What [if any] social goods does atheism bring to the community table?

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalmDownWisWins
Atheists see any “structure” in the realm of “not me experience” (of which “religion” is an example) as evil, and the “authoritarian” version of evil.

You mean like government? Atheists participate in that just fine. Again, you’re making extremely broad and incorrect generalizations from a point of view that does not seem to include either first- or second-hand experience of the matter.

Government is not a “not me experience”. By that phrase I mean an experience where if I don’t believe in it no discernable difference seems evident in “the world”.

As a “non-religion” example: One who “doesn’t believe in marriage”, who’s personal belief doesn’t SEEM to affect the world, sees anyone putting the “limit” on marriage of it being valid only between one man and one woman as an evil-doer.

My point is that any “limit” suggested by anyone who bases that limit on “nonsense” (religion being an example of a blatant nonsensical thing) is an evil-doer to one who bases all “limits” on personal “whim” (ie. non-God based information).

(( Unless of course that limit agrees for some reason with the ethical/moral “whim” of the “non-religious”. ))

The question is on what, exactly, the “goodness” or “evilness” is based.

The question of this thread is what social goods atheists bring to the social table.

My proposition is that they bring precisely none, other than the occassional confirmation of the goodness of those goods that are God-based.

So, precisely what good does the atheist mind uniquely bring?

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
The wonderful thing about atheists is their self-limiting social damage potential. If they TRULY believe and act as actual “non-religionists” (to whom “religion” is simply nonsensical) they set such a pitiful example to the society as a whole that they do very little damage to society.

How is mere unbelief destructive to society? And how exactly do you conclude that those who do not believe are ‘pitiful examples’ of human beings or citizens?

Unbelief, as you call it, which I call belief in the non-existence of any absolute, allows the person to experience the world as a chaos of free floating “atoms” which continually pushes them toward the anxiety of “disconnection fear”.

The only relief for this anxiety is to find a god (small “g”), or THE God.

This anxiety is incredibly destructive to society, because it’s “motion” is toward disintegration of the individual, and everything that that individual touches.

Atheists are “pitiful” in the sense that they deserve everyone’s pity for their attribute of this anxiety.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
What is reality to you, as an atheist, or whatever you are, that you perceive as other than “me now”?

Reality as I perceive it is me and six+ billion other people, all of whom I consider at least as important as myself in the grand scheme of things – now and in the future.

So reality is you and a bunch of other “yous”.

Is mankind a thing, or simply an aggregation of isolated units?

Does the universe “make sense” as a (somehow created) creation, or is it just a bunch of stuff that accidently kind-of “works”?

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Does not having God REALLY make people so incredibly sensitive to perceived insult? That might explain quite a lot, actually.

Does having God really make people so quick to assume they’ve sinned? It wasn’t particularly offensive, just ignorant.

To “have God” is to know all the ways we can sin, and very aware of constantly doing them!

My perception of atheists is that they are very quick to claim (complain/whine) they’ve been “misquoted”, instead of responding in correction of those who they feel have misquoted them.

In other words, that they respond with indignation so as to “throw off” their perceived “attackers” strategy, as opposed to simply responding so as to correct the person they’re talking with.

But, this makes perfect sense when “the world”, whom they consider “their god”, believes that you must counter-attack those who attack you, while the Christian believes that it’s best to “turn the other cheek” and respond with truth and charity in a fearless way.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

I’m not an atheist, but I am a skeptic. Meaning… that I actually do believe in a god, but not a God that interferes with the workings of the universe. Although I believe in a god, I often identify with atheistic arguments more than I do with theistic arguments.

To me, saying “what is the benefit of atheism?” or “what are the dangers of theism?” are missing the point. The dangers come from ideology and religion. It’s not whether you believe in god(s) but what you think that belief or non-belief entails.

Absolutely correct. And only one religion’s “entailments”, when accurately and genuinely known, entail no evil whatsoever.

Care to guess which one?

People have killed in the name of God. People have killed to wipe out the notion of god. Neither is worse. Neither was caused by the belief in god/God; they were caused by people who believed that their beliefs entitled them to kill those that were not the same.

To use a term I just picked up from Mr. Ex Nihil, there is a cause to believe that methodological atheism has much to recommend it. To study a problem without reference to a divine being often has fabulous results. Science is a testament to methodological atheism.

