Padding the Case for the New Atheism

[Touchstone]

last time i checked, the nature of the sexes is that they are complimentary. like the article states, atheism has no basis for values. i can just as easily say it’s cruel and inhuman to condone homosexual acts. at least theism is internally consistant. atheism can only lead to nihilism and to contradiction.

Atheism doesn’t lead to nihilism any more than it leads to solipsism or idealism or apathy or altruism or any other “-ism” besides theism. Atheism is the denial of theism. It’s not a moral code of its own. Atheists have to go outside the perimeter of atheism (denial of theism) to develop their moral framework. But that leaves a very wide field, and many moral frameworks available to the atheist contradict each other on various point.

If you look around, and ask atheists, and observe them, you will see this is the case, and that “only lead to nihilism” is an ignorant statement about atheism.

i think shea brings out a good point about atheists: they look at the evidence–reality–with the assumption that God doesn’t exist and then fit their conclusion to the assumption.

I’m an atheist, who was a Christian for 30+ years and became an atheist when I was reading this forum (and partly because of this forum in a very small way, by the way) preparing to being RCIA. My conclusion was that God existed, and I’d been a faithful, “sold-out” (as they say in Evangelical-speak) believer in God’s existence and the Christian faith. That doesn’t fit your narrative, does it? I know I’m not the only one that begins (in my case, from before I can even remember as a child) with the bedrock belief in God’s reality, sovereignty and immanence in the universe.

dismissing the miricle of fatima as a mass hallucination is an excellent example. it reminds me of a south park episode where the snobs in san fransico would enjoy the smell of their own farts by farting into wine glasses and smelling them.

It does? Why would it remind you of that? That’s an odd association!

ultimately, the atheist says i think therefore i am, the theist says i be therefore something created me.

I think that is an eerily profound encapsulation. I couldn’t summarize it better in that many words.

-TS

 

[AntiTheist]

In order to find things that are forbidden by a moral code, one must go outside of atheism since atheism allows everything. The only thing forbidden in atheism is to believe in a god or gods.

Wow, you are seriously not getting it. I’ll try one more time with an example someone used earlier in the thread.

Atheism and mathematics are both amoral. Neither one has a moral code. Therefore, neither one prohibits behavior, but neither one allows behavior either. Behavior is not addressed by either.

As a result, you could not logically say that mathematics “allows everything.” It’s amoral. It doesn’t prohibit behavior, but it doesn’t allow behavior either. Behavior isn’t what mathematics is addressing. You could not logically say, “You must go outside of mathematics to find things forbidden by a moral code; therefore, mathematics allows everything.”

It’s the same with atheism. Atheism doesn’t prohibit behavior, but it doesn’t allow behavior either. It’s amoral in the exact same way that mathematics is. Behavior is not what atheism is addressing. As a result, you could not logically say, “You must go outside of atheism to find things forbidden by a moral code; therefore, atheism allows everything.” It doesn’t. Atheism isn’t in the business of allowing, prohibiting, or commenting on behavior. Atheism is a position on belief, nothing more and nothing less.

Please tell me you grasp this.

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

It’s the same with atheism. Atheism doesn’t prohibit behavior, but it doesn’t allow behavior either. It’s amoral in the exact same way that mathematics is.

atheism is a philosophy, mathmatics is a science and therefore you are comparing apples and oranges. take atheism to its absurd conclusion: life has no meaning other than what we make it to be, which makes it empty. that’s why it’s like farting into a glass and enjoying the smell: it is reason turned on itself, cut off from reality.

theism is seeing creation as a gift that requires us to conform ourselves to its laws. it’s a consistant and coherent whole, unlike atheism which undermines the reason it uses to base itself.

 

[BobCatholic]

Wow, you are seriously not getting it. I’ll try one more time with an example someone used earlier in the thread.

Atheism and mathematics are both amoral. Neither one has a moral code. Therefore, neither one prohibits behavior, but neither one allows behavior either. Behavior is not addressed by either.

You cannot compare atheism and mathematics. Atheism cannot be proven by a mathematical equation. This is definitely beyond apples/oranges comparison, this is apples/roast beef comparison.

Also, Mathematics makes no statements about God. None. Atheism does.

It’s the same with atheism. Atheism doesn’t prohibit behavior,

It prohibits the belief in a god or Gods. It prohibits calling Atheism a religion. It prohibits believing in the supernatural. It allows everything else.

It doesn’t. It’s amoral in the way mathematics would be. A mathematician would have to go outside math to build a moral framework. To disallow, or allow, or make moral distinctions at all. You could be a totalitarian mathematician or a libertarian mathematician. An atheist could be Pol Pot or Thomas Jefferson.

Unfortunately, another apples/roast beef comparison. And Thomas Jefferson was definitely not an Atheist.

Sure, that’s definitely a route available to an (supernatural) atheist.

Atheism denies the supernatural, so a supernatural atheist is a contradiction in terms.

This is not dogma. Atheism is not religion.

Oh, so you’re saying I can be an atheist and believe in a god or gods? Sounds like the logical law of non-contradiction is being violated here

And Atheism is a religion. It has so many elements of a religion, that my analysis has determined it is one.

Do you suppose any of those sued got hauled off to the gulags? Burned at the stake?

Not yet. We have not gotten to that level of persecution yet. That only happened when atheism is the official state religion like in the USSR. Let’s give it about 50 years when we become the USSA.

Advocacy, moral codes and rituals… you have a problem with these?

I have no problem with these. But those are things that Atheism has in common with other religions If it looks like a duck…and I hear a lot of quacking from the “new theists”

 

[AntiTheist]

You cannot compare atheism and mathematics. Atheism cannot be proven by a mathematical equation. This is definitely beyond apples/oranges comparison, this is apples/roast beef comparison.

Oh, dear. Alright, let’s do it with atheism and abigfootism.

Atheism is the lack of a belief in supernatural beings called gods.

Abigfootism is the lack of a belief in creatures called Bigfoot. (I assume that you are an abigfootist, the same as I am)

Atheism and abigfootism are both amoral. Neither one has a moral code. Therefore, neither one prohibits behavior, but neither one allows behavior either. Behavior is not addressed by either.

