Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: The Problem with Atheism (Read 205333 times)

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #651 –
Have you ever read a news item about an atheist suicide bomber?

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #652 –
Truly excellent picture jimbro and a grilled Span sandwich (meat not the bread and butter) is magnifico. You have ably reminded me to get a tin so thanks.
"Quit you like men:be strong"

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #653 –
i sometimes getting really tired with the People and their -isms .

well, perhaps this is just an apriori
but it seems what people want from -isms is not the truth   .
what they want exactly  is social community .
They are searching another people With similar appetite  with them .

since human will always  be a human .
human sometimes also have  herd mentality .

methaporically , Birds of a feather flock together .

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #655 –
Quote from: Jimbro3738 on

Quote from: tt92 on

Have you ever read a news item about an atheist suicide bomber?

http://thelapine.ca/atheist-suicide-bomber-kills-eighteen-agnostics-0/
:jester:

Quote
Yet Mr. Reinfeldt’s message seems to be falling on deaf ears as prominent agnostic leaders and bloggers have already [...]

No posters? just leaders and bloggers?
I see... Agnostic posters are already creating their own faction. Well done folks, your leaders are betraying you and working for the infamous Atheists.

Or maybe poster's wars are simply too much underground and cov-ops to appear in the "news"... :)
A matter of attitude.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #656 –
Quote from: Belfrager on
I see... Agnostic posters are already creating their own faction. Well done folks, your leaders are betraying you and working for the infamous Atheists....

....who never launched an atheist Children's Crusade as our Christian friends did.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #657 –
Quote from: Jimbro3738 on
....who never launched an atheist Children's Crusade as our Christian friends did.

You should try, it gives you points in the global score.
As I see it, Sunnites/Shiites competition it's the Top Level pros of religion wrestling, at least since Christians have retired. Agnostic /Protestant/Atheists are minor leagues with no impact in the world of sports religions.
The rest are amateurs.
A matter of attitude.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #658 –
When Frenzie brought up the so-called Outsider Test, I immediately suspected it was a sham. Now at a closer look - it is indeed just a sham.

The Outsider Test is not even a test really. The test invites religious people "to subject their own faith to the same level of skepticism they use when examining the other religious faiths they reject", i.e. the test presupposes that religious people have not done this yet. Thus the test is nothing but an insult of intelligence.

John Loftus, the populariser of the Outsider Test, makes much of the childhood indoctrination theory of religiousness, and particularly invites to examine one's own upbringing with skepticism. However, for example in Islamic tradition there's a saying attribute to Muhammad himself, "Every child has in him the germ of Islam, then his parents make him Jew, Christian, or Zoroastrian." So there, religious people have been through this examination and it's just an insult to assume they haven't.

(Incidentally, neoatheists have vulgarised and adopted the same saying, by substituting Islam with atheism in the saying. This is a double boomerang of their own ignorance that atheists are hitting themselves with.)

Further, the test is an insult of intelligence because, superficially, it's an invitation to intellectual honesty and to balanced critical thinking. However, by targeting specifically religious people and by excluding atheists from the invitation to critically examine their own beliefs, the test fails by its own standard and reveals a cognitive bias.

This latter problem with the test I identified immediately as Frenzie brought up the so-called test. How was I able to identify this problem? Because I approach any and all beliefs and propositions - crucially including my own - with critical thinking. So when the test fails this obvious basic principle, it's exposed as not even a test, but a mere intellectual sham and insult.

Furthermore, Frenzie brought up the test in connection with Russell's Teapot, as if there were a connection. According to Frenzie, Russell's Teapot is what God looks like to outsiders. Now, God may look equivalent or similar to Russell's Teapot when you deliberately ignore what God really is like (specifically, when you ignore that God is immaterial and therefore undetectable in principle, whereas Russell's Teapot is material, too small to be detected). So, Russell's Teapot can have equivalence or similarity only by way of either strawmanning or ignorant mistake.

I personally would give Russell some benefit of the doubt here, even though it requires some effort. I think Russell was only ridiculing fundamentalist literalists. As knowledgeable as Russell is known to be, he must have known his teapot had no bearing on mainstream definition of God. Inasmuch as this is so, Russell's Teapot has no connection to the Outsider Test, because Outsider Test is not a ridicule. The Outsider Test pretends to be a tool of evaluation by impartial standard, but isn't, so it's in a more devious category compared to Russell's Teapot. The only shared characteristic of each of these is that they are not rational arguments and they don't address mainstream religion.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #659 –
Everyone is so keen to persecute or be persecuted!