Science is based on the “Godly” belief that the world makes sense in a comprehensive way that is actually THERE whether any one person believes it or not.

In other words, “Thy will, not mine, be done.”

Atheists believe that because you can’t prove to them, and they can’t prove to themselves, that God exists from what they can “see”, there is no God. Unless they aren’t REALLY atheists (which most REALLY aren’t) and CAN see “something vaguely God-like” in the workings of the universe.

God’s People believe that God exists and He is the reason that the universe unfolds in a sensible (“working”) way when we look closer and closer to His creation.

Science is a testimony to a TRUE scientists faith that sensible answers WILL be found no matter how closely they look.

If you prayer for someone to be spared from an illness it might help. It seems to help at least as often as not doing anything at all. If you find out what the natural problem is, then you are more likely to find the solution.

And the believer knows that the “natural” problem is according to the workings of God’s creation, and that to not look for the scientific solution is to put their “god of foolishness” above God, which is NOT a good idea at all.

I’ve heard it said that no one operates without faith. It’s completely impossible to prove or observe everything one accepts as fact. It’s also impossible, though, to operate without skepticism.

Absolutely! But the ubiquity of skepticism doesn’t preclude the existence of the (singular) absolute. To set up ANYTHING as an absolute but that one thing that IS absolute is to idolize a non-God.

Philosophical atheism does nothing for society. Methodological atheism does a lot. Theism doesn’t do anything for a society. Faith, hope, and charity do a lot.

I don’t believe there is such a thing as “Methological Atheism”, because atheism (in the TRUE sense of the word) states that there is no “underlying organizational principle” of the universe, and if no underlying “system” is believed to exist, it would be silly to search for it!

Therefore, veritably no one is truly an atheist. They just like to call themselves that because it’s “cool” to be a rebel!

 

[CapaxDei]

One consequence of atheism is acknowledging that there is no God to help out humanity.

It impossible to “acknowledge” that which is untrue.

 

[Mirdath]

Government is not a “not me experience”. By that phrase I mean an experience where if I don’t believe in it no discernable difference seems evident in “the world”.

What then falls into that category other than religion? Your marriage example is predicated on religion.

The question of this thread is what social goods atheists bring to the social table.

My proposition is that they bring precisely none, other than the occassional confirmation of the goodness of those goods that are God-based.

So, precisely what good does the atheist mind uniquely bring?

So far as I can tell, plenty of good (hardly ‘occasional’ as you seem to think) and none of it unique – and I do not see the ‘theist mind’ bringing any unique good to the table either. What, if any, do you see?

Is mankind a thing, or simply an aggregation of isolated units?

Does the universe “make sense” as a (somehow created) creation, or is it just a bunch of stuff that accidently kind-of “works”?

I don’t know. I may find out, or not – but I can accept that there are things I cannot discover in my lifetime. I work with what I have; fortunately or unfortunately, faith and omniscience are not in that collection.

My perception of atheists is that they are very quick to claim (complain/whine) they’ve been “misquoted”, instead of responding in correction of those who they feel have misquoted them.

Make the group big enough and you’ll always find people to do that. From my side of things the persecution complex displayed by many Christians is almost unparalleled!

 

[Delphinus85]

Those people were killed, tortured, and sent to the gulags in the name of totalitarianism, not of atheism. Religion is something no government can control, unless it itself is a theocracy (and even then, it only controls one); therefore, it’s dangerous.

Sure, Stalin and Mao aren’t exactly great company for the non-believer. But then, I doubt you appreciate rubbing shoulders with such paragons of theism as Torquemada, Arnaud Amaury, and Montezuma.

But the ideals and morals stem from the inmost belief system. Out of the abundace of the heart the mouth speaks (or in this case, the hand does). The point is, Atheism is a belief, a system of thought, a philosophy. And from that stems actions. And unfortunately Athiests have caused much more death and destruction than any other religion, yes they blame christianity and the belief of God to cause violence and stupidity, despite the fact that in china to this day, you can have reeds punded underneath your fingernails before they kill you just for believing in God. Atheism is in no way innocent.