As a result, you could not logically say that abigfootism “allows everything.” It’s amoral. It doesn’t prohibit behavior, but it doesn’t allow behavior either. Behavior isn’t what abigfootism is addressing. You could not logically say, “You must go outside of abigfootism to find things forbidden by a moral code; therefore, abigfootism allows everything.” It doesn’t. Abigfootism isn’t in the business of allowing, prohibiting, or commenting on behavior. Abigfootism is a position on belief, nothing more and nothing less.

It’s the same with atheism. Atheism doesn’t prohibit behavior, but it doesn’t allow behavior either. It’s amoral in the exact same way that abigfootism is. Behavior is not what atheism is addressing. As a result, you could not logically say, “You must go outside of atheism to find things forbidden by a moral code; therefore, atheism allows everything.” It doesn’t. Atheism isn’t in the business of allowing, prohibiting, or commenting on behavior. Atheism is a position on belief, nothing more and nothing less.

If what you’re arguing about atheism is correct, it applies to abigfootism too, and that means you should reconsider your denial of Bigfoot’s existence…because your abigfootism permits everything! The only thing it prohibits is belief in Bigfoot! All else is allowed!!!

Do you see how silly your argument is?

 

[Touchstone]

You cannot compare atheism and mathematics. Atheism cannot be proven by a mathematical equation. This is definitely beyond apples/oranges comparison, this is apples/roast beef comparison.

Mathematics isn’t proven by equation, mathematics is proof by equation. It’s a set of rules, and is only as “proven” as it is internally consistent; it says nothing about the real world itself. Anyway, the point of the analogy was that neither provide moral principles in their own right.

Also, Mathematics makes no statements about God. None. Atheism does.

Yes, but beside the point of my comparison. Atheism, like math, does not provide moral principles in its own right.

It prohibits the belief in a god or Gods. It prohibits calling Atheism a religion. It prohibits believing in the supernatural. It allows everything else.

It’s just tautologically true to say an atheist does not believe in God. It’s not a moral principle of its own, but a categorical definition. Strictly speaking, I don’t understand atheism to deny supernatural beliefs. The denial pertains to gods.

See here, for example.

Unfortunately, another apples/roast beef comparison. And Thomas Jefferson was definitely not an Atheist.

I don’t think he was, but if you read the man, it’s not hard to see his deism surrendering to atheism in light of the science developed since his day, and the receding social taboos against atheism in the culture, especially towards public figures and elected officials in his day.

Atheism denies the supernatural, so a supernatural atheist is a contradiction in terms.
That describes me as an atheist, but I know at least one friend who denies the existence of gods, but accepts some forms of supernaturalism. I’m not aware of any authoritative source on the subject, but as above, strictly speaking, supernatural beliefs are not necessarily incompatible with atheism.

Oh, so you’re saying I can be an atheist and believe in a god or gods? Sounds like the logical law of non-contradiction is being violated here

Obviously, the definitional restrictions obtain. They’re… definitional. Beyond that, though, an atheist does not obtain moral principles from atheism in its own right, but must develop them from other ideas.

And Atheism is a religion. It has so many elements of a religion, that my analysis has determined it is one.

Ahh, well that settles it, then!

As you’ve been told here, repeatedly, atheism is a negative proposition, the absence of religious belief. It’s a religion in the very same sense that “not collecting stamps” is a hobby, as I heard a friend say a couple days ago. Is “not collecting stamps” a hobby? If you can understand why that is a “no”, then you can understand why atheism is not a religion.

Not yet. We have not gotten to that level of persecution yet. That only happened when atheism is the official state religion like in the USSR. Let’s give it about 50 years when we become the USSA.

Well, crystal balls aside, the comparisons as stated just trivialized the real, accomplished horrors of the Catholic Church and Joseph Stalin in the pursuit of authoritarian, dogmatic ideology. Atheists can be dogmatic, for sure, but atheists can also eschew dogma. It’s a choice available for them.

I do not think a Catholic can eschew dogma.

I have no problem with these. But those are things that Atheism has in common with other religions If it looks like a duck…and I hear a lot of quacking from the “new theists”

An airplane and a trash dumpster have traits in common (made of metal, heavy, for example), but the similarities tend to be trivial. If you are a magnet, but have similar attractions, I guess.

-TS

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Touchstone

I don’t think he was, but if you read the man, it’s not hard to see his deism surrendering to atheism in light of the science developed since his day, and the receding social taboos against atheism in the culture, especially towards public figures and elected officials in his day.

Not so at all. Jefferson in a letter to John Adams, disputes the atheists as follows:

"The argument which they rest on as triumphant and unanswerable is that, in every hypothesis of cosmogony, you must admit an eternal pre-existence of something; and according to the rule of sound philosophy, you are never to employ two principles to solve a difficulty when one will suffice. They say, then, that it is more simple to believe at once in the eternal pre-existence of the world, as it is now going on, and may forever go on by the principle of reproduction which we see and witness, than to believe in the eternal pre-existence of an ulterior cause, or creator of the world, a being whom we see not, and know not, of whose form substance and mode or place of existence, or of action no sense informs us, no power of the mind enables us to delineate or comprehend. On the contrary, I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe in its parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and infinite power in every atom of its composition. The movements of

the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance centrifugal and centripetal forces, the structure of our earth itself, with its distribution of lands, waters, and atmosphere, animal and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutest particles, insects mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organized as man or mammoth, the mineral substances, the generation and uses, it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is, in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their preserver and regulator while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regenerator into new and other forms. We see too, evident proofs of the necessity of a superintending power to maintain the Universe in its course and order. Stars, well known, have disappeared, new ones have come into view, comets, in their incalculable courses, may run foul of suns and planets and require renovation under other laws; certain races of animals are become extinct; and, were there no restoring power, all existences might extinguish successively, one by one, until all should be reduced to a shapeless chaos. So irresistible are these evidences of an intelligent and powerful Agent that, of the infinite members of man who have existed through all time, they have believed in the proportion of a million at least to Unit, in the hypothesis of an eternal pre-existence of a creator, rather than in that of a self-existent Universe. Surely this unanimous sentiment renders this more probable than that of the few in the other hypothesis.”

