily dispensed with by a cursory review of history. Eugenics and abortion, you might have a better case, but I think we could probably remove eugenics from your formulation pretty easily.

Up until recently natural selection has done all the fine tuning in nature. So you might almost say eugenics is part of the natural process. Today, we have designer babies; and the problem of course with genetic improvements induced by medical technology is, unlike nature (which evolves a species without regard to it’s relative affluence), it unequally alters our genetic structure. Most skeptics tend to be very liberal and socially aware. I’d say perhaps even liberal to a fault. When I say liberal, I mean they tend to be the type of people who are upset by injustice, poverty, illiteracy, hunger, etc. I can’t imagine for a moment this crowd would endorse something that would widen the gap between the “haves and have nots” to an almost insurmountable degree (not only would the economically disadvantaged have to deal with factors like lack of access to quality schools, but eugenics would add the extra barrier of genetic inferiority). They would go from having a low chance to no chance. In conclusion, the idea that atheism ensorses (or would promote) wider development of eugenics is unsupported by the evidence (irrespective of what the views may have been of some of its very early proponents). In fact if you looked at who is actually having these designer babies, I’d be willing to bet they overwhelmingly identify as Christians.

So what’s left? Abortion I suppose; and in that case you’re right, departure from religious faith will probably tend to make one more predisposed to being pro-choice (although I note this is not exclusively the case, as I’ve spoken with “pro-life atheists” … as they say, only in America ).

Nonetheless, this country has had enough experience with abortion to know it’s simply not something the government can effectively control through force of law. That doesn’t mean secularists are enthusiastic about it (some of us recognize there are potential moral problems with abortion, and furthermore there are plenty of secular reasons for promoting child birth).

1. Faith draws its strength from belief in God, an entity ultimately supreme over each and every human.
2. Secular humanism specifically denies the existence of God, only in the individual.
3. Secular humanism cannot be as strong or binding as faith.

This isn’t deduction, it’s merely your opinion

I really don’t see an argument here.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

I’d first like to say that I do appreciate that your tone isn’t nearly as silly/haughty/smug as many of the comments so far.

How does reason without faith necessarily result in abortion, eugenics, slavery, etc.?

This off-the-top-of-my-head list came from a cursory look at the cures rather than the causes of each of these trends. Of every sector of society, the God-fearing believers consistently voiced the earliest and most stringent opposition. This is in line with the earlier comment I made about how religion serves society by way of providing the moral conscience.

Let’s look at each of the three examples.

Slavery: Considering that it was the conquests of both Athens and Rome which created the need for major amounts of slavery and not any religion angle, it’s fair to say that the institution would necessarily begin at some point. Looking at the the first abolitionists, it’s fair to note that they were unmistakably religious as a whole, and made consistent mention of the moral evil it posed. The Papacy condemned the modern practice formally in 1435.

When did Columbus first sail from Spain? When was the Stamp Act signed? When did Britain start the whole Crimea nonsense? When was slavery formally abolished in the last developed country to retain it?

More:
Catholic Encyclopedia:

In 1871 a writer had the temerity to assert that the Papacy had not its mind to condemn slavery" (Ernest Havet, “Le christianisme et ses origines”, I, p. xxi). He forgot that, in 1462, Pius II declared slavery to be “a great crime” (magnum scelus); that, in 1537, Paul III forbade the enslavement of the Indians; that Urban VIII forbade it in 1639, and Benedict XIV in 1741; that Pius VII demanded of the Congress of Vienna, in 1815, the suppression of the slave trade and Gregory XVI condemned it in 1839; that, in the Bull of Canonization of the Jesuit Peter Claver, one of the most illustrious adversaries of slavery, Pius IX branded the “supreme villainy” (summum nefas) of the slave traders. Everyone knows of the beautiful letter which Leo XIII, in 1888, addressed to the Brazilian bishops, exhorting them to banish from their country the remnants of slavery — a letter to which the bishops responded with their most energetic efforts, and some generous slave-owners by freeing their slaves in a body, as in the first ages of the Church.

… and the problem of course with genetic improvements induced by medical technology is, unlike nature … , it unequally alters our genetic structure.

Eugenics: The Church believes in the moral worth of a human while eugenics is founded solely on the civic worth of the mortal body. Eugenics believes further that all men are created unequal, that there is a highest strata of perfection attained only by a minority. People want to be on top, and nobody is more enraged than a person who is convinced he is made unequal. In a democracy where, by definition, nuanced scientific arguments are always lost against the crashing roar of public opinion, it is easy to imagine a scenario where eugenics supporters win against a small, scientific minority.

Ignoring speculation, there’s really not much I can do with the rest, other than to say: “I doubt it.”