 

[Mirdath]

But the ideals and morals stem from the inmost belief system. Out of the abundace of the heart the mouth speaks (or in this case, the hand does). The point is, Atheism is a belief, a system of thought, a philosophy. And from that stems actions. And unfortunately Athiests have caused much more death and destruction than any other religion, yes they blame christianity and the belief of God to cause violence and stupidity, despite the fact that in china to this day, you can have reeds punded underneath your fingernails before they kill you just for believing in God. Atheism is in no way innocent.

Atheism or totalitarianism? That the latter may adopt the former does not mean it shapes, guides, controls, or represents it.

 

[Sideline]

I don’t believe there is such a thing as “Methological Atheism”, because atheism (in the TRUE sense of the word) states that there is no “underlying organizational principle” of the universe, and if no underlying “system” is believed to exist, it would be silly to search for it!

Therefore, veritably no one is truly an atheist. They just like to call themselves that because it’s “cool” to be a rebel!

I see. So… the TRUE sense is whatever you’ve decided to make up is it?

I’ve never met anyone believes, nor read anywhere, a definition of atheism that matches yours.

 

[Delphinus85]

Atheism or totalitarianism? That the latter may adopt the former does not mean it shapes, guides, controls, or represents it.

okay, i can accept that. But then, Athesits still need to back off religious folks because with the exception of extremist muslims all religions are commanded to be non-violent.

The thing is, atheism when followed to it’s logical conclusion takes you the fact that there is no morals. There is not even an authority. How do you judge who is in charge? The biggest minds and supporters of atheism suggested it was he with the biggest gun and the bollocks to use it. From this you have Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin…you get the idea.

The pther problem is, atheism is a a problem to nail down, since there is no structure, no guidelines, and no teachings to follow, every atheist represents a different religion if you will. He is his own guide. You can’t make blanket statements to cover all atheists, this is true. But how many atheists do you see putting out ideas of peace, harmony, and tranquility to get through this life in one piece with no suffering involved? Why do you see no atheist charity groups? Why can’t these people of like minds come together to help each other? The big speakers talking from an atheistic worldview have preached messages of death, destruction, control, and hatred. Be it racist like hitler, Religious (under the guise of political) with Stalin, or like some of the big names of atheism today, such as Dawkins, preaches in great hate for christians. Almost suggesting some of the ideals of stalin that they are prunable and a detriment to the human race. As there is no set of morals for atheists to follow (except his own conscience, which is easily warped) what stops them from doing this?

It’s easy to brush of some of the more violent members of the atheist worldview as being nuts, or in it for political gain, but the fact is, it was an atheist worldview that got them there. And we could use the same arguement to disown those who committed acts of violence in the past as christianity is a peaceful religion. You just don’t see atheists being known for good works, helping one another or anything. There are atheist groups out there. They exist to tear down religion, and they do it rather hatefully. There are atheist “camps” where I live where atheist parents send their kids to learn why the bible is trash. There IS some organization. But no good works coming from it.

I know it’s a bible quote, but it’s true. You know a good tree from a bad tree by the fruit it produces. The morals of a totalitarian government and it’s drive stem from a worldview that there is no God and no absolute morals. Totalitarianism, and communism grow out of an atheistic worldview. You can only find support for their ideals in atheism, primarily social darwinism, which started the whole thing. Atheism states boldly only the strong survive (at least in a naturalistic setting, and why shouldn’t it apply to us, since we are smart animals and nothing more), while religions teach that all are equal, and anyone in a hard time needs help, and we need to help! . I suppose on an individual basis, not much harm is done by an atheistic worldview since it can be balanced out with other people, but the times when atheistic thinkers have come together in arenas such as government, horrible things have happened.

 

[Mirdath]

okay, i can accept that. But then, Athesits still need to back off religious folks because with the exception of extremist muslims all religions are commanded to be non-violent.

So should these ‘non-violent’ religions not be reprimanded all the more for their utterly abysmal track record at keeping to that command? And should not those religious people who defend the indefensible be called to task?

I still see people claiming the siege of Beziers was just. Thousands upon thousands of Catholics died at the hands of their brothers in the Vatican’s army just so the papal legate could get at two hundred heretics. It’s the battle that gave us the phrase ‘Kill them all, God will know his own’. Could you let something like that stand in good conscience?