And I think modern science would reinforce, rather than alter, Jefferson’s view on atheism. The Big Bang confirms that the universe did not always exist. Moreover, Jefferson would be drawn to Intelligent Design, as you can see from his own words.

It isn’t fair to assume that Jefferson, being the brain he was, would certainly have become an atheist if he were living today. Isn’t that perilously close to arguing, like Dawkins, that evolution has made atheism intellectually respectable when it has done nothing of the sort? Even Darwin said so.

“It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist… In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.”” (Letter to John Fordyce, May 7 1879)

 

[liquidpele]

Touchstone

I don’t think he was, but if you read the man, it’s not hard to see his deism surrendering to atheism in light of the science developed since his day, and the receding social taboos against atheism in the culture, especially towards public figures and elected officials in his day.

Not so at all. Jefferson in a letter to John Adams, disputes the atheists as follows:

"The argument which they rest on as triumphant and unanswerable is that, in every hypothesis of cosmogony, you must admit an eternal pre-existence of something; and according to the rule of sound philosophy, you are never to employ two principles to solve a difficulty when one will suffice. They say, then, that it is more simple to believe at once in the eternal pre-existence of the world, as it is now going on, and may forever go on by the principle of reproduction which we see and witness, than to believe in the eternal pre-existence of an ulterior cause, or creator of the world, a being whom we see not, and know not, of whose form substance and mode or place of existence, or of action no sense informs us, no power of the mind enables us to delineate or comprehend. On the contrary, I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe in its parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and infinite power in every atom of its composition. The movements of

the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance centrifugal and centripetal forces, the structure of our earth itself, with its distribution of lands, waters, and atmosphere, animal and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutest particles, insects mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organized as man or mammoth, the mineral substances, the generation and uses, it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is, in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their preserver and regulator while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regenerator into new and other forms. We see too, evident proofs of the necessity of a superintending power to maintain the Universe in its course and order. Stars, well known, have disappeared, new ones have come into view, comets, in their incalculable courses, may run foul of suns and planets and require renovation under other laws; certain races of animals are become extinct; and, were there no restoring power, all existences might extinguish successively, one by one, until all should be reduced to a shapeless chaos. So irresistible are these evidences of an intelligent and powerful Agent that, of the infinite members of man who have existed through all time, they have believed in the proportion of a million at least to Unit, in the hypothesis of an eternal pre-existence of a creator, rather than in that of a self-existent Universe. Surely this unanimous sentiment renders this more probable than that of the few in the other hypothesis.”

And I think modern science would reinforce, rather than alter, Jefferson’s view on atheism. The Big Bang confirms that the universe did not always exist. Moreover, Jefferson would be drawn to Intelligent Design, as you can see from his own words.

It isn’t fair to assume that Jefferson, being the brain he was, would certainly have become an atheist if he were living today. Isn’t that perilously close to arguing, like Dawkins, that evolution has made atheism intellectually respectable when it has done nothing of the sort? Even Darwin said so.

“It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist… In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.”” (Letter to John Fordyce, May 7 1879)

Jefferson was a deist at minimum, as is evident by the fact that he re-wrote the bible without any supernatural aspects:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible

 

[BobCatholic]

Oh, dear. Alright, let’s do it with atheism and abigfootism.

Atheism is the lack of a belief in supernatural beings called gods.

Abigfootism is the lack of a belief in creatures called Bigfoot. (I assume that you are an abigfootist, the same as I am)

And as such, that’s Atheism’s theology: There are no supernatural beings called gods.

Atheism and abigfootism are both amoral. Neither one has a moral code. Therefore, neither one prohibits behavior, but neither one allows behavior either. Behavior is not addressed by either.

Actually, behavior is addressed by atheism. Atheism prohibits the belief in a supernatural being called God. Atheism also prohibits acceptance of a theistic religion and its tenents

It’s amoral in the exact same way that abigfootism is.

Unless bigfoot is a supernatural being called god and there are religions going around worshipping bigfoot, then comparing atheism to abigfootism is again, comparing apples to roast beef.

Abigfootism does not make any theological claims whatsoever. Atheism does - “there are no supernatural beings called god or gods”

Also, since atheism is a rejection of theistic religions, it is a rejection of the moral code of theistic religions also. They substitute their own moral code - all is allowed except believing in a supernatural being called god.

Can’t pick and choose.

Want some Horsey sauce with your roast beef?

Anyway, the point of the analogy was that neither provide moral principles in their own right.

Unless you are claiming mathematics is a religion, you’re comparing apples to roast beef.

Yes, but beside the point of my comparison.

It is not beside the point. Atheism makes theological claims. Mathematics does not. You cannot compare the two.

Strictly speaking, I don’t understand atheism to deny supernatural beliefs. The denial pertains to gods.

Actually, atheism requires a denial of the supernatural. If believing in the supernatural is reasonable, so is believing in a god (who is in the supernatural realm). Thus we escape the Atheist state by crossing the state line into the state of Agnosticism.

It is part of the slippery slope. Let’s take a look at these supernatural beings. Analyze them as best as you can. Eventually, something supernatural is found that is more powerful than the rest, and it can easily be labeled as a god. Thus atheists generally fight a belief in the supernatural, for it is on the route to theism. Get your kicks on 66, but first take US Route 41 south from Chicago’s north side to find it.

It’s not a moral principle of its own, but a categorical definition.

It is a prohibition on a particular behavior: believing in a god. Nice tap dancing, I give you a 6.0 on a 10 scale. Now, on to the swimsuit competition

an atheist does not obtain moral principles from atheism in its own right,

Actually, an atheist does. If one is an atheist, this is the same as saying: all of Christendom, Judaism, Islam, and all other theistic religions are wrong from the get-go. This is also a rejection of all the moral restrictions they espouse. So, no restrictions are on the atheist - all is allowed (well, except believing in a god, that’s atheist dogma)
You can’t take a 100 story building and expect it to stand if you place explosives on the first floor that take it out. If Atheism is accepted true, everything built on the basic theistic first floor, is rejected. Thus not only the first floor is rejected, all the floors are rejected. Truth cannot be obtained from a lie except by rejecting the lie. So if the Ten Commandments are on the fifth floor of the Christian building and the first floor is exploded, well, there goes the Ten Commandments

Now a cafeteria is a nice place to eat. But it makes a lousy way to pick a moral code.