Historically, eugenics has had the fortunate association with Hitler, and so current opposition more directly stems from that. As generations pass, the connection will be lessened — look at the uptick in Holocaust deniers as the Auschwitz survivors have been dying out — but the Church will continue her ardent opposition on purely moral grounds.

… (although I note this is not exclusively the case, as I’ve spoken with “pro-life atheists.”)

Abortion: If you’re going to speculate in response to me, please bear with my speculation in response to you.

Everyone’s morality comes from somewhere. If atheists have similar morality to today’s religious on particular issues it is no coincidence and hardly surprising. While the Church holds that her morality comes from God and that she is only the earthly caregiver of it, atheist morality stems from the world as an individual has experienced it, and no higher authority. Whether or not the person is religious or her parents harbor any belief in God, religious morality has continued to trickle down through the generations specifically because of the strength of religious morality generations ago and because there’s nothing like the example of a parent to teach moral action.

I’d also argue that with each passing non-religious generation, generations not renewed in their morality by a swift dose of religion, morality, while similar, is of a far lessened magnitude. Ardent opposition might become passive opposition might become entrenched apathy.

If the rein of morality were turned over to what amounts to a weak meritocracy — emphasis on weak — I’d imagine the results would be similar to what happens on a wiki. Morality is whatever you want it to be, and if you’re good enough at obfuscating your meaning it might go weeks or years before someone called you out on your lack of citation, higher reasoning or common sense.

That doesn’t mean secularists are enthusiastic about it (some of us recognize there are potential moral problems with abortion, and furthermore there are plenty of secular reasons for promoting child birth).

Wherever those arguments are, I’ve not heard them. That these arguments have been completely drowned out by the outcry of the religious is testament to the power of religion to rally people against an amoral issue and also to the at least current flaccid power of nuanced science to attempt the same.

Religion empowers opposition unlike any other force of society. More on this, sort of, after the jump.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

1. Faith draws its strength from belief in God, an entity ultimately supreme over each and every human.
2. Secular humanism specifically denies the existence of God, only in the individual.
3. Secular humanism cannot be as strong or binding as faith.

As it was introduced as a series of related points, it wasn’t supposed to be deduction. Let me lay out the reasoning.

God acts as an infallible source of wisdom. No amount of pride could allow a reasoned believer to think he were superior or even equal to what God, and that his words would be superior or even equal to God’s.

Secular humanism seeks to craft new morality-guiding axioms directly from human thought. Someone with a sufficient amount of pride might consider himself equal to or even superior to the body of thought created by either the individual or council or thread of thought which refined that axiom. He might then believe he were greater than that entity and overturn the morality as it suited him.

Therefore, secular humanism might be unbound by mere human pride while theistic religion cannot. As a way of teaching morality — assuming man has any choice in his actions, because if not, what’s the point? — theistic religion is the saner, stronger path.

Consider this: The only way secular humanism might attain the same level of believed credibility were if such a time passed that generations into the future people believed the individual or council which established those rational axioms were somehow superior to ordinary man, perhaps inspired unlike anyone before or since. Gifted. Touched. Maybe even divine. Only then would any substantial prideful impulses be thwarted.

Another way might be to harp on humility, but if secular humanism did this, there would be no way to enforce the morality. Why listen to those guys if even they don’t think they’re all that?

---

If you believe in God, there is a source to refresh the spiritual ache of being too tired to put up with something, or to keep fighting something unjust against all odds. It is the belief in God which keeps modern-day Davids with their slingshot in hand against insane odds and for seemingly quixotic goals.

For a theist caught in an struggle against the amoral, there is an infinite source to prevent “being too tired” to keep up the fight, and the connection to that source is only lessened as the faith is tested. An atheist has only an axiom crafted by man’s hand.

---

I’d also like a considered response to Fides et Ratio directly, if possible. Take your time, as it’s pretty long, and do try not to skip anything. Oh, and that thing I said about killing in the name of God:

Men kill in the name of God just as they resign from public office to spend more time with their family. Keeping the men in power is not as simple as preemptively killing families left and right; just so, keeping men from killing is not as simple as ignoring God.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

As it was introduced as a series of related points, it wasn’t supposed to be deduction.

Should read: “As it was intended to be introduced …” Sloppy proofreading on my part. Nobody’s perfect.

(Damn! I could’ve replaced that whole last post with, “nobody’s perfect.”)

 

[bridgeforsale]

I’d first like to say that I do appreciate that your tone isn’t nearly as silly/haughty/smug as many of the comments so far.

This off-the-top-of-my-head list came from a cursory look at the cures rather than the causes of each of these trends. Of every sector of society, the God-fearing believers consistently voiced the earliest and most stringent opposition. This is in line with the earlier comment I made about how religion serves society by way of providing the moral conscience.