I would be a Theophobist, but can't see the point of it.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #660 –
Quote from: ersi on
i.e. the test presupposes that religious people have not done this yet. Thus the test is nothing but an insult of intelligence.

I suppose you have the data to back up your far fetched guess on what religious people have done?  I suppose you may have done some critical thinking yourself, but I doubt that any large number of religious people have done the same.  I base this on the fact that religious belief cannot survive in an environment of reason and critical thinking.  Religion relies on faith and encourages it followers to use intuition alone to support their belief.  Furthermore, most Christians I have spoken with don't even know the basis of other religions, including, in many instances, their own.  Western Christians are too affluent to be very concerned about any religious matters other than for propriety's sake or those that make headline news. 

Religious affiliation is largely determined by that of one's parents and native country.  If indeed most religious people have accepted the Outsider Test challenge in earnest, one would expect to see more of a patchwork of religious affiliations throughout the world.  Most people just go with the flow and follow the path of least resistance--I think you know that.  Moreover, one's style of thinking comes into play with religious belief.  Most people use the simple (perhaps even innate), system of thinking intuitively; this relies on shortcuts and other rules-of-thumb--call it System A.  Critical thinking, System B, requires one to be analytical and meticulous which is a much slower method and actually requires effort. 

Since System B thinking requires a lot of effort, the majority of us tend to rely on our System A thinking processes when possible which would also explain why 3 out of 4 Americans hold at least one belief in the paranormal (ESP, haunted houses, ghosts, etc.).  System A is that path of least resistance most people go with to move on to more relevant and pressing issues in their busy lives.  No religion will ever encourage System B thinking because encouraging people to think analytically reduces their tendency to believe in God, while encouraging people to think intuitively increases people’s belief in God. 

The Outsider Test is not an insult to anyone's intelligence, save those like you ersi, who rely on intuition for problem solving.   :knight:  :cheers:
James J

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #661 –
Quote from: jseaton2311 on

Quote from: ersi on
i.e. the test presupposes that religious people have not done this yet. Thus the test is nothing but an insult of intelligence.

I suppose you have the data to back up your far fetched guess on what religious people have done?

I gave the data: A statement attributed to Muhammad, which makes the lesson contained therein close to 1500 years old. You didn't notice it because you either (a) deliberately insult my intelligence or (b) lack the analytical skills necessary to examine the data. Or (c) both.

Quote from: jseaton2311 on

Most people just go with the flow and follow the path of least resistance--I think you know that.

Yes, I know it. I see you doing it all the time.

Quote from: jseaton2311 on

Moreover, one's style of thinking comes into play with religious belief.  Most people use the simple (perhaps even innate), system of thinking intuitively; this relies on shortcuts and other rules-of-thumb--call it System A.  Critical thinking, System B, requires one to be analytical and meticulous which is a much slower method and actually requires effort. 

Since System B thinking requires a lot of effort, the majority of us tend to rely on our System A thinking processes when possible which would also explain why 3 out of 4 Americans hold at least one belief in the paranormal (ESP, haunted houses, ghosts, etc.).  System A is that path of least resistance most people go with to move on to more relevant and pressing issues in their busy lives.  No religion will ever encourage System B thinking because encouraging people to think analytically reduces their tendency to believe in God, while encouraging people to think intuitively increases people’s belief in God.

Furthermore, since System B requires a lot of effort, and also religion as per System A demands following certain dogmas, we have atheists who follow the path of very least resistance, call it System 0. Namely, instead of trying to follow a creed, to live up to some standards or even to keep up appearances - which all require some effort - atheists follow their own desires, whatever their mind or heart picks up for the time being. This requires no effort at all and has no focus either. Focus would entail effort and we don't want that, do we.