 

[Touchstone]

And as such, that’s Atheism’s theology: There are no supernatural beings called gods.

You are telling the a-philatelist: this is your hobby, not collecting stamps!

Unless you are claiming mathematics is a religion, you’re comparing apples to roast beef.

I think you are missing how analogy works. I’m pointing to features of each regarding their moral prescriptions: they are alike in that neither provides and ethical or moral framework.

It is not beside the point. Atheism makes theological claims. Mathematics does not. You cannot compare the two.

It denies other theological claims. It doesn’t provide any positive claims of its own. That’s what the “a-” in “atheist” is trying to signal to you.

An atheist can go adopt utilitarianism, or nihilism, or any of a number of various forms of humanism, she may be a Buddhist, or may subscribe to one or more of myriad “-isms” out there that provide ethical and moral foundations.

I think it might help to point out what should be obvious, that atheism is label that indicates what the person does NOT believe, rather than what they DO believe. These are not the same propositions. Knowing what an atheist does NOT believe does not inform you what DO believe.

Actually, atheism requires a denial of the supernatural. If believing in the supernatural is reasonable, so is believing in a god (who is in the supernatural realm). Thus we escape the Atheist state by crossing the state line into the state of Agnosticism.

IIRC, you are the one satisfied with definitions based on your own analysis, so this may plink right off, but as a matter of common usage, maybe just take a look at the intro to the Wikipedia entry on atheism:

Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]

There are several mentions of atheism as pertains to the supernatural, and you should read the whole entry, as it supports the fuzziness I pointed you at above, for example:

Atheism tends towards skepticism regarding supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence. Common rationales include the problem of evil, the argument from inconsistent revelations, and the argument from nonbelief. Other arguments for atheism range from the philosophical to the social to the historical.

If you read much on atheism, you will find that denial of gods and deities is the essence, the defining quality of atheism (hence the name!). Questions about the supernatural are unsettled; the vast majority of atheists denial the reality/meaningfulness of “supernatural” (like myself), but it’s not clear that that positing is inherent in atheism. Many who deny the existence of deities subscribe to supernatural beliefs.

It is part of the slippery slope. Let’s take a look at these supernatural beings. Analyze them as best as you can. Eventually, something supernatural is found that is more powerful than the rest, and it can easily be labeled as a god. Thus atheists generally fight a belief in the supernatural, for it is on the route to theism. Get your kicks on 66, but first take US Route 41 south from Chicago’s north side to find it.

I agree, entertaining “supernatural” as meaningful in rational discourse is an error right off the bat, and I do not recommend it. But I don’t think for anyone else but me. If someone believes in supernatural reincarnation, for example, reincarnation as an impersonal, supernatural phenomenon (ignoring the nonsensical nature of the term “supernatural phenomenon” for the moment to make the point), but recognizes nothing personal or conscious or will based at all in the supernatural, I’d say they were a thoroughgoing atheist, albeit one with some problems thinking consistently in a rational way.

Spinoza might be a good example of a “supernatural atheist”. His pantheistic naturalism was godless, but ascribed a supernatural holism to nature that goes beyond straight naturalism.

In any case, it’s good to invoke Lewis Carroll here and Alice In Wonderland, and note that words mean whatever the people using them to communicate agree they mean. I think you will find a good measure of diversity in atheists on the question of the supernatural, and none concerning the belief in gods and deities.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

It is a prohibition on a particular behavior: believing in a god. Nice tap dancing, I give you a 6.0 on a 10 scale. Now, on to the swimsuit competition

As above, this tells you something the subscriber does NOT believe. It does not indicate what they DO believe. If you were told a person on the other end of a phone call you just met, you would not be able to tell us, just knowing that, what they DO embrace as a moral/ethical framework. A negative proposition is not a positive proposition, here.

Actually, an atheist does. If one is an atheist, this is the same as saying: all of Christendom, Judaism, Islam, and all other theistic religions are wrong from the get-go.

No, not hardly. Much of Christianity is just stolen concepts from natural morality. The Golden Rule, for example, approximates a moral principle that is found in a wide variety of cultures, many of which predate/stand apart from Judaeo-Christianity (see Confucianism, for example). Identifying Christianity’s erroneous belief in the Christian God does NOT invalidate its moral teachings, as many of them are simply (unwittingly) ethical statements derived from man’s evolved nature. “Do not steal” is a prohibition that totally transcends Christianity, a crucial practical dynamic for social cohesion for humans as social species.

This is also a rejection of all the moral restrictions they espouse. So, no restrictions are on the atheist - all is allowed (well, except believing in a god, that’s atheist dogma)

It’s not doggma, it’s open to questioning and criticism. Some atheists do question the proposition, and conclude it’s correct, allowing that it may not be. Others are convinced it is not correct, and conclude some god does indeed exists, and become deists or theists. “Atheism” is a classification, not a statement of dogma.

And as above, atheists commonly embrace moral and ethical frameworks that share many of the same moral principles as Christianity – the prohibition on stealing and respect for personal property, for example. That’s something Christianity has, like other frameworks, adopted from human social behavior, evolved over millions of years.

You can’t take a 100 story building and expect it to stand if you place explosives on the first floor that take it out. If Atheism is accepted true, everything built on the basic theistic first floor, is rejected.

No, “treat others the way you would like to be treated”, or “love your neighbor as yourself” is perfectly secular as a moral principle. It has no dependency on the Christian God or any other god. It’s just one feature of human nature and psychology that Judaeo-Christianity has grafted on to its mysticisms. See, for example, all the other places that idea has emerged as a moral principle.

