Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Greta »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jul 25, 2017 2:42 am
Greta wrote: Tue Jul 25, 2017 12:01 am Secular society has huge amounts to say...
Maybe. But nothing it can rationally justify. It's all just talk, without any proof it's right-minded talk, or that it entails any obligation at all for those disinclined to believe any of it.

There's no value in mere opinions, if those opinions cannot be shown to be right. That's just noise.
Your book of myths can provide no rational justification. It's certainly be the cause of a lot of white noise and worse too.

More modern morality is worked out via consensus over time.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9565
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Harbal »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Tue Jul 25, 2017 2:00 am Harbal is confusing himself with his avatar.
Actually, it has more to do with me making an error of judgement in the first place but you could be right about the avater as well.
Belinda
Posts: 8035
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Belinda »

Lacewing wrote: Tue Jul 25, 2017 3:37 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jul 25, 2017 3:23 am It's all just talk, without any proof it's right-minded talk, or that it entails any obligation at all for those disinclined to believe any of it.

There's no value in mere opinions, if those opinions cannot be shown to be right. That's just noise.
Lacewing wrote: Tue Jul 25, 2017 3:03 am Do you think this doesn't describe you?
Ad hominem. It wouldn't matter, either way.

It's an ideology were talking about, not a person.
I thought you would understand my challenge about how the comparison of what you said could apply to what you say in this forum. So, I'll rephrase: Do you think the same assessment and conditions that you've given for secularism -- all just talk without proof, mere opinions, and noise -- applies to your favored ideologies as well?

Can Immanuel Can answer Lacewing without Immanuel's usual slithering away somewhere else?
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by uwot »

Belinda wrote: Tue Jul 25, 2017 9:45 amCan Immanuel Can answer Lacewing without Immanuel's usual slithering away somewhere else?
He's not really slithering away; he simply has no interest in addressing issues that don't fit within his narrative. He has a story, and he's sticking to it. It is based on a few simple premises: god exists, he is good, mankind is free to accept or deny this, they are well and truly fucked if they don't, blah, blah, blah. He is happy to discuss the internal logic of this story, which he is desperate to believe and have confirmed, but anything that challenges that story, is not going to do that, and doesn't suit his needs.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Immanuel Can »

Greta wrote: Tue Jul 25, 2017 5:33 am Your book of myths can provide no rational justification.
You'd need to show what reasons and evidence you have for your position. To assert "there is no," or "can provide no" is an absolute word, and is a claim to knowledge.

Show the basis of that knowledge claim, if you have any, please. Otherwise, should we assume your own statement "can provide no rational justification"? And how then would you expect us to regard it?
More modern morality is worked out via consensus over time.
I fear that that's a poor proposal, with many problems. And I'm certain you can anticipate some yourself.

One is that you really can't tell when it's "working out" and when it's not, without reference to some fixed belief about morality that you have already denied can exist. How would you know, for example, that ISIL is less "worked out" than Western liberalism, without some basis in a fixed moral ideology that is neither ISIL nor Western Liberalism, but rather a meta-moral standard by which you are able to rightly judge both?

But a second problem is "consensus." For it really means no more than that the majority opinion at a given moment must always be allowed to win -- and that by power alone, not by any actual moral "betterness." For if you say, "The consensus position is "better" than the non-consensus view, then you've steamrolled over all the minorities -- and you've also had to refer again to that meta-moral standard, that objective moral truth that you have asserted cannot possibly exist.

That's why "modern morality" is so very nearly an oxymoron: at least, it most certainly is, if modern relativism is assumed to be true.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Immanuel Can »