Let’s look at each of the three examples.

Slavery: Considering that it was the conquests of both Athens and Rome which created the need for major amounts of slavery and not any religion angle, it’s fair to say that the institution would necessarily begin at some point. Looking at the the first abolitionists, it’s fair to note that they were unmistakably religious as a whole, and made consistent mention of the moral evil it posed. The Papacy condemned the modern practice formally in 1435.

When did Columbus first sail from Spain? When was the Stamp Act signed? When did Britain start the whole Crimea nonsense? When was slavery formally abolished in the last developed country to retain it?

this is one of those here we go again conversations

In 1452 Pope Nicholas V issued the papal bull Dum Diversas, which granted Afonso V of Portugal the right to reduce any “Saracens, pagans and any other unbelievers” to hereditary slavery. The approval of slavery under these conditions was reaffirmed and extended in his Romanus Pontifex bull of 1455.

In 1488 Pope Innocent VIII accepted the gift of 100 slaves from Ferdinand II of Aragon and distributed those slaves to his cardinals and the Roman nobility. Also, in 1639 Pope Urban VIII purchased slaves for himself from the Knights of Malta[101].

Bermejo, S.J., Luis M. (1992). Infallibity on Trial. London: Christian Classics, Inc… pp. 315-316

More:

Eugenics: The Church believes in the moral worth of a human while eugenics is founded solely on the civic worth of the mortal body. Eugenics believes further that all men are created unequal, that there is a highest strata of perfection attained only by a minority. People want to be on top, and nobody is more enraged than a person who is convinced he is made unequal. In a democracy where, by definition, nuanced scientific arguments are always lost against the crashing roar of public opinion, it is easy to imagine a scenario where eugenics supporters win against a small, scientific minority.

You haven’t presented a single fact besides your doomsday scenario (that pretty much just jumped out of your imagination).

Ignoring speculation, there’s really not much I can do with the rest, other than to say: “I doubt it.”

I’d say this whole thing is speculation, but there’s a few other words we use for speculating about others we’re really not familiar with, and reaching prejudicial conclusions based on false assumptions, a couple words that come to mind are bigotry and ignorance.

Historically, eugenics has had the fortunate association with Hitler, and so current opposition more directly stems from that. As generations pass, the connection will be lessened — look at the uptick in Holocaust deniers as the Auschwitz survivors have been dying out — but the Church will continue her ardent opposition on purely moral grounds.

You’ll have to UPS me your crystal ball that tells you what future generations will or will not believe.

Abortion: If you’re going to speculate in response to me, please bear with my speculation in response to you.

Everyone’s morality comes from somewhere. If atheists have similar morality to today’s religious on particular issues it is no coincidence and hardly surprising. While the Church holds that her morality comes from God and that she is only the earthly caregiver of it, atheist morality stems from the world as an individual has experienced it, and no higher authority. Whether or not the person is religious or her parents harbor any belief in God, religious morality has continued to trickle down through the generations specifically because of the strength of religious morality generations ago and because there’s nothing like the example of a parent to teach moral action.

I’d also argue that with each passing non-religious generation, generations not renewed in their morality by a swift dose of religion, morality, while similar, is of a far lessened magnitude. Ardent opposition might become passive opposition might become entrenched apathy.

If the rein of morality were turned over to what amounts to a weak meritocracy — emphasis on weak — I’d imagine the results would be similar to what happens on a wiki. Morality is whatever you want it to be, and if you’re good enough at obfuscating your meaning it might go weeks or years before someone called you out on your lack of citation, higher reasoning or common sense.

Wherever those arguments are, I’ve not heard them. That these arguments have been completely drowned out by the outcry of the religious is testament to the power of religion to rally people against an amoral issue and also to the at least current flaccid power of nuanced science to attempt the same.

Religion empowers opposition unlike any other force of society. More on this, sort of, after the jump.

It’s not only your arrogant presumptions that I find repulsive, but also your obvious drooling bigotry.

 

[AlbertBall]

Ok, … (although beliefs can alter how we process data to arrive at knowledge).

I have a bad hangover, so i am going to keep this short .

I really don’t see why you are struggling to understand this .

Atheism and Theism are states specifically based on belief.

Agnosticism and Gnosticism are states specifically based on knowledge.

It is totally possible and logical for one to hold a believe WITHOUT claiming absolute knowledge. You can try to spin it all you like but I AM an AGNOSTIC ATHEIST. For you so claim i am not is absurd, when that is EXACTLY WHAT I AM.

We do not have any knowledge regarding the existence of a god - AGNOSTIC…

I do not have a theistic belief - ATHEIST!!.. Therefore i am an AGNOSTIC (knowledge) - ATHEIST (belief). This is not hard to understand, is it?