Thus not only the first floor is rejected, all the floors are rejected. Truth cannot be obtained from a lie except by rejecting the lie. So if the Ten Commandments are on the fifth floor of the Christian building and the first floor is exploded, well, there goes the Ten Commandments

That’s simplistic thinking. Extremely simplisitic thinking. Though shalt have no other gods before me is a ridiculous moral principle. Thou shalt not steal is a reflection of the expediencies of human nature and human social organization – an ethical principle that is necessary for maintaining a cohesive (and thus successful/surviving) community. Religion doesn’t get everything wrong. Some parts of Catholicism are quite solid, and reasonably derived and supported on rational/secular grounds.

Now a cafeteria is a nice place to eat. But it makes a lousy way to pick a moral code.

I guess that depends on the value you place on rational thinking.

-TS

 

[AntiTheist]

If one is an atheist, this is the same as saying: all of Christendom, Judaism, Islam, and all other theistic religions are wrong from the get-go. This is also a rejection of all the moral restrictions they espouse. So, no restrictions are on the atheist - all is allowed (well, except believing in a god, that’s atheist dogma)

While your entire post contains various mistakes, I’ve bolded the mistake most relevant to the point I want to make here.

Atheism is not the rejection of moral codes – it’s the rejection of the claim that gods exist, nothing more. I know atheists who are moral absolutists. I personally think that they are incorrect, but that’s a point of philosophical debate, and it’s outside the context of our atheism.

If you don’t have the intellectual honesty to understand this, I’m afraid it’s a waste of time to speak to you.

 

[Betterave]

You don’t need to believe in a supernatural being to defend the idea of constraining actions.

For instance, if we could somehow prove tomorrow that there are no gods, we would still have good reason to defend the idea of constraining people’s actions for the good of society.

You’re missing my point: it doesn’t matter what people believe, there will always be constraints on people’s actions. It would be as silly to defend this idea as it would be to defend the idea that reality is reality or cheese is cheese. Reality is reality and there are constraints on people’s actions. The devil, however, is in the details: what constraints? Moral ‘constraints’? Meaning what? How constraining are moral constraints? That depends, right?

All you’re saying is that it’s possible for bad people to “get away with it.” And of course it is. It’s childish to think otherwise.

That’s not all I’m saying. I’m saying that if a God of a certain kind exists, it is not possible for bad people to “get away with it”. It is childish to to deny this, and especially to deny it without recognizing that the apotheosis of grave injustice as an unconquerable feature of our world is not a good thing. It could just as well be considered a ‘childish’ thing - you know how cruel children can be.

 

[Betterave]

I don’t agree. society has deemed certain behaviors unacceptable and if you break these rules you go to jail.

Whether or not god exists you must still accept that humans govern their self’s. As far as this life goes, societies make and enforce the rules.

So you can act how your like, but if the rest of society does not like the way you act, you will be removed from society.

Read again:
“The point is just that without God, anything is permissible, strictly speaking, even if the atheist doesn’t realize it. It’s a debatable point, perhaps, but just be clear about what it is and is not. It’s not a denial of the obvious fact that many constraints exist shaping our behavior, whether or not we believe in God. It’s about the fact that these constraints are at least in principle defeasible; and if a clever Mengele can go on the lamb and live a nice long comfortable life after what he did, never suffering consequences or being brought to feel remorse for what he did, even scorning those who did feel remorse, then so might any number of other people who have done any number of nasty things. But there is no kind of implication from what has been said that all atheists will “subscribe to” a particular set of moral beliefs.”

If you’re unclear, Mengele did go on the lamb, etc., etc. It’s not a hypothetical scenario.

 

[Betterave]

The point of the example was to show that external critique and validation are powerful means of error detection and bias correction. It’s not that a group of people is somehow capable of making each individual less subjective. Rather, it’s that objective goals in the methodology enable local biases and errors to be identified and managed. It’s not enough to just assemble a team; you gotta have a method that produces knowledge, demonstrably.

Let me guess: “demonstrably” = within the constraints of a scientistic worldview? That’s a clever argument (hem hem, stipulation)!

Well, a common fear of Christians is that without Christianity, the moral fabric of society will unravel. It’s not hard to find just on this forum. That’s not a dogmatic statement, just an observation anyone here can confirm by looking around.

Actually, there is a good deal of interpretation that goes into your ‘observation’. Anyway, the dogmatism of a given statement tends to be more a function of its mode of presentation than its content.

No. You are confusing a handy way to “sloganize” the idea with the idea. The “reality of reality” is not tautological at all. It’s a statement about the real world, affirming the alethic validity of man’s perception of the world around him. That is, the objects your eyes and mind tell you are real, the ball coming toward your head gets you to duck, are actual, not just imaginary. That is what we generally call “real”, and for good reason, but the affirmation is a fundamental commitment about the state of reality around you, not a definition.

Give me a break, I’m not confusing anything here! I explicitly invited you to explain your claim if it was non-tautological. Also, I believe I asked for a non-trivial, non-question-begging explanation, i.e., you better take another stab at this one!

An example that supports is sneaking in an intuition?

Hmm… What do you think?
“This example supports scientism - look at it - it’s a really good example!”
“No, that example doesn’t support scientism.”
“No really, it does, just look at it, don’t you see it?”
“Sorry, bad intuition on your part.”
“Huh? Intuition? What intuition?”

Well, I said above I don’t recognize myself as a subscriber to scientism, allowing for some unfamiliarity with the term – I only encounter it in polemic contexts like this, it seems. Science is unavoidable committed to the metaphysical proposition that reality is real (see above), and that it is at least partially intelligible. If you doubt that reality is real, that the world around you streaming into your perceptual organs is not actual, extramental, objective, I think you are as opposed to science as one can possibly be.

See above. What “you think” about science here is again trivial.

That’s fine – anti-scientism (is that the opposite word) is a flourishing discipline, too. But either way, one’s philosophical commitment to the reality of reality (see above) is fundamental to pursuing the conversation. Confusion on that level pretty much negates anything else we’d like to cover.

Ah yes, confusion! Good point. My point, however, is that you seem confused. You seem to know very little about scientism or anti-scientism (and you need to know both to properly know either), but you feel quite comfortable making dogmatic claims about both. You’re not being a team player, that’s why you don’t know what’s going on.