The thing is, atheism when followed to it’s logical conclusion takes you the fact that there is no morals.

It may, or it may not. Morality and ethics need not be grounded in belief in the divine to be absolute.

The biggest minds and supporters of atheism suggested it was he with the biggest gun and the bollocks to use it. From this you have Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin…you get the idea.

Whether Hitler was an atheist is debatable at best. He certainly talked about his faith in Christianity a lot, both in public and in private, and claimed to have ‘stamped out’ the ‘atheist movement’ in '28.

But how many atheists do you see putting out ideas of peace, harmony, and tranquility to get through this life in one piece with no suffering involved?

Quite a lot.

Why do you see no atheist charity groups?

No infrastructure.

Why can’t these people of like minds come together to help each other?

What like minds? The only thing two atheists have to agree on is that they don’t believe in a deity.

As there is no set of morals for atheists to follow (except his own conscience, which is easily warped) what stops them from doing [various horrible things]?

First off, it’s quite possible to be a moral absolutist without faith in the divine. And secondly, it’s the theist’s easily-warped conscience that stops him or her from doing those same things – it’s not like once you believe in God you have a dead-man’s switch installed in your brain.

Totalitarianism, and communism grow out of an atheistic worldview. You can only find support for their ideals in atheism, primarily social darwinism, which started the whole thing.

How shocked would you be to learn that the early Church were communists? Communism isn’t evil, it’s just unworkable on the national scale.

And if I were you, I would read up on Francisco Franco (for one example) before claiming that totalitarianism is only supported by atheism.

Atheism states boldly only the strong survive (at least in a naturalistic setting, and why shouldn’t it apply to us, since we are smart animals and nothing more), while religions teach that all are equal, and anyone in a hard time needs help, and we need to help!

Atheism says nothing of the sort. Atheism says ‘I don’t believe in any God’. One question, one answer. Certain philosophies commonly held to by atheists (Objectivism, for one) may say things like that, but you don’t have to be an Objectivist to be an atheist.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalmDownWisWins
Government is not a “not me experience”. By that phrase I mean an experience where if I don’t believe in it no discernable difference seems evident in “the world”.

What then falls into that category other than religion? Your marriage example is predicated on religion.

Religion is a set of beliefs (dogmas) that a person acts on.

Therefore any “act” is based on one’s religion.

But, what I was getting at was that there ARE some things in life which don’t SEEM to matter if one believes in or not.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
The question of this thread is what social goods atheists bring to the social table.

My proposition is that they bring precisely none, other than the occassional confirmation of the goodness of those goods that are God-based.

So, precisely what good does the atheist mind uniquely bring?

So far as I can tell, plenty of good (hardly ‘occasional’ as you seem to think) and none of it unique – and I do not see the ‘theist mind’ bringing any unique good to the table either. What, if any, do you see?

The question is what UNIQUE goods does atheism bring to “the table”?

Your answer, and mine is NONE.

The “theist” mind, on the other hand, has brought every good to “the table”.

If you say that neither the “atheist” mind nor the “theist” mind bringing any good to “the table”, then where did the GOOD come from?

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Is mankind a thing, or simply an aggregation of isolated units?

Does the universe “make sense” as a (somehow created) creation, or is it just a bunch of stuff that accidently kind-of “works”?

I don’t know. I may find out, or not – but I can accept that there are things I cannot discover in my lifetime. I work with what I have; fortunately or unfortunately, faith and omniscience are not in that collection.

Thanks for your view of the world. It is a very good description. We can all make our own decision as to whether that view is what we individually want or not. And whether there exists an, at least as probable, alternative.

My opinion: There is a much more probable alternative, and it is much more acceptable (enjoyable!) as well. Thanks again.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
My perception of atheists is that they are very quick to claim (complain/whine) they’ve been “misquoted”, instead of responding in correction of those who they feel have misquoted them.

Make the group big enough and you’ll always find people to do that. From my side of things the persecution complex displayed by many Christians is almost unparalleled!

That is most definitely true…!

There’s a MUCH larger group of professing “believers” than professing “unbelievers”, so I’d expect the the amount of whining and complaining coming from the “believing” sector that the other!!