I’m sorry but you simply do not understand the meaning of these words. I am not sure what else to say.

Atheism and Agnosticism are answers to two totally different questions!

Take life on other planets, i personally believe there is life out with earth, but i do NOT KNOW that there is life out with earth. Belief and knowledge ARE NOT THE SAME!

 

[PEPCIS]

It’s not only your arrogant presumptions that I find repulsive, but also your obvious drooling bigotry.

I might agree with you here.

 

[PEPCIS]

I really don’t see why you are struggling to understand this .

Well, most likely your difficulty lies in your refusal to actually counter against what I said, and instead is based in what you THOUGHT I said. That is seen in the fact that you rarely ever quote anything that I say.

Another difficulty you have is in understanding what it is that I am debating. In reality, I am debating more the phenomenon of how the words have evolved outside of a logical understanding of the terms, and the reason being because Atheists wish to remain Atheists and at the same time be Agnostic. It’s really rather foolish, because if you want to allow that there MIGHT be a possibility that God/gods exist, then you are Agnostic. Agnostics don’t have religious faith, and are therefore, by DEFAULT without theism (which is NOT the meaning of “atheist” - regardless of your determination to make it that.

Albert:

Atheism and Theism are states specifically based on belief.

I never said that they weren’t. I merely stated that Atheism is defined as a BELIEF that God/gods do not exist. Since you don’t believe that they exist, then you are an atheist. Plain and simple.

Albert:

Agnosticism and Gnosticism are states specifically based on knowledge.

Again, I never said that they weren’t, but now that you mention it, I’d say that you’re wrong. Agnosticism is the BELIEF that there is insufficient information available to make a determination whether God/gods exist. The difference between Agnosticism and Atheism is the level of Belief. Agnosticism is a positive atheism, while Atheism is a negative atheism.

In other words, Agnosticism allows (positive) for the existence of God, but it’s just to them that there is insufficient evidence to prove His existence, whereas Atheism disallows (negative) for the existence of God, and rejects that there ever could be evidence for his existence. Once you allow that there MIGHT be evidence for God’s existence, you can no longer be atheistic, because an atheist refuses to believe in God’s existence.

That’s the only difference: one refuses to believe that God’s existence is possible (atheist), while the other allows that he does believe God is possible (agnostic).

Albert:

It is totally possible and logical for one to hold a believe WITHOUT claiming absolute knowledge.

Wrong. Once you acknowledge that you don’t have absolute knowledge, you are fooling yourself if you take the position as if you did have absolute knowledge. That’s why you would call yourself an “agnostic” because an agnostic acknowledges that he does not have absolute knowledge, and therefore could not be an atheist. An atheist either refuses to acknowledge that he does not have absolute knowledge, or he believes that there is no knowledge that could ever be brought to bear that could prove the existence of God/gods.

Albert:

You can try to spin it all you like but I AM an AGNOSTIC ATHEIST. For you so claim i am not is absurd, when that is EXACTLY WHAT I AM.

You can call yourself what you want. I’m not trying to say that you can’t. This isn’t what the debate is about - which is why you can’t seem to understand what is being discussed.

Albert:

We do not have any knowledge regarding the existence of a god - AGNOSTIC…

Very well. You believe that there is insufficient knowledge to YOUR person that could prove it either way. That’s Agnosticism.

Albert:

I do not have a theistic belief - ATHEIST!!..

Now you’ve changed the meaning of “Atheist.”

=Albert]Atheism and Agnosticism are answers to two totally different questions!

Not even you believes that.

Albert:

Take life on other planets, i personally believe there is life out with earth, but i do NOT KNOW that there is life out with earth. Belief and knowledge ARE NOT THE SAME!

If you think that Atheism and Agnosticism are answers to two totally different questions, then why do you offer an analogy which only offers ONE question - the existence of life on other planets - which equals the same question (analogically speaking) - does God/gods exist?

See, even you REALLY do understand…

 

[AlbertBall]

Well, most likely your difficulty lies in your refusal to actually counter against what I said, and instead is based in what you THOUGHT I said. That is seen in the fact that you rarely ever quote anything that I say.

Another difficulty you have is in understanding what it is that I am debating. In reality, I am debating more the phenomenon of how the words have evolved outside of a logical understanding of the terms, and the reason being because Atheists wish to remain Atheists and at the same time be Agnostic. It’s really rather foolish, because if you want to allow that there MIGHT be a possibility that God/gods exist, then you are Agnostic. Agnostics don’t have religious faith, and are therefore, by DEFAULT without theism (which is NOT the meaning of “atheist” - regardless of your determination to make it that.