Well, the scientific method is well known, right? When you create cold fusion in the lab, others are going to demand that it be replicated, and verified, that it pass critical scrutiny, that it be falsifiable, and pass. And lo and behold, the cold fusion claims from Utah were debunked. A wonderful story, exciting as can be, trashed by the corrective procedures of science. Any one could perform their own (dis)confirmation independently.

When the last time you independently disconfirmed cold fusion claims? Oh, never? But you could, right? Anyone could!

So, how does your favorite Wisssenschaft show its objectivity, it’s separation of method from personality. How do dubious claims of cold fusion (or their analogs) prove out the separation in your knowledge enterprise?

Are you seriously that ignorant of the methodologies of Wissenschaften outside of the Naturwissenschaften? When Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust, this claim is debunked in so many ways. When people accuse Benedict XVI of sympathizing with Holocaust deniers, same goes. When you claim that you have coherent views on scientism/anti-scientism, we debunk this claim be examining your tendency to make false claims about it. When a science is infected by political advocacy, we can examine the history of events that make up the illicit political interventions in the development of theory within that field.

Anyway, I better get some work done, talk to you later!

 

[Touchstone]

Let me guess: “demonstrably” = within the constraints of a scientistic worldview? That’s a clever argument (hem hem, stipulation)!

I think it’s pretty basic. How do you “demonstrate” something objectively? Do you have some method that is not bound to the examination of evidence, analysis of experiment and results, gauging of predictions?

You’re enamored of “alternative science” (your unnamed* Wissenschaften, below)*, so here’s a good place to layout how the science you advocate “demonstrates” some proposition. Failing some competing approach, I think we default to the common rendering of the word:

**1. ** To show clearly and deliberately; manifest: demonstrated her skill as a gymnast; demonstrate affection by hugging.
**2. ** To show to be true by reasoning or adducing evidence; prove: demonstrate a proposition.
**3. ** To present by experiments, examples, or practical application; explain and illustrate: demonstrated the laws of physics with laboratory equipment.
**4. ** To show the use of (an article) to a prospective buyer: The salesperson plugged in and demonstrated the vacuum cleaner.

I can work with novel definitions, but I need some referents and clear semantics if I’m going to use them. What does “demonstrate” mean in your world, in your science?

Actually, there is a good deal of interpretation that goes into your ‘observation’. Anyway, the dogmatism of a given statement tends to be more a function of its mode of presentation than its content.

It is? If I take a de fide bit of dogma from the Catholic Church, like this:

God was moved by His Goodness to create the world.

How does it’s presentation change the underlying dogma, the unassailable, revealed claim? However you want to wordsmith it, or present it, it’s fundamentally a fideist proposition, impervious to critique or evaluation.

Give me a break, I’m not confusing anything here! I explicitly invited you to explain your claim if it was non-tautological. Also, I believe I asked for a non-trivial, non-question-begging explanation, i.e., you better take another stab at this one!

You are confusing the map and the territory here. The concept of “real” – our definition, is NOT reality itself. This distinction breaks out of the tautology (all concepts are defined and related in terms of other concepts… explanations are inherently tautological as descriptions). When I say “reality is real”, the referent of my concept of reality are the extramental objects that I perceive. I think about what those stimuli mean and what kind of thoughts and reacts might follow from that, considering them to be conceptually real, but reality obtains no matter what I think, or what my concepts are like in my brain. Saying “reality is real” is to say that extramental reality is not contingent on my conceptualization of it.

Hmm… What do you think?
“This example supports scientism - look at it - it’s a really good example!”
“No, that example doesn’t support scientism.”
“No really, it does, just look at it, don’t you see it?”
“Sorry, bad intuition on your part.”
“Huh? Intuition? What intuition?”

I’m still not clear on what the gestalt of scientism is. Googling it a little seems to confirm that it’s a polemical tool for theists in conversations like this – a way to disparage scientific epistemology. Maybe you should provide a good, concise working definition of scientism as you see it, then I can tell you where my beliefs fall in relation to that.

Ah yes, confusion! Good point. My point, however, is that you seem confused. You seem to know very little about scientism or anti-scientism (and you need to know both to properly know either), but you feel quite comfortable making dogmatic claims about both. You’re not being a team player, that’s why you don’t know what’s going on.

As I said, I don’t pretend anything more than a vague familiarity with the term. It’s not got currency anywhere that I encounter accept in theistic apologetics. For some, science just ain’t such a much, I understand. I ran across this term in passing in an discussion on another forum in link to this article:

While one development of this point of view leads to scientism, the view that any meaningful question can be answered by the methods of science; another development leads to inquiry into what social conditions promote the growth of scientific knowledge.

I don’t have a way to gauge the “authority” of that description, but as stated, I’d say “scientism” is not something I embrace. I emphatically deny that all meaningful questions are best answered, or are answerable at all through science.

When the last time you independently disconfirmed cold fusion claims? Oh, never? But you could, right? Anyone could!

Knowledge is a team sport. If I only could know that which I independently confirm, I’d not get on an airplane, or accept a hypodermic needle in my arm with putative “medicine” in it. The principle of objectivity is not one that demands I confirm a proposition myself. Rather, that the claim is amenable to outside confirmation, critique and refutation.

Are you seriously that ignorant of the methodologies of Wissenschaften outside of the Naturwissenschaften?

Well, lets suppose for the moment that I am, so I can get you to explain the one(s) you endorse. Per above, how is knowledge demonstrated in your alternative science of choice?

When Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust, this claim is debunked in so many ways. When people accuse Benedict XVI of sympathizing with Holocaust deniers, same goes. When you claim that you have coherent views on scientism/anti-scientism, we debunk this claim be examining your tendency to make false claims about it. When a science is infected by political advocacy, we can examine the history of events that make up the illicit political interventions in the development of theory within that field.

All of this is predicated on evidentialist, empirical epistemology – vanilla science! Do you see the irony in saying you’ve debunked some claim by looking at the evidence as a way of pointing me at alternatives to empirical analysis?

I’d suspect you were trying to pull my leg if I hadn’t been aware of your earlier comments.

