What is Wisdom in Atheist Philosophy?

[Sculptor]

And since we are discussing the thread, it's not only me that has pointed out that there is no such thing as "Atheist Philosophy".

O

Is it just philosophy?

a love of something?

Certainly not Wisdom as defined ONLY by: reason, knowledge, information and experience.

"Atheist Philosophy", is whatever philosophy a particular atheist has. Could be almost anything as long as it includes some kind of skepticism enough to have thought about the idea of god and rejected it.
Given that, any atheist would have had to THINK things through - unlike a theist.

[Skepdick]

"Atheist Philosophy", is whatever philosophy a particular atheist has. Could be almost anything as long as it includes some kind of skepticism enough to have thought about the idea of god and rejected it.

It's not the rejection of the god-idea that makes atheists stupid. By rejecting the God-idea they also reject agnosticism.

It's that epistemically, they shoot themselves in the face with a shotgun.

https://unvarnishedveritas.wordpress.co ... inference/

[Lacewing]

Most people take to thinking like most cats take to swimming.

Hmm... well, that must be your experience/interpretation. It's not mine.

Regurgitating other people's narratives/arguments is not independent thought - it's just fitting in/belonging.

Of course.

Well, I painted both theists and atheists with the "ignoramuses" brush, but if you only want to hear the half that suits you - so be it.

I was responding to your statement: "Most people are atheists as an act of rebelliousness against the status quo, not because they can think for themselves." Regardless of other statements you might make, this statement suggests a characterization of "most atheists", and I think it's skewed and untrue. If it's not a comparison to theists, then why point such a statement at atheists?

Furthermore, it's seems absurd to me to claim that atheism is an act of rebelliousness. And since when did some supposed "status quo" become truth? Seriously, there's so much wrong with that sentence, you shouldn't even question any response you get to it.

[Lacewing]

It's not the rejection of the god-idea that makes atheists stupid. By rejecting the God-idea they also reject agnosticism.

Are you stupid or intelligent for the ideas you reject?

[Skepdick]

Most people take to thinking like most cats take to swimming.

Hmm... well, that must be your experience/interpretation. It's not mine.

Regurgitating other people's narratives/arguments is not independent thought - it's just fitting in/belonging.

Of course.

Here's a fun experiment then - walk into a community where atheists are the majority/norm and challenge atheism on its epistemic shortcomings.

See how quickly you get lynched.

I was responding to your statement: "Most people are atheists as an act of rebelliousness against the status quo, not because they can think for themselves." Regardless of other statements you might make, this statement suggests a characterization of "most atheists", and I think it's skewed and untrue. If it's not a comparison to theists, then why point such a statement at atheists?

Furthermore, it's seems absurd to me to claim that atheism is an act of rebelliousness.

So unpack it then.

How many atheists do you know that were born/raised as atheists from birth, vs how many do you know that were born/raised into some other doctrine but now self-identify as atheists.

The former group probably doesn't even have the word "atheists" in their vocabulary. Being an atheist and self-identifying with it is just not a thing.
The ones that make a big hoo-ha about their "atheism" are usually the latter camp, no? It's a fashion statement; virtue-singling about their superior intellect.

Have you ever watched The Atheist Experience on youtube? It's a circle-jerk!

And since when did some supposed "status quo" become truth?

I have no idea what "truth" is and probably neither do you.

It's just as easy to adopt a philosophical position where one rejects the idea of Truth, as it is trivial to reject the idea of God.

[Skepdick]

Are you stupid or intelligent for the ideas you reject?

I don't discriminate against ideas based on truth-value.
I discriminate against ideas based on utility-value.

Truth, like God, doesn't exist.

Truth-seekers are as ignorant as God-seekers, but for the purposes of social control - I find both ideas equally useful.

[Lacewing]

Here's a fun experiment then - walk into a community where atheists are the majority/norm and challenge atheism on its epistemic shortcomings. See how quickly you get lynched.

There are countless experiments and "unpacking" to yield all sorts of results. You have come up with what serves you. It is limited and skewed.

[Skepdick]

There are countless experiments and "unpacking" to yield all sorts of results. You have come up with what serves you. It is limited and skewed.

I am reporting that atheists are not inherently wiser or smarter than theists.

I am saying that there's no correlation between these two variables.

How is that "skewed", or do you mean that it's "skewed" from your perspective in which one group edges ahead of the other?

[Lacewing]

Are you stupid or intelligent for the ideas you reject?

I don't discriminate against ideas based on truth-value.
I discriminate against ideas based on utility-value.

Utility-value according to you.

So why do you call other people stupid for rejecting ideas that they do not see any utility-value in?

[Lacewing]

There are countless experiments and "unpacking" to yield all sorts of results. You have come up with what serves you. It is limited and skewed.

I am reporting that atheists are not inherently wiser or smarter than theists. I am saying that there's no correlation between these two variables.

I can agree with this.

How is that "skewed", or do you mean that it's "skewed" from your perspective in which one group edges ahead of the other?

That's not what you said. What you said was skewed. I pointed out to you the claim you made that I was responding to. And now you're trying to project onto me.

[Skepdick]

Utility-value according to you.

So why do you call other people stupid for rejecting ideas that they do not see any utility-value in?

Because you are the one who insists that people can think for themselves?

If other people find the God-idea useful, what does that have to do with you accepting or rejecting what other people find useful?

Agnosticism is the default position - anybody who falls off the wagon and rationalises their belief OR disbelief is "stupid" from an epistemic viewpoint.

[Lacewing]

Utility-value according to you.

So why do you call other people stupid for rejecting ideas that they do not see any utility-value in?

Because you are the one who insists that people can think for themselves?

If other people find the God-idea useful, what does that have to do with you accepting or rejecting what other people find useful?

What? I don't know what you're saying.

Yes, I think that people can think for themselves.

And I think people can use whatever works for them, that they find useful. That doesn't mean I find it useful, nor that I'm stupid for not finding it useful. Do you see?

You have claimed that atheists are stupid to reject a god-idea. Why are you saying that? Are YOU stupid for the ideas you reject? If you reject the idea of flying elephants, are YOU stupid? Why did you make such a statement?

[uwot]

Regurgitating other people's narratives/arguments is not independent thought - it's just fitting in/belonging.

So how are we to interpret your many wikipedia links?

[Skepdick]

Yes, I think that people can think for themselves.

And I think people can use whatever works for them, that they find useful. That doesn't mean I find it useful, nor that I'm stupid for not finding it useful. Do you see?

You have claimed that atheists are stupid to reject a god-idea. Why are you saying that?

It''s none of your business to reject an idea whose utility you don't understand.

Are YOU stupid for the ideas you reject? If you reject the idea of flying elephants, are YOU stupid? Why did you make such a statement?

You are misunderstanding. I don't "reject" any ideas - rejection is an active behaviour.

Flying elephants? Cool! What is there to "reject"?

[Skepdick]

So how are we to interpret your many wikipedia links?

However you wish.

I am not regurgitating other people's narratives or arguments - I am pointing you to them (so I don't have to regurgitate them; or re-invent them).

Here's a hammer. Use it - don't use it.