I never said that they weren’t. I merely stated that Atheism is defined as a BELIEF that God/gods do not exist. Since you don’t believe that they exist, then you are an atheist. Plain and simple.

Again, I never said that they weren’t, but now that you mention it, I’d say that you’re wrong. Agnosticism is the BELIEF that there is insufficient information available to make a determination whether God/gods exist. The difference between Agnosticism and Atheism is the level of Belief. Agnosticism is a positive atheism, while Atheism is a negative atheism.

In other words, Agnosticism allows (positive) for the existence of God, but it’s just to them that there is insufficient evidence to prove His existence, whereas Atheism disallows (negative) for the existence of God, and rejects that there ever could be evidence for his existence. Once you allow that there MIGHT be evidence for God’s existence, you can no longer be atheistic, because an atheist refuses to believe in God’s existence.

That’s the only difference: one refuses to believe that God’s existence is possible (atheist), while the other allows that he does believe God is possible (agnostic).

Wrong. Once you acknowledge that you don’t have absolute knowledge, you are fooling yourself if you take the position as if you did have absolute knowledge. That’s why you would call yourself an “agnostic” because an agnostic acknowledges that he does not have absolute knowledge, and therefore could not be an atheist. An atheist either refuses to acknowledge that he does not have absolute knowledge, or he believes that there is no knowledge that could ever be brought to bear that could prove the existence of God/gods.

You can call yourself what you want. I’m not trying to say that you can’t. This isn’t what the debate is about - which is why you can’t seem to understand what is being discussed.

Very well. You believe that there is insufficient knowledge to YOUR person that could prove it either way. That’s Agnosticism.

Now you’ve changed the meaning of “Atheist.”

Not even you believes that.

If you think that Atheism and Agnosticism are answers to two totally different questions, then why do you offer an analogy which only offers ONE question - the existence of life on other planets - which equals the same question (analogically speaking) - does God/gods exist?

See, even you REALLY do understand…

Dear me…

Ok lets play a wee game .

I don’t not believe that we have any knowledge regarding the existence of a god. What does that make me???

Following on from that lack of knowledge i do not believe in the existence of any gods. What does that make me???

Now please break down the words A-Theism and A-Gnostic.

I don’t understand how you cannot see the difference in the following questions.

Do you BELIEVE there is a god?
Do you KNOW there is a god?

THESE ARE NOT THE SAME!!!

“This is a **mistake because atheists do not necessarily deny any gods **and may indeed be an atheist because they do not know for sure — in other words, they may be an agnostic as well.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheist_vs._Agnostic
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
allaboutphilosophy.org/agnostic-atheist-faq.htm
rationalresponders.com/am_i_agnostic_or_atheist
atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm
2think.org/hii/atheism.shtml
urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=agnostic%20atheist

 

[PEPCIS]

I don’t not believe that we have any knowledge regarding the existence of a god. What does that make me???

Depends. There is insufficient evidence to say that you are either agnostic or atheist. I might say that you are an agnostic, but if you further qualify your belief stating that you thoroughly reject the existence of God/gods, then you are an atheist.

As I stated in my previous post, an agnostic is someone who is oriented POSITIVELY toward the possibility that God/gods exist, but he believes that there is insufficient evidence to establish God/gods existence. So, he remains agnostic until such time he can be convinced to the contrary.

An atheist, to be intellectually honest with himself, must agree with the above as a basis of his belief, but he is oriented NEGATIVELY toward the possibility that God/gods exist, in spite of the fact that he has no evidence to the contrary. In other words, anyone who refers to himself as an atheist is not be logically, or intellectually honest with themselves. That is the TRUE definition of an atheist - one who rejects the existence of God in spite of the fact that he is not in possession of sufficient knowledge to come to such a determination.

Albert:

Following on from that lack of knowledge i do not believe in the existence of any gods. What does that make me???

Ok, now I have sufficient information to categorize you as an atheist. The first question supplied us with the information that you are oriented away from a belief in God/gods, but the second question supplies us with the information that you are oriented NEGATIVELY toward the possibility that God/gods exist. This clearly points to atheism, and negates the possibility that you are agnostic.

Today’s atheist, as can be attested to by the numerous “free thinking” sites on the WWW, plays this intellectual semantics game, because when religious people attack them logically with the argument that they cannot have absolute knowledge to determine the validity of their assertion that there is no God/gods, they MUST backtrack to an agnostic position. But they have grown to love the label of “atheist” so they have concocted this semantical subterfuge that enables them to keep their atheist label.

It’s like what Richard Dawkins has stated in his book, The Blind Watchmaker, when he says that before Darwin, it was impossible for an atheist to defend himself intellectually against the charge of faulty logic. This semantical game of blurring the distinctions between agnosticism and atheism is the exact same nonsense.

