Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

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 »

davidm wrote: Mon Jul 03, 2017 8:23 pm

... you are a Christian apologist; i.e, a liar
Still haven't figured out what an ad hominem fallacy is? :D

You don't realize -- I don't care what you say about me. I really don't. Even if it were all true, the ad hominem fallacy would show that it would not go a single step toward rationally disproving anything I said. So what could it possibly matter?

You really should read that link...
...not good...evil...evil God...sociopath...evil.
Ah. So now you've lost your Atheism? :D

These are all moral terms, terms that refer to things AS IF morality existed and was a real thing. But you cannot believe that.

None of the above terms have any objective referent if we live in the world of Atheism. Nothing is "not good" or "evil," and there are no "sociopaths." There are only morally-indifferent choices made by different people. :shock:

But Atheists know they are lying. They don't want to live in an amoral world -- nobody can. So, like you are doing here, they borrow terms from a world in which there are objective moral values and facts: lying is wrong, sociopaths are abnormal, good is right, evil is wrong, and so on. But they've already denied these terms have any meaning whatsoever.

In the real world, we call that "irrational" or "logically inconsistent" if we're being nice; "hypocritical" if we are not pulling punches. But then, we can use those terms with objective meaning...no such luck for the Atheist.

Ask yourself why you cannot even write one message without invoking so many moral terms. If your Atheism was what you really believed and practiced, that is exactly what you would have to do.
Last edited by Immanuel Can on Mon Jul 03, 2017 11:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by davidm »

I can’t help but be amused by what people attribute to atheists. For example, in this thread it is charged that atheists wish to extinguish the very idea of Christianity from the minds of humankind! :lol: Or to go easy on Muslims and permit the introduction of Sharia law into the U.S. — as if that is happening any place at all (it isn’t). One wonders, though — why in hell would atheists want to see Sharia law imposed?

As for myself, an atheist, I am appalled and disgusted by the oppression of the freedom of religion, particularly where it is most egregiously practiced, such as in China, and in some Muslim countries where Christian minorities are targeted and even killed.

Some atheists also have this problem of privileging atheism. Over the last decade we had to put up with the gag-inducing concepts of Atheists as the “Brights” (elite in their knowledge and sagacity) and of “Atheism Plus” yada yada. These efforts to, so to say, beatify atheists went very far afield of the original concept of atheism — a simple belief that no deities exist, full stop.

These efforts crashed and burned because especially online, vast numbers of atheists revealed themselves to be turds.

Nothing else follows from atheism — the belief that no deities exist. This nonbelief in deities does not make atheists handsomer, smarter, sexier, or better in any way than theists.

In fact, people like ICan are also atheists, up to a point. They disbelieve in all the gods that have ever been made up, except for one.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by davidm »

I can’t help but be amused by what people attribute to atheists. For example, in this thread it is charged that atheists wish to extinguish the very idea of Christianity from the minds of humankind! :lol: Or to go easy on Muslims and permit the introduction of Sharia law into the U.S. — as if that is happening any place at all (it isn’t). One wonders, though — why in hell would atheists want to see Sharia law imposed?

As for myself, an atheist, I am appalled and disgusted by the oppression of the freedom of religion, particularly where this oppression is most egregiously practiced, such as in China, and in some Muslim countries where Christian minorities are targeted and even killed.

Over the last decade we had to put up with the gag-inducing concepts of Atheists as the “Brights” (elite in their knowledge and sagacity) and of “Atheism Plus” yada yada. These efforts to, so to say, beatify atheists went very far afield of the original concept of atheism — a simple belief that no deities exist, full stop.

These efforts crashed and burned because especially online, vast numbers of atheists revealed themselves to be turds.

Nothing else follows from atheism — the belief that no deities exist. This nonbelief in deities does not make atheists handsomer, smarter, sexier, or better in any way than theists.

In fact, people like ICan are also atheists, up to a point. They disbelieve in all the gods that have ever been made up, except for one.
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 »

davidm wrote: Mon Jul 03, 2017 9:52 pm In fact, people like ICan are also atheists, up to a point. They disbelieve in all the gods that have ever been made up, except for one.
Not relevant, really. Why would your assumption be that a Theist was obliged to accept, not just a true view of God, but also every false, partially-false or confused version of God or gods? :shock: That would be absurd: you wouldn't suppose that in any other realm of knowledge.