Lacewing wrote: Tue Jul 25, 2017 3:37 am Do you think the same assessment and conditions that you've given for secularism -- all just talk without proof, mere opinions, and noise -- applies to your favored ideologies as well?
Of course not. If I did, why would I believe them? Would you believe something without these things?
Belinda
Posts: 8035
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jul 25, 2017 3:41 pm
Lacewing wrote: Tue Jul 25, 2017 3:37 am Do you think the same assessment and conditions that you've given for secularism -- all just talk without proof, mere opinions, and noise -- applies to your favored ideologies as well?
Of course not. If I did, why would I believe them? Would you believe something without these things?
I cannot speak for Lacewing, but I have doubts about what I prefer to believe.
Immanuel , I think that you are absolutely certain that what you believe is God's truth. Perhaps not, perhaps you are uncertain but won't admit to uncertainty. Like "God, I would believe so help thou mine unbelief".
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Lacewing »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jul 25, 2017 3:41 pm
Lacewing wrote: Tue Jul 25, 2017 3:37 am Do you think the same assessment and conditions that you've given for secularism -- all just talk without proof, mere opinions, and noise -- applies to your favored ideologies as well?
Of course not. If I did, why would I believe them?
I wondered if you could admit such a one-sided flaw to your thinking. What you apply to others, does not apply to yourself. And what you ascribe to yourself, you do not ascribe to others. You appear proud and totally oblivious to the blindness of doing that... if you can just keep trying to explain it the way you want it. Fascinating!
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by uwot »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jul 25, 2017 3:39 pm
Greta wrote: Tue Jul 25, 2017 5:33 am Your book of myths can provide no rational justification.
You'd need to show what reasons and evidence you have for your position. To assert "there is no," or "can provide no" is an absolute word, and is a claim to knowledge.
Mr Can, that isn't how evidence works. If some clot claims that Usain Bolt can run 100m in under 4 seconds, the evidence that he can't, is all the times he hasn't. It is up to those making the claim to draw our attention to the occasions when he has.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jul 25, 2017 3:39 pm Show the basis of that knowledge claim, if you have any, please. Otherwise, should we assume your own statement "can provide no rational justification"? And how then would you expect us to regard it?
"Us"? You and who, Mr Can?
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jul 25, 2017 3:39 pm How would you know, for example, that ISIL is less "worked out" than Western liberalism, without some basis in a fixed moral ideology that is neither ISIL nor Western Liberalism, but rather a meta-moral standard by which you are able to rightly judge both?
You should not confuse the bible with a "meta-moral standard". Where it pertains to morality, it is just one of many deontological diktats.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jul 25, 2017 3:39 pm That's why "modern morality" is so very nearly an oxymoron: at least, it most certainly is, if modern relativism is assumed to be true.
The two are not contiguous, Mr Can.
Seriously Mr Can, if you wish to persuade others that you are not an idiot, stop behaving like an idiot.
Impenitent
Posts: 4332
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Impenitent »

uwot wrote: If some clot claims that Usain Bolt can run 100m in under 4 seconds, the evidence that he can't, is all the times he hasn't. It is up to those making the claim to draw our attention to the occasions when he has.
he couldn't fall (to Earth) 100m in under 4 seconds

clods are fun too...

-Imp
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Greta »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jul 25, 2017 3:39 pm
Greta wrote: Tue Jul 25, 2017 5:33 am Your book of myths can provide no rational justification.
You'd need to show what reasons and evidence you have for your position. To assert "there is no," or "can provide no" is an absolute word, and is a claim to knowledge.

Show the basis of that knowledge claim, if you have any, please. Otherwise, should we assume your own statement "can provide no rational justification"? And how then would you expect us to regard it?
The numerous wrong claims of the Bible that were once believed and since disproved is a rational justification. Meanwhile, the various books of the Bible significantly contradict each other, resulting in all manner of cherry picking.

Can you provide evidence for how your book of myths provides any a rational justification for morality - or anything?
Immanuel Can wrote:
More modern morality is worked out via consensus over time.
I fear that that's a poor proposal, with many problems. And I'm certain you can anticipate some yourself.
Who is proposing? I am observing. What I have observed is that pragmatic governance seems to be both more efficient and significantly more moral than the world's theocracies.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Immanuel Can »

Greta wrote: Wed Jul 26, 2017 8:50 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jul 25, 2017 3:39 pm The numerous wrong claims of the Bible that were once believed and since disproved is a rational justification. Meanwhile, the various books of the Bible significantly contradict each other, resulting in all manner of cherry picking.
Evidence needs to be specific. You can't convince based on vague generalities like the above. Show your evidence, please.
Can you provide evidence for how your book of myths provides any a rational justification for morality - or anything?

You've assumed the conclusion you want in the premise of your statement: a fallacy called "begging the question." You need to justify the statement "book of myths." You cannot expect skeptics to accept that pejorative without evidence.
Immanuel Can wrote:
More modern morality is worked out via consensus over time.
I fear that that's a poor proposal, with many problems. And I'm certain you can anticipate some yourself.
Who is proposing? I am observing. What I have observed is that pragmatic governance seems to be both more efficient and significantly more moral than the world's theocracies.
How do you know what "more moral" consists of? You can't use the "consensus" criterion to identify it, because if you do you've just created a circular argument that reads like, "That which is consensus is more moral, and I know because something is more moral if consensus." You would need a standard outside of and above all consensus-models and all "theocratic" models (though nobody here is, to my knowledge, advocating theocracy -- that's a second instance of a problematic premise), one capable of giving you the power of judging both. So what is your universal model from which you are able to launch this claim to the moral superiority of consensus models?
Last edited by Immanuel Can on Tue Aug 01, 2017 10:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Immanuel Can »

Lacewing wrote: Tue Jul 25, 2017 4:31 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jul 25, 2017 3:41 pm
Lacewing wrote: Tue Jul 25, 2017 3:37 am Do you think the same assessment and conditions that you've given for secularism -- all just talk without proof, mere opinions, and noise -- applies to your favored ideologies as well?
Of course not. If I did, why would I believe them?
I wondered if you could admit such a one-sided flaw to your thinking. What you apply to others, does not apply to yourself.