Anyway, I better get some work done, talk to you later!

OK, thanks. Better do the same!

-TS

 

[BobCatholic]

While your entire post contains various mistakes, I’ve bolded the mistake most relevant to the point I want to make here.

Atheism is not the rejection of moral codes – it’s the rejection of the claim that gods exist, nothing more. I know atheists who are moral absolutists. I personally think that they are incorrect, but that’s a point of philosophical debate, and it’s outside the context of our atheism.

If you don’t have the intellectual honesty to understand this, I’m afraid it’s a waste of time to speak to you.

Then please give me a list of prohibited conduct under the Atheist religion. From what I have seen, there is only one prohibited thing: to believe in a god or gods - because according to Atheism - god or gods do not exist.

You are telling the a-philatelist: this is your hobby, not collecting stamps!

Apples & Roast beef comparison. Collecting stamps is not a religion. Stamp collecting doesn’t make theological claims. I think you’re putting too much emphasis on the “a” in atheism and not realizing what Atheism really stands for.

they are alike in that neither provides and ethical or moral framework.

The atheistic moral framework is : all is allowed (except believing in a god or gods).

It denies other theological claims. It doesn’t provide any positive claims of its own. That’s what the “a-” in “atheist” is trying to signal to you.

But it still makes a theological claim of its own. “There is no God”

An atheist can go adopt utilitarianism, or nihilism, or any of a number of various forms of humanism, she may be a Buddhist, or may subscribe to one or more of myriad “-isms” out there that provide ethical and moral foundations.

The religion of Atheism permits adopting whatever beliefs you wish as long as the prime dogma is not violated. All else is permitted.

I think it might help to point out what should be obvious, that atheism is label that indicates what the person does NOT believe, rather than what they DO believe

They do make a claim of what they believe. “There is no God” - also I can make the argument that they believe “nothing created everything”

IIRC, you are the one satisfied with definitions based on your own analysis, so this may plink right off, but as a matter of common usage, maybe just take a look at the intro to the Wikipedia entry on atheism:

Wikipedia is routinely edited left and right frequently and many schools rightly reject citations from Wikipedia as authoritative.

The key dogma in Atheism is that there is no god or gods. Trying to define atheism as an absence of belief in a god or gods doesn’t fly logically. Think of it this way.

Imagine a 2x2 matrix. On one side of the matrix is a label: Believing in a god or Gods. On the other side another label: Do god or gods exist? Inside the boxes of the matrix, are “yes” and no"

Now, let’s take a look and analyze the matrix. There are 4 possibilities.

God does exist and I believe in him → that is consistent and is reasonable.
God does not exist, and I believe in him → that’s insanity - the belief is in error or inconsistent
God does exist and I do not believe in him → that’s insanity - the belief is in error or inconsistent
God does not exist and I do not believe in him → that is consistent and is reasonable.

Now, since Atheism is supposed to be on the reasonable and logical side (according to the sales pitches), defining it as “the absence belief in a of a god or Gods” is not going to fit very well in this matrix. Atheism would be including the last two possibilities in the matrix, according to the definition you proffer. That definition of yours is far too inclusive, and includes the insanity of “God does exist and I do not believe in him” in it. I seriously doubt you want to include this in what Atheism stands for. Atheism MUST say “There is no god or gods” to avoid this difficulty. It is only reasonable and logical. Also this same point goes for Theism - it MUST say God does exist…

It’s not doggma, it’s open to questioning and criticism.

If there is ANY QUESTION OR DEBATE on whether god or gods exist, that’s crossing the state line into Agnosticism, which is a different religion. If you wish to say that Atheism is the same as Agnosticism, I don’t agree. That is comparing apples and oranges, which is better than the apples/roast beef comparisons before.

Atheism’s dogma is that god or gods do not exist. This is a fact.

No, “treat others the way you would like to be treated”, or “love your neighbor as yourself” is perfectly secular as a moral principle.

Unfortunately, according to secular Darwinism, there’s no reason for anyone to be treated with any way I’d like to be treated - for compassion does not fit within the framework of the survival of the fittest. In secular thinking, there is no way to logically and reasonably argue for one to be unselfish toward someone else.

I guess that depends on the value you place on rational thinking.

I place some value on rational thinking - I’ve used rational thinking throughout my posts - but without a strong ethical basis, rational thinking can be used to excuse any kind of evil. We have a brain, a conscience, and a heart. Checks and balances. The conscience is our supernatural self, which appeals to our brain and heart to do what is right, even if one cannot phrase it properly in words.

 

[mrhenrik]

Then please give me a list of prohibited conduct under the Atheist religion. From what I have seen, there is only one prohibited thing: to believe in a god or gods - because according to Atheism - god or gods do not exist.

I would say you’re looking at this from the wrong angle. Atheism has no teachings, no prohibitations, no laws or moral code. If you don’t believe in god(s), you are an atheist. If you do believe in god, that doesn’t make you a bad atheist. That makes you a theist.

 

[Touchstone]

Then please give me a list of prohibited conduct under the Atheist religion. From what I have seen, there is only one prohibited thing: to believe in a god or gods - because according to Atheism - god or gods do not exist.

Yes, as I said before, it’s a lot like mathematics that way. It does not prohibit conduct, and is as much a religion as math is.

Apples & Roast beef comparison. Collecting stamps is not a religion.

I think you are not reading what I say with care. My statement was that “not collecting stamps” is to hobbies as “not believing in God or gods” is to (theistic) religion. Atheism is the absence of religion, just as “not collecting stamps” is the absence of collecting stamps as a hobby.

Stamp collecting doesn’t make theological claims. I think you’re putting too much emphasis on the “a” in atheism and not realizing what Atheism really stands for.

I think you’ve completely misunderstood what they “a-” signifies. I realize there is rhetorical value in using “religion” as a disparaging term against atheism – if Catholics have to be saddled with the intellectual problems of religion, then everyone else does, too! But what is denoted, and connoted by that term is something quite different, minimalist in its scope. You are confusing the anti-theism and other “-isms” that atheist adopt in the absence of belief in God (nihilism, humanism, utilitarianism, etc.) with atheism itself.