It would be like saying, "All mathematicians are obligated not only to know that 2 + 2 = 4 , but also to accept that it = 24, and that it = 1007," or they can't be real mathematicians."

Nobody could even make up logic that bad.

P.S. -- Oh, I stand corrected: I remember Dawkins actually tried to float that argument, in "The God Delusion" debate. :shock:
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by uwot »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jul 03, 2017 11:25 pmWhy would your assumption be that a Theist was obliged to accept, not just a true view of God, but also every false, partially-false or confused version of God or gods? :shock:

A theist is not obliged to believe a true view of god. Any old nonsense will do and given the vast range, the likelihood of any theist having a true view of god, assuming such a creature exists, is vanishingly small. Frankly Mr Can, nothing you have posted suggests that your odds are particularly favourable.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jul 03, 2017 11:25 pmThat would be absurd: you wouldn't suppose that in any other realm of knowledge.
It would be like saying, "All mathematicians are obligated not only to know that 2 + 2 = 4 , but also to accept that it = 24, and that it = 1007," or they can't be real mathematicians."
Nobody could even make up logic that bad.
P.S. -- Oh, I stand corrected: I remember Dawkins actually tried to float that argument, in "The God Delusion" debate. :shock:
Oh really? Perhaps you could point us to where.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Arising_uk »

Immanuel Can wrote:Not relevant, really. Why would your assumption be that a Theist was obliged to accept, not just a true view of God, but also every false, partially-false or confused version of God or gods? :shock: That would be absurd: you wouldn't suppose that in any other realm of knowledge. ...
But IC isn't being asked to accept a false or partially false or confused version of 'God' or 'God's? Just does he hold no belief in them? If he does then he is an atheist with respect to them.
It would be like saying, "All mathematicians are obligated not only to know that 2 + 2 = 4 , but also to accept that it = 24, and that it = 1007," or they can't be real mathematicians."...
This is an odd example to use as mathematicians accept all these answers they just view them as false.
Nobody could even make up logic that bad.
IC appears to have as much understanding of Logic as he does Mathematics
P.S. -- Oh, I stand corrected: I remember Dawkins actually tried to float that argument, in "The God Delusion" debate. :shock:
What debate, I thought it a book?
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: Mon Jul 03, 2017 11:25 pm
davidm wrote: Mon Jul 03, 2017 9:52 pmIn fact, people like ICan are also atheists, up to a point. They disbelieve in all the gods that have ever been made up, except for one.
Not relevant, really. Why would your assumption be that a Theist was obliged to accept, not just a true view of God, but also every false, partially-false or confused version of God or gods? :shock: That would be absurd: you wouldn't suppose that in any other realm of knowledge.

It would be like saying, "All mathematicians are obligated not only to know that 2 + 2 = 4 , but also to accept that it = 24, and that it = 1007," or they can't be real mathematicians."

Nobody could even make up logic that bad.
Dawkins's logic was spot on. By contrast, your "logic" above is terrible, and could just as easily be used by a Muslim to make the same claim about their religion.
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 04, 2017 5:31 am Dawkins's logic was spot on.
:D
That's pretty funny.

Do you even know what Dawkins said? He thinks that it's the same to disbelieve in Zeus, Astarte, or Odin as to disbelieve in the rational conception of a Supreme Being. You think that's "spot on" logic? :shock:

Well, first thing: they're not even the same concept. Zeus, for example, even by Greek account, is a contingent being, a created entity, with a birth and a death. Moreover, he presides only temporarily over a limited realm of a cosmos that existed before he ever appeared; his brother, Poseidon, handles the seas, Hades the underworld, Aphrodite love, Apollo the arts, and so on. And whereas a First Cause is not only a rational conception but is a logically necessary one for a linear, causal universe, Zeus or Odin aren't even necessary to have at all.

But Dawkins thinks it's all the same.