Incorrect. I was not granting you that my "favoured ideology" is "without proof." I was contesting that assumption. So of course it doesn't apply. You wouldn't apply it to whatever "favoured ideology" you believe -- at least, I hope you wouldn't -- because if you did, you'd be admitting you don't care for "proof" or better, for evidence.

If nothing else, then on the principle of charity, I would tend to give you the credit for at least imagining that your "favoured ideology" had something going for it in the way of "proof" or evidence, even if I thought you were ultimately wrong about it.

I claim only the same: that I have good reasons for believing what I believe. That is what I am saying...nothing of the "one-sided" view you wrongly attribute to me.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Tue Jul 25, 2017 4:20 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jul 25, 2017 3:41 pm
Lacewing wrote: Tue Jul 25, 2017 3:37 am Do you think the same assessment and conditions that you've given for secularism -- all just talk without proof, mere opinions, and noise -- applies to your favored ideologies as well?
Of course not. If I did, why would I believe them? Would you believe something without these things?
I cannot speak for Lacewing, but I have doubts about what I prefer to believe.
Everybody does. Human knowledge is not an absolute, but rather a continuum. Everything we decide, no matter how firmly we may decide it, or on what evidence we think we hold it, is an admixture of belief and doubt. That's faith. And we all do "faith" of some kind. All that changes is the proportion of evidence to doubt in each case.

But I think we'd agree that we should not believe what we "prefer," but rather what the evidence best supports, no?
...perhaps you are uncertain but won't admit to uncertainty.
See above. I do.
Like "God, I would believe so help thou mine unbelief"...
Actually, the quotation goes, "I do believe...help thou my unbelief." It's not a plea for power to believe something a person doesn't actually think is true, but rather a frank admission of the thing I said above: that every belief is composed of proportions of both conviction and of uncertainty, of faith and doubt...and we always struggle with the doubt portion, no matter how big or small it may be, if we are trying to sustain our convictions about something.

But that's just what it means to be human. We are knowers in a contingent, not absolute way. The absolute possession of certainty is a prerogative of God alone.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Greta »

Greta wrote: Wed Jul 26, 2017 8:50 amThe numerous wrong claims of the Bible that were once believed and since disproved is a rational justification. Meanwhile, the various books of the Bible significantly contradict each other, resulting in all manner of cherry picking.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Aug 01, 2017 6:11 pmEvidence needs to be specific. You can't convince based on vague generalities like the above. Show your evidence, please.
Too much to list. To start, so-called "evil spirits" that were "treated" with exorcism turned out to be infections. It's a book of ancient myths - like all the others.
G wrote:Can you provide evidence for how your book of myths provides any a rational justification for morality - or anything?
Immanuel Can wrote:You've assumed the conclusion you want in the premise of your statement: a fallacy called "begging the question." You need to justify the statement "book of myths." You cannot expect skeptics to accept that pejorative without evidence.
You are squirming.

Noah's ark. The Garden of Eden. Creation in six days. Jonah and the whale. Virgin birth. Resurrection. Walking on water. The feeding of the 4,000. Miracle healing. Evil (bacterial) spirits.

These are myths. The applicability of the various myths, moral tales and metaphors to reality is open to question. However, their mythological status is usually not amongst educated people. Many educated theists would agree with what I just noted, as you would be aware.

Some theists, however, have emotional reasons for continuing to believe in such magical things, which is fine if it works for them. Life is not easy and most of us seem to need little crutches. I sure do. I also note that your crutch is probably much better for your health than mine. Alas, I can't believe in myths so that particular salve is not available to me.


G wrote:Who is proposing? I am observing. What I have observed is that pragmatic governance seems to be both more efficient and significantly more moral than the world's theocracies.
Immanuel Can wrote:How do you know what "more moral" consists of? You can't use the "consensus" criterion to identify it, because if you do you've just created a circular argument that reads like, "That which is consensus is more moral, and I know because something is more moral if consensus."
Nope.

I am just pointing out the history. Morality has gradually been hammered out in different regions through the experience gained by those societies over time. Various ideas and systems come and go in a constant maturing and refining process. It's not wildly unlike natural selection with competition and cooperation of life performing a constantly unstable and shifting dance that theism itself is certainly not immune from.
Post Reply