But, I would contend that on a per capita basis, atheists are MUCH more likely to be whiners, because it’s “COOL” to whine when being a victim is the veritable raison d’etre for BEING an atheist.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalmDownWisWins

I don’t believe there is such a thing as “Methological Atheism”, because atheism (in the TRUE sense of the word) states that there is no “underlying organizational principle” of the universe, and if no underlying “system” is believed to exist, it would be silly to search for it!

Therefore, veritably no one is truly an atheist. They just like to call themselves that because it’s “cool” to be a rebel!

I see. So… the TRUE sense is whatever you’ve decided to make up is it?

I’ve never met anyone believes, nor read anywhere, a definition of atheism that matches yours.

My “defintion” of atheism is my (usually) lame attempt at helping others understand a word anyone can look up in the dictionary in as accurate a way as I understand it to mean, in the “present” context"

If you disagree with my particular “meaning”, what good does it do to say “No one else agrees with you!”, when that doesn’t much help me understand why you disagree with me?

So, what is your actual issue with my (provisional within this particualar context) meaning? Thanks.

 

[Sideline]

My “defintion” of atheism is my (usually) lame attempt at helping others understand a word anyone can look up in the dictionary in as accurate a way as I understand it to mean, in the “present” context"

If you disagree with my particular “meaning”, what good does it do to say “No one else agrees with you!”, when that doesn’t much help me understand why you disagree with me?

So, what is your actual issue with my (provisional within this particualar context) meaning? Thanks.

My problem is that you are taking an obscure, or possibly individual, definition of a word to make an argument that supports a position that *a generally agreed *upon definition would not support.

An atheist, at it’s most narrow, is a person who doesn’t believe in “God”. Meaning that they don’t believe in a personified being that created, controls, and judges the world. Usually, an atheist also rejects other supernatural beings as well (fairies, chi, ESP, etc.)

A person can use methodological atheism (removing supernatural explanations for a particular problem) without being philosophically atheist (stating that there are no supernatural beings at all).

You said an atheist is a person who believes

there is no ‘underlying organizational principle’ of the universe

Who believes this? Dawkins doesn’t believe in God, but he clearly believes that the theory of evolution definitely points to an “underlying organizational principle” to life on Earth.

If you think that atheism is completely illogical, fine. But attack it for what it is. Don’t switch definitions until you get the results you like.

You’ve heard of straw man arguments? It’s what you are doing in this thread. You’ve equated “atheism” with “solipsism” then pointed out how irrational solipsism is, and how it doesn’t add any societal value. Well, that’s great, but it doesn’t say anything about the non-value of atheism.

When your definition of theism is

belief that the world makes sense in a comprehensive way that is actually THERE whether any one person believes it or not.

You aren’t really defending theism, you are defending objective realism, which is better than solipsism I’ll grant, but doesn’t really address atheism at all.

Are you trying to say that god is an “organization principle” of the universe? That’s fine if you do. But it is certainly not equivalent with monotheism.

 

[Mirdath]

The “theist” mind, on the other hand, has brought every good to “the table”.

Please back this up, if you don’t mind.

If you say that neither the “atheist” mind nor the “theist” mind bringing any good to “the table”, then where did the GOOD come from?

The question was about unique goods, as you so often remind me. I do not see any social good being exclusive to either mindset.

There’s a MUCH larger group of professing “believers” than professing “unbelievers”, so I’d expect the the amount of whining and complaining coming from the “believing” sector that the other!!

From what I see, it indeed does – but then, neither of us is approaching the question without any bias

But, I would contend that on a per capita basis, atheists are MUCH more likely to be whiners, because it’s “COOL” to whine when being a victim is the veritable raison d’etre for BEING an atheist.

The reason people are atheists is so they can say they’re victims? Not, you know, lack of belief in a deity? That’s a new definition.

 

[Sideline]

The reason people are atheists is so they can say they’re victims? Not, you know, lack of belief in a deity? That’s a new definition.

Oh, Mirdath, of course people become atheists so they can say that they are victims. Look at you, you are one of the biggest whiners that I’ve ever met.

“You are being self-contradictory!”

“That’s a complete non sequiter!”

“You have no evidence to support that!”

“That’s not the definition of that term!”

Whine, whine, whine. When will you grow a back bone and accept facts as others perceive them?