If you don’t get what the “a-” signifies, you are bound to misunderstand, and to be misunderstood.

The atheistic moral framework is : all is allowed (except believing in a god or gods).

No. Atheism neither condones nor condemns moral frameworks. Again, it’s a lot like mathematics that way – it’s inert in that respect. Saying “all is allowed” implies atheism condoning all actions in a positive sense. It doesn’t. It simply doesn’t have anything to say on the subject. You are confused, or perhaps just interested in arriving at the idea that atheism does promote “anything goes” in a positive way, despite what atheists believe and how they understand the term.

But it still makes a theological claim of its own. “There is no God”

Yes it does, for strong atheists, at leasts. A weak atheist would not necessarily agree to that statement, but would say “I do not have a belief in God”.

The religion of Atheism permits adopting whatever beliefs you wish as long as the prime dogma is not violated. All else is permitted.

Yes, but only in the sense that mathematics “permits” adopting whatever moral beliefs you wish. The religion of mathematics is similar in that respect. It’s clear here that you are intent on tainting the concept of “beliefs” or “ideas” with the term “religion”, so I’ll go with it. I can play that game.

They do make a claim of what they believe. “There is no God” - also I can make the argument that they believe “nothing created everything”

You could make the argument, but it would fail. No such claim is entailed by atheism. Some atheists, for example, suppose the metaverse is eternal and impersonal, and this universe is just one dot in an infinite cloud of universes. That would render your argument incoherent, as this would hold that “everything always was”.

Many atheists do not believe that, or have no opinion on that subject, which also goes to show that your argument fails, should you choose to make it.

Wikipedia is routinely edited left and right frequently and many schools rightly reject citations from Wikipedia as authoritative.

Words mean whatever people agree to them meaning. You’re welcome to your own private definitions. As a matter of common discourse though, the Wikipedia definition reflects what the dictionaries reflect – usage that relies on the denial of God’s as the qualification for atheism.

The key dogma in Atheism is that there is no god or gods. Trying to define atheism as an absence of belief in a god or gods doesn’t fly logically. Think of it this way.

Imagine a 2x2 matrix. On one side of the matrix is a label: Believing in a god or Gods. On the other side another label: Do god or gods exist? Inside the boxes of the matrix, are “yes” and no"

Now, let’s take a look and analyze the matrix. There are 4 possibilities.

God does exist and I believe in him → that is consistent and is reasonable.
God does not exist, and I believe in him → that’s insanity - the belief is in error or inconsistent
God does exist and I do not believe in him → that’s insanity - the belief is in error or inconsistent
God does not exist and I do not believe in him → that is consistent and is reasonable.

Now, since Atheism is supposed to be on the reasonable and logical side (according to the sales pitches), defining it as “the absence belief in a of a god or Gods” is not going to fit very well in this matrix. Atheism would be including the last two possibilities in the matrix, according to the definition you proffer. That definition of yours is far too inclusive, and includes the insanity of “God does exist and I do not believe in him” in it. I seriously doubt you want to include this in what Atheism stands for. Atheism MUST say “There is no god or gods” to avoid this difficulty. It is only reasonable and logical. Also this same point goes for Theism - it MUST say God does exist…

As an atheist, I have no problem granting that God MAY EXIST. Thinking rationally, this possibility CANNOT BE DENIED. Anyone who denies the possibility is easily refuted by simply asking for the justification for such a claim. Such a universal claim cannot be supported with certainty.

Richard Dawkins makes this point repeatedly. God may exist. We just do not have any reasonable basis for thinking he does. In that sense, even the strongest atheist is necessarily an agnostic, just because its impossible to rule out the possibility of God’s existence, however implausible or unlikely God’s existence appears to be.

So, I invite you to come to grips with the epistemic constraints a reasoning mind must operate within. All atheists are to some degree agnostics, by necessity. If God does exist, then reality is such that rational thinking points to erroneous conclusions, and God exists in a way that avoids or subverts rational thinking and reasoning from the evidence. Could be, and Dawkins will allow this possibility as readily as I will. I just think it much more likely that man is fooling himself about God rather than God being real, but operating in perfectly “unreal” mode.

In any case, all atheists are either somewhat agnostic by necessity of reason, or they are fools.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

If there is ANY QUESTION OR DEBATE on whether god or gods exist, that’s crossing the state line into Agnosticism, which is a different religion. If you wish to say that Atheism is the same as Agnosticism, I don’t agree. That is comparing apples and oranges, which is better than the apples/roast beef comparisons before.

See above. It’s quite clearly that you are committed to see things in a way that is comfortable and anodyne for you, rather than as they are.

Atheism’s dogma is that god or gods do not exist. This is a fact.

It’s not dogma – do you know what Dogma is? As above, if you read Dawkins’ The God Delusion, in it you will find the affirmation that God may exist. Dawkins considers it extremely improbable that he does, but that is how reasoning works as opposed to dogma. Dogma asserts de fide, in a way that is NOT subject to evidential review and reasoning about it. Catholics should understand these distinctions better than anyone, shouldn’t they?

Unfortunately, according to secular Darwinism, there’s no reason for anyone to be treated with any way I’d like to be treated - for compassion does not fit within the framework of the survival of the fittest. In secular thinking, there is no way to logically and reasonably argue for one to be unselfish toward someone else.

It just requires getting beyond naïveté. Stealing from my neighbor, selfishly, is self-defeating, as it invites him and everyone else to steal from me and each other by example. In stealing from someone else, I am threatening my own security. Conversely, caring for the elderly, the sick, the injured, the hungry provides a basis for my receiving similar treatment when the circumstances are different, and I am the one in need. Altruism is ultimately selfish in the best way – it promotes ones own goals by aiding in the realization of others’ goals.

No god needed for any of that.

I place some value on rational thinking - I’ve used rational thinking throughout my posts - but without a strong ethical basis, rational thinking can be used to excuse any kind of evil. We have a brain, a conscience, and a heart. Checks and balances. The conscience is our supernatural self, which appeals to our brain and heart to do what is right, even if one cannot phrase it properly in words.

Or think about it clearly as a concept!

-TS