Albert:

Now please break down the words A-Theism and A-Gnostic.

You’re still stuck on YOUR one-line dictionary redefining. But I’ll go ahead and humor you to make my point.

A - Gnostic comes from the Greek a meaning “without” and Gnosis, meaning knowledge. Hence, one who is agnostic is one who believes that there is insufficient knowledge to determine the existence of God/gods.

A - Theist comes from the Greek a meaning “without” and Theos meaning God. Hence, one who is atheistic is one who believes that there is no God. It literally means “without god”.

However, you (and other atheists), in your quest to gain an advantage over the religionist, have hijacked the word and given it another meaning which does not logically follow as a result of a “break down of the word A-Theism.”

Albert:

I don’t understand how you cannot see the difference in the following questions.

Do you BELIEVE there is a god?
Do you KNOW there is a god?

THESE ARE NOT THE SAME!!!

No, actually (and this lends DIRECTLY to my argument), both questions demand belief. The first assumes that someone either believes or disbelieves in God/gods. The second question assumes that one has either accepted the evidence that there is a God/gods, or has rejected the evidence that there is a God/gods.

Since belief is required in answer to either question, the REALITY is that there are never any true atheists, because no one can have absolute knowledge of the existence of God/gods - one can only have BELIEF.

See, atheists are JUST LIKE theists - they both operate on belief.

 

[AlbertBall]

I am starting to think you are trolling here.

Firstly as you state atheist literally means ‘without-god’. If I do not have a theistic belief it does not automatically follow that I also believe there IS NO GOD. Given that I have already claimed that the existence of a god is unKNOWABLE that would be absurd. However as I am still WITHOUT-god I am an atheist.

You are correct that every intellectually honest person is agnostic. However you are incorrect that agnosticism deals with belief. This is probably where your misunderstanding is coming from. It does not deal with what you believe in regard to the existence of a god, but what you believe you KNOW regarding the existence of a god.

Also nothing has been hijacked. People like me are just fed up being mis-characterized and have therefore decided to explain to people like you what it is we actually believe. I am an atheist; I do not believe there is NO GOD!

Also one-liners has nothing to do with it, I posted about ten links that highlight your mistake in detail.

I am not sure how else to explain this you are simply incorrect. It’s like me telling you 2+2=4 and you say NO it equals 5. What else can I do but explain to you your mistake, and provide you with links that you can follow to find information that will correct your error?

“Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who does believe that one or more deities exist but does not claim to have knowledge of such.” - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

“Many people are confused about the meaning and usage of the terms atheist vs. agnostic. A frequent claim made by theists is that being an atheist implies certainty about the non-existence of God. At the other extreme, many people apply the term agnostic as if it simply means waffling on the issue of whether or not God exists. The following explanation is presented as an attempt to clarify these terms.” - wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheist_vs._Agnostic

“Agnosticism often overlaps with other belief systems. Agnostic theists identify themselves both as agnostics and as followers of particular religions, viewing agnosticism as a framework for thinking about the nature of belief and their relation to revealed truths. Some nonreligious people, such as author Philip Pullman, identify as both agnostic and atheist.[6]” - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Need I go on?

PLEASE FIND ME ONE SOURCE THAT SHOWS AGNOSTICISM TO BE ANYTHING OTHER THAT A BELIEF OR CLAIM ABOUT KNOWLEDGE!!! Until you do i can not take you seriously as even by you definition…

“A - Gnostic comes from the Greek a meaning “without” and Gnosis, meaning knowledge. Hence, one who is agnostic is one who believes that there is insufficient knowledge to determine the existence of God/gods.”

What is so hard to understand that because many people (LIKE ME) believe “that there is insufficient knowledge to determine the existence of God/gods”, we therefore have no theistic belief. This means i am WITHOUT theism, WITHOUT-GOD, and am therefore ALSO AN A-THEIST. It really is exceptionally simple!

 

[bridgeforsale]

I think the only area the terms get confusing is when we’re talking about individual religious beliefs (verses a belief in god or a claim that insufficient information exists to determine whether or not a god exists). For instance, with regard to the question of whether or not god exists, I’m agnostic. But with regard to religion, I think there’s more than enough information to conclude religion is nonsense (with no substantive factual basis). I’m really not sure what to call this (it’s not atheist, because theism strictly refers to belief in a god, and consequently a-theism is disbelief in god, which doesn’t accurately describe my view). Anyway, I’m not really sure I care at this point what the proper term should be

 

[AlbertBall]

I think the only area the terms get confusing is when we’re talking about individual religious beliefs (verses a belief in god or a claim that insufficient information exists to determine whether or not a god exists). For instance, with regard to the question of whether or not god exists, I’m agnostic. But with regard to religion, I think there’s more than enough information to conclude religion is nonsense (with no substantive factual basis). I’m really not sure what to call this (it’s not atheist, because theism strictly refers to belief in a god, and consequently a-theism is disbelief in god, which doesn’t accurately describe my view). Anyway, I’m not really sure I care at this point what the proper term should be

Atheist is in fact a meaningless word. All it tells you is someone does not have a theistic believe, other than that it tells you nothing about a person. It is like calling someone a non football fan, it serves very little descriptive purpose, as it does not tell you what sport the person actually does like.