Seriously, dude, the theory of childhood indoctrination is a bad theory on multiple levels. It presupposes that (all) people are stupid and never grow up (except the one who holds the theory of childhood indoctrination, obviously, thus making the adherent of the theory a sort of puppet master, which is quite an attitude problem if your intention is to make the world a better place). It precludes "spiritual shopping in the marketplace of ideas", conversion and realisation (i.e. the theory requires to ignore concrete facts of human life, thus making it unsuitable for dealing with reality). It ignores that atheists can be - and are - uncritical of their own presuppositions the same as the theists that they criticise. It is perfectly predisposed to overlook the excesses of atheist indoctrination in atheist societies. Etc. I'd prefer you had some grip of reality, so I would not have to be telling you this.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #662 –
Quote from: ersi on
Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2015-05-23, 16:33:22Quote from: ersi on 2015-05-23, 14:21:11i.e. the test presupposes that religious people have not done this yet. Thus the test is nothing but an insult of intelligence.I suppose you have the data to back up your far fetched guess on what religious people have done?I gave the data: A statement attributed to Muhammad, which makes the lesson contained therein close to 1500 years old. You didn't notice it because you either (a) deliberately insult my intelligence or (b) lack the analytical skills necessary to examine the data. Or (c) both.

Are you referring to the child-molesting, female abusing, murderer Muhammad or some other pillar of the Islam religion? 

Quote from: ersi on
Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2015-05-23, 16:33:22Most people just go with the flow and follow the path of least resistance--I think you know that.Yes, I know it. I see you doing it all the time.

I only go with the flow when it comes to some good beer--I think you know that. 

The balance of your psycho-babble goes on to bash and stereotype atheists, and then you show your true colors of understanding nothing about child psychology.  Young children are ultra impressionable when it comes to learning new things, especially when it comes from their parents.  A young child cannot reason effectively as to everything they are told and if they try by asking a reasonable question such as 'where did god come from?', they are promptly hushed up and told to stop asking foolish questions--happens everyday, all day my friend.  

I am not insulting your intelligence ersi, you are doing a fine job of that all by yourself. 
James J

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #663 –
Quote from: jseaton2311 on

Are you referring to the child-molesting, female abusing, murderer Muhammad or some other pillar of the Islam religion? 

I'm referring to the data that you missed, then asked for, and now ignored again.

Quote from: jseaton2311 on
The balance of your psycho-babble goes on to bash and stereotype atheists, and then you show your true colors of understanding nothing about child psychology.  Young children are ultra impressionable when it comes to learning new things, especially when it comes from their parents.  A young child cannot reason effectively as to everything they are told and if they try by asking a reasonable question such as 'where did god come from?', they are promptly hushed up and told to stop asking foolish questions--happens everyday, all day my friend.  

And the reasonable questions are hushed up by the parents and other adult believers, right? Which is the kind of assumption I already predicted from you. You didn't have to confirm it, but you just did.

In turn, you are evidently unaware of real-life atheist indoctrination, which used to be common in Communist countries. Only blissful ignorance can explain why you are so eager for it.

You failed the outsider test. But it's okay - the outsider test fails even itself.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #664 –
Quote from: ersi on
In turn, you are evidently unaware of real-life atheist indoctrination, which used to be common in Communist countries. Only blissful ignorance can explain why you are so eager for it.

Forced religious indoctrination by a ruler often backfires, but there is no need for this with atheism--global secularization happens quite spontaneously.  There is a specific version of this thesis that I favor, it is known as 'the existential security hypothesis'.  The basic idea is that as people become more affluent, they are less worried about lacking for basic necessities or of dying early from violence or disease.  In other words they are secure in their own existence--they do not feel the need to appeal to supernatural entities to calm their fears and insecurities.  The idea that improving living conditions are associated with a decline in religion is supported by a mountain of evidence (which I can provide upon request). 

The 9 most godless countries in a 2004 survey were Denmark, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Japan, Netherlands, Germany, Sweden and the United Kingdom (this excludes Estonia as a formerly communist country).  Half of the populations of these countries disbelieve in God.  The GDP of these countries averaged almost $30,000 compared to about $11,000 for the average country in the world.  How long will it take before the world economy has expanded sufficiently that the GDP of the average country has caught up to the average for the godless countries in 2004?   If one uses the average global growth rate of GDP for the last 30 years of 3.33%, the atheist transition would occur in 2035. 