There's only one thing about which Dawkins knows less than about religion; and that's the field of Ethics. But when he talks about either, he just gets funny.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Arising_uk »

Immanuel Can wrote: :D
That's pretty funny. ...
What's even funnier is that you appear to not be an atheist with respect to these other 'God's'. So you accept that they exist or existed? :lol:
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 04, 2017 5:31 am ...could just as easily be used by a Muslim to make the same claim about their religion.
That is, in fact, exactly what Islam does. But it's also what Atheism does. It's what every ideology does. Even carte-blanche Relativists insist that Relativism is "true" and objective truth is not (Nobody said Relativists had to be smart! :D ).

The question people debate is not really whether there IS a truth -- whether about 2+2, or about the existence or non-existence of God -- they really only debate which answer IS the truth. :shock:

At the end of the day, every one of us is a truth-absolutist.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by surreptitious57 »

Immanuel Can wrote:
But Atheists know they are lying. They do not want to live in an amoral world - nobody can. So like you are doing here they borrow terms from
a world in which there are objective moral values and facts : lying is wrong and sociopaths are abnormal and good is right and evil is wrong and
so on. But they have already denied these terms have any meaning whatsoever
It is not that they do not have any meaning but that it is subjective instead of objective. Furthermore morality has an evolutionary psychological origin not a religious one based on the wellbeing of the demographic in question. Anything detrimental to the stability or survival of it is deemed bad and discouraged and punished. Whereas anything deemed beneficial to it is deemed good and encouraged and rewarded. And the principle is true regardless of whether the demographic is religious or non religious. It may be more rigorously enforced in religious ones but this is academic
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 04, 2017 4:05 pm
Greta wrote: Tue Jul 04, 2017 5:31 am Dawkins's logic was spot on.
:D
That's pretty funny.

Do you even know what Dawkins said? He thinks that it's the same to disbelieve in Zeus, Astarte, or Odin as to disbelieve in the rational conception of a Supreme Being. You think that's "spot on" logic? :shock:

Well, first thing: they're not even the same concept. Zeus, for example, even by Greek account, is a contingent being, a created entity, with a birth and a death. Moreover, he presides only temporarily over a limited realm of a cosmos that existed before he ever appeared; his brother, Poseidon, handles the seas, Hades the underworld, Aphrodite love, Apollo the arts, and so on. And whereas a First Cause is not only a rational conception but is a logically necessary one for a linear, causal universe, Zeus or Odin aren't even necessary to have at all.
It irks me to see so much denigration of the brilliant and decent Prof Dawkins. Try actually reading and understanding his work. Sure, he gets things wrong like other humans and I side with EO Wilson against him in their debates, but he is a great thinker and teacher.

Zeus and Yahweh are both constructs of ancient mythology. Claiming that reality-as-we-know-it's First Cause has a mind and personality (as we know them) is only better than believing in Zeus and stable of deities by a small degree. Personally, I suspect that the universe had about as much sentience in its conception as we had in our conception, ie. basically none. The universe may well increasingly grow more sentient parts which could eventually combine to form deity-like beings, but the BB was chaotic.
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 »

surreptitious57 wrote: Tue Jul 04, 2017 8:53 pm ...morality has an evolutionary psychological origin...
This isn't the issue. It's not the origin of morality that needs to be established...it's its legitimacy. It wouldn't matter where it came from if it were not legitimate anyway.

If morality comes from gradualist (evolutionary) origins, or culture, or religion, or mythology, or psychology, or social convention, or little green men does not change anything. What matters is that Atheism can give us reason to believe that however it got its account of morality, that account of morality is correct and obligatory for us.

That, they simply cannot do.
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 05, 2017 12:40 am It irks me to see so much denigration of the brilliant and decent Prof Dawkins.
Oh. I guess you know a different Richard Dawkins. I know this one: https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... reputation
... he is a great thinker and teacher.
Maybe in biology. Definitely not in Religion or Ethics.

And by the way, you can see that he did, in fact, say exactly the stupid thing I attributed to him if you watch "The God Delusion Debate". It's on YouTube, and you can watch him do it live.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by surreptitious57 »

Immanuel Can wrote:
What matters is that Atheism can give us reason to believe that however it got its account of morality that account is correct and obligatory for us
There is no such thing as a correct and obligatory form of morality and atheism has nothing to say about morality anyway
It is the non acceptance of a specific truth claim with regard to the existence of a specific type of deity and nothing else
Post Reply