Atheism does not you tell you anything about what a person actually does believe, many atheists do in fact believe there is no god, however not all do and this is a subset of atheism. This is why, like you, I have not classified myself as an atheist in my description atheism is not a claim but i reaction to a claim. I.E. theists claim there are gods, we who reject those claims are atheist. This does no mean *we have to *claim there are NO gods.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

Slavery was, in the end, cured by the religious. That is my main point, remember. Considering the extent, also, of the Saracen threat to Christendom, this was an entirely different matter. To cite the only scrap of the early 1435 condemnation available on the Internet, in reference to slavery on the Canary Islands:

They have deprived the natives of their property or turned it to their own use, and have subjected some of the inhabitants of said islands to perpetual slavery, sold them to other persons and committed other various illicit and evil deeds against them …

Emphasis added. The Saracens were a wholly different threat, having invaded the Iberian peninsula and by no means natives. Moreover, slavery in wartime is much different than slavery of an indigenous people in peacetime, more akin to prisoners of war.

You haven’t presented a single fact besides your doomsday scenario (that pretty much just jumped out of your imagination).

This didn’t jump out of my imagination. I’m trying to avoid direct references to Hitler even when specifically appropriate — bad Internet manners — though his eugenics program gained popular support specifically because of the method I described. His method was a little more specific than I described, but the isolation of a specific group to manipulate jealousy and popular support is substantially the same.

… reaching prejudicial conclusions based on false assumptions, a couple words that come to mind are bigotry and ignorance.

If I am prejudicial, I apologize — it comes from extensive personal not-over-the-Internet experience with the diehard evangelical atheists of greater prejudice than I, and I tend to adopt a defensive tone because of some of the many out-and-out ridiculous things said against the Church from positions of profound ignorance. (Praying to saints; worshiping images; papal infallibility, etc.)

I haven’t accused you of anything, remember, except a surprising and appreciated warm tone, and a penchant for speculation that I share.

You’ll have to UPS me your crystal ball that tells you what future generations will or will not believe.

And me yours which tells us that the mindset of every liberal is not naturally disposed to make man a more perfect animal so society benefits, and that Christians predominantly order designer babies.

It’s not only your arrogant presumptions that I find repulsive, but also your obvious drooling bigotry.

While I’ve admitted to prejudices, I’m not sure I’m up to bigotry. I’ve tried very reasonably to answer all your questions, and hardly in a tone which is more than reasonably defensive.

When describing the watering down of the strength of a morality, I can honestly say that this is at least anecdotally true. I have met several families of several generations each with this exact phenomenon. Something as simple as belief in God has made the difference between passive disgust and active protest.

---

Incidentally, some points follow which I think were overlooked in the double post. Splitting it into two was made necessary by my having written too much. Please point out any misconception on my part based in my understanding of secular humanism.

---

God acts as an infallible source of wisdom. No amount of pride could allow a reasoned believer to think he were superior or even equal to what God, and that his words would be superior or even equal to God’s.

Secular humanism seeks to craft new morality-guiding axioms directly from human thought. Someone with a sufficient amount of pride might consider himself equal to or even superior to the body of thought created by either the individual or council which refined that axiom. He might then believe he were greater than that entity and overturn the morality as it suited him.

Therefore, secular humanism might be unbound by mere human pride while theistic religion cannot. As a way of teaching morality — assuming man has any choice in his actions, because if not, what’s the point? — theistic religion is the saner, stronger path.

Consider this: The only way secular humanism might attain the same level of believed credibility were if such a time passed that generations into the future people believed the individual or council which established those rational axioms were somehow superior to ordinary man, perhaps inspired unlike anyone before or since. Gifted. Touched. Maybe even divine. Only then would any substantial prideful impulses be thwarted.

Another way might be to harp on humility, but if secular humanism did this, there would be no way to enforce the morality. Why listen to those guys if even they don’t think they’re all that?

---

If you believe in God, there is a source to refresh the spiritual ache of being too tired to put up with something, or to keep fighting something unjust against all odds. It is the belief in God which keeps modern-day Davids with their slingshot in hand against insane odds and for seemingly quixotic goals. (Naturally, in every man’s mind he is David, but that’s a point for a different thread.)