Of course, belief in God is not the only relevant measure of religion.  An individual may believe in God in a fairly perfunctory way without religion affecting his or her daily life.  Therefore, if one asks people if religion is important in their daily lives, as Gallup has done, then the countries with the least depth of religious commitment are  South Korea, Canada, Spain, Switzerland, Uruguay, France and Germany.  Once again, at a growth rate of 3.33% per year it would be 2041 before the average country in the world would be at an equivalent level of affluence as these godless nations. 

Is the loss of religious belief something to fear, as you seem to suggest ersi?  Antithetical to the claims of many religious authorities, godless countries are highly moral with an unusual level of social trust, low crime, economic equality and a high level of civic participation.  Right about now the world could do with some of that.   :knight:  :cheers:
James J

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #665 –
Quote from: jseaton2311 on

Quote from: ersi on
In turn, you are evidently unaware of real-life atheist indoctrination, which used to be common in Communist countries. Only blissful ignorance can explain why you are so eager for it.

Forced religious indoctrination by a ruler often backfires, but there is no need for this with atheism--global secularization happens quite spontaneously. 

Yeah, spontaneously. And the outcome is a historian like this, basically saying that anti-religious repressions were the fault of the religious, that Stalin was a good guy (and, via silent dialectic, this means that other historians are morons).
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwg_EV7-RV4[/video]


Quote from: jseaton2311 on

There is a specific version of this thesis that I favor, it is known as 'the existential security hypothesis'. 

Yep, you are well on your way in that direction :up:

You are in fact doing so well here that I'll skip the rest.
 

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #666 –
The Sovets were clean hands with the Church?!

Right across the country in USSR times from the start, hundreds of churches were closed and many turned into things from Union social clubs to general museums and other non-religious places. Stalin was very much anti-Church and right up to near modern times at one point only 6 churches were allowed to be open in Moscow. At times any pretext was used to close them and on one incident at Easter a group of young Communists caused a fiasco saying a fire had been started causing a panic and the authorities shut the place.

Gorbachov was the first to start relaxing things on religion and if my memory serves me right was invited to an event in his period celebrating a thousand years of the Church in Russia. During red times the Church was very seriously limited. Distribution of bibles, printing anything, trying to attract people was all a no-no. Staling started a long period of priests being sent to Siberia and he was an evil git. Even in the final days of the Communist system, Pastor Vims a Russian Baptist minister was jailed so Stalin's onslaught was still going on. Today the army has chaplains again the Church regarded and protected and the boredom and lack of anything in the Red days a thankfully gone history of what happens when Atheism holds supremacy.
"Quit you like men:be strong"

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #668 –
Quote from: rjhowie on
and the boredom and lack of anything in the Red days a thankfully gone history of what happens when Atheism holds supremacy.

There is an elephant in the room that you are conveniently trying to overlook...got a wisecrack for that too?   :knight:  :cheers:
James J

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #669 –
Er — I think ersi means you are convicting yourself… As an evangelical atheist, a member of a small but committed group of zealots who persist because — Well, because most of us need harmless philosophical ballerinas to applaud. (And laugh at, if their tutus slip…)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #671 –
Quote from: OakdaleFTL on
Er — I think ersi means you are convicting yourself…

Of what?  Being concerned that religious differences keep this world from the peace and happiness we all deserve?  If certain reckless countries obtain modern nuclear weapons (ones that make the Japanese bombs look like firecrackers), all of the hope and dreams of mankind will go up in a mushroom cloud of smoke.  People prosper and are at peace without religious concerns, how can religion be a good thing?  And because I attempt to point this out (none too eloquently I might add), to a group of self proclaimed intellectuals who cling to religion like it was their 'baba', I get taken to the woodshed by the alcoholic-know-it-all-clown of this forum.  If religion on a global scale was not the threat to human welfare, happiness, progress and perhaps even survival that it presently is, I'm sure I would have maintained the more laissez faire philosophy of my youth.  Religion is not a good thing no matter how you slice it--it is the big lie (and joke) on mankind--we should be ashamed of ourselves.  Therefore Oak, as the sotted court jester of DnD, prance around and dance for us once again please--whoopee we're all gonna die! :sing:   :knight:  :cheers: 