For a theist caught in an struggle against the amoral, there is an infinite source to prevent “being too tired” to keep up the fight, and the connection to that source is only lessened as the faith is tested. An atheist has only an axiom crafted by man’s fallible hand.

---

I’d also like a considered response to Fides et Ratio directly, if possible. Take your time, as it’s pretty long, and do try not to skip anything.

---

Men kill in the name of God just as they resign from public office to spend more time with their family. Keeping the men in power is not as simple as preemptively killing families left and right; just so, keeping men from killing is not as simple as ignoring God.

 

[bridgeforsale]

Slavery was, in the end, cured by the religious. That is my main point, remember. Considering the extent, also, of the Saracen threat to Christendom, this was an entirely different matter. To cite the only scrap of the early 1435 condemnation available on the Internet, in reference to slavery on the Canary Islands:

Emphasis added. The Saracens were a wholly different threat, having invaded the Iberian peninsula and by no means natives. Moreover, slavery in wartime is much different than slavery of an indigenous people in peacetime, more akin to prisoners of war.

This application of slavery ended up extending to the Americas in short order; moreover your post-hoc rationalization isn’t very convincing. Imagine if today we used war as an excuse to enslave other peoples? There’s a very good reason why such a thing would be unthinkable, and it has exactly zero to do with the Catholic Church. Given a choice between the individual liberty of the secularist rational thinkers of the enlightenment (and their progeny), and the imposition of theocracy and slavery given us by the popes and princes of old Europe, only a fool would choose the latter.

This didn’t jump out of my imagination. I’m trying to avoid direct references to Hitler even when specifically appropriate — bad Internet manners — though his eugenics program gained popular support specifically because of the method I described. His method was a little more specific than I described, but the isolation of a specific group to manipulate jealousy and popular support is substantially the same.

And you want to compare the rationalism of skeptical thinkers (a list of people that includes nearly every single one of our most prominent founding fathers) to a madman like Hitler? Here’s where you guys begin to totally lose credibility.

And me yours which tells us that the mindset of every liberal is not naturally disposed to make man a more perfect animal so society benefits, and that Christians predominantly order designer babies.

First, your automatic assumption that all secularists are liberals is a bad one (since I could hardly be defined as a liberal). Secondly, I simply said I bet if we looked at it, most people who order designer babies probably identify as Christians (can you see why that’s a pretty educated guess). Moreover, my statement was concerning atheists, not liberals (I bet most “liberals” identify as Christian btw); and it wasn’t a “future prediction” but rather a present observation (so no crystal ball required).

Incidentally, some points follow which I think were overlooked in the double post. Splitting it into two was made necessary by my having written too much. Please point out any misconception on my part based in my understanding of secular humanism.

Uhhh, I’ve been pointing out your misperceptions of secular humanism (pretty much every assumption you’ve made has been a misperception).

God acts as an infallible source of wisdom. No amount of pride could allow a reasoned believer to think he were superior or even equal to what God, and that his words would be superior or even equal to God’s.

prove it

Secular humanism seeks to craft new morality-guiding axioms

For example (please point out an axiom most or at least many secular humanists “seek to craft” and some sort of credible evidence that your assertion is true). BTW this sort of statement is “classically prejudicial.” You’re stereotyping secular humanists, charging we seek to craft out new morality guiding axioms (without specifying exactly what new morality guiding axioms we’re trying to, as a united group, carve out), which of course seeks to portray us in a negative light.

Therefore, secular humanism might be unbound by mere human pride while theistic religion cannot. As a way of teaching morality — assuming man has any choice in his actions, because if not, what’s the point? — theistic religion is the saner, stronger path.

The problem is this statement completely ignores history (and presents theism in an imaginary way, but I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, imagination is what you guys specialize in after all).

Consider this: The only way secular humanism might attain the same level of believed credibility were if such a time passed that generations into the future people believed the individual or council which established those rational axioms were somehow superior to ordinary man,

You mean sort of like it has (take, for instance, the United States and western society in general).

Another way might be to harp on humility, but if secular humanism did this, there would be no way to enforce the morality. Why listen to those guys if even they don’t think they’re all that?

And religion has been so humble over the centuries

For a theist caught in an struggle against the amoral,

If being moral is that much of a struggle, then maybe you need an imaginary story to help you behave yourself (but how is that my problem).

An atheist has only an axiom crafted by man’s fallible hand.

Ummm, well no, we just admit man’s fallible hand is the only one that creates any axioms (and there’s no invisible friend writing rules for us; if there was I suspect they’d be a little more comprehensive than the ten commandments)