James J

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #672 –
Religion is a broad term that covers any number of belief systems. Most all I'm familiar with teach peace and understanding. In practice the problems are the people with power. Political parties are simply marched out as the modern equivalent, so what most western religions would be if the congregation got to vote on the beliefs proclaimed. When western religions are gone, or at least firmly strapped in the back seat, you will still have people with more power than you telling you what you should believe under the one or another policy. The fault will always be in the people's willingness to follow even when the leaders have gone bad. A devoted atheist is no less immune to this process of humanity. The problem I see there is that there is no line that divides the groups of atheists so clearly. Although I'm an atheist, I can't agree with anything said in the above post even though I can mildly agree with some things the poster has said. From pessimistic overtures to the horribly emotion filled delivery and disgust, I feel like the distinction some atheists make of themselves is no different from the system that they have turned away from. Usually seems like they feel hurt, lied to and used so they seek to repay in kind. When in fact politics, religion and science have all evolved to fill very human needs and work best hand in hand. A nice system of checks and balances could exist. while that trinity may not be for everyone you can't say everyone is better off without any one of them and actually know what you're talking about in current circumstances. Religion is not responsible for the success of a political party. It's the political system's short comings if one system or the other system brings it down. Not the other way around. Just like it's the fault of the person if one or the other of those systems cause them hurt or problems. A place for religion will remain as part of the human condition, whether that's a large or small part is an open book. Taking away from others what you can't tolerate is tyranny though. Science is no closer to explaining away religion than it was 2000 years ago. Without it religions may had overstepped their bounds but were and are never at risk of losing their fundamental ground to it. By the same means science without regulations would quickly lose all of its moral ground and be far more deadly than any religion ever dreamed. Having seen religion and government without a true compass, we do not need to cast science to the same fate. Science checks religion, government checks science and religion checks government. Without that balance you see problems. Let one lead more and people's minds aren't challenged to be fair. Selfishness takes hold and hatred can run the roost. This balance isn't something that exists as it should now, it's an evolving process with a long way to go.

You have to have faith in something. I put mine in humanity... But I'm not going to walk away and call everyone else idiots because they can't get it right. I believe they will eventually. All of us with children have to believe that right? Otherwise it would of been idiotic to bring another life into this mess.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #673 –
Quote from: jseaton2311 on

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on
Er — I think ersi means you are convicting yourself…

Of what?

Of incoherence, to put it mildly.

Quote from: jseaton2311 on

Being concerned that religious differences keep this world from the peace and happiness we all deserve? 

The incoherence here is that we (you and I) are obviously in conflict. So, either there are more differences than just religious differences (for example there could be also differences between atheists and religious people, and also between atheists, in which case you are guilty of oversimplification) or you actually have a different aim than the stated peace and happiness. You are hardly the sunshine of atheist peace and happiness on these forums.

Quote from: jseaton2311 on

If certain reckless countries obtain modern nuclear weapons (ones that make the Japanese bombs look like firecrackers), all of the hope and dreams of mankind will go up in a mushroom cloud of smoke.

"Certain reckless countries"? And you don't mean the certain reckless country who actually used nuclear weapons?

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #674 –
Sounds all nice and quite tidy ensbb3.  Things will work themselves out--unless they don't.  Just recently, we have lost two towering buildings, thousands of people, billions of dollars and countless billions more to protect ourselves against religion.  Were it a handful of radical extremists, perhaps we could sufficiently gird ourselves and wait them out, but there are hundreds of millions of religious people who would just as soon see the US suffer greatly--or simply go up into smoke altogether.  If you think that religion, science and politics will cooperatively play patty-cake until it all comes out in the wash one day, then you are an ostrich my friend.  Don't get me wrong, I rather enjoy your posts ensbb3, but I would no sooner try to convert a religious person to something else than I would adopt religion for myself.  I am an optimist and I see the world improving, to the benefit of all, in many ways; things are getting better every day except in the realm of governing ourselves.  Religion is a dangerous and antagonistic force in the 21st century where we have the technology to destroy ourselves at the push of a button.  No one thinks it will really happen, but until we have the ability to conduct ourselves responsibly (in another century or two probably), we are but reckless children playing with loaded guns.  I don't foresee a doomsday day scenario, after all I am an optimist, but I believe that if any one thing is going to destroy us before the sun fries the inner planets--it will be over our religious differences (Oak would say global warming, rj would say the meddling US [duh], and ersi would say gremlins--or the ressurection of communism).  What would you say?   :knight:  :cheers:

James J