Question about Atheism : Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Question about Atheism » Question about Atheism

Question about Atheism

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Last

Question about Atheism

Theseus925
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2009
Location: Myrtle Beach SC

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 43

1 of 3 people found this post helpful Posted 11/06/09 - 12:03 PM:	#31
Nonbelievers fight religion because it's a matter of life and death and liberty for them. Recount in your mind the torture, mass murder, degradation of women, wars, propagation of ignorance, repression of knowledge, burning at the stake of nonbelievers--the list is endless--that religions have been guilty of in the past--and some still today. All the horrors of religion are still possible. It's self-interest that motivates nonbelievers to fight it. They don't give a damn about the souls of believers or their own. It's their life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that they're worried about. Those Gods of the Enlightenment gave us the freedom we enjoy today. We must continue to labor in the vineyard they planted lest the blight destroy it. The Mullahs The Islamic Mullahs want an Islamic government; The Christian Mullahs want a Christian government; The Judaic Mullahs want a Judaic government; The Hindu Mullahs want a Hindu government; All are brothers in mind, conceived in the same womb-- Primitive, unreasoning minds--slaves of their myths-- All true believers in their divine scribblings; Each convinced his is the only true word-- And thereby hangs the balls of war and genocide. Copyright 2008 by Theseus Edited by Theseus925 on 11/06/09 - 12:11 PM
We are in a war with time. While we are looking for ways to kill time, time is looking for ways to kill us--Theseus

mtboger
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 17, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 21

Posted 11/06/09 - 12:24 PM:	#32
"In his bestseller "The God Delusion," Richard Dawkins contends that most of the world's recent conflicts - in the Middle East, in the Balkans, in Northern Ireland, in Kashmir, and in Sri Lanka - show the vitality of religion's murderous impulse. The problem with this critique is that it exaggerates the crimes attributed to religion, while ignoring the greater crimes of secular fanaticism. The best example of religious persecution in America is the Salem witch trials. How many people were killed in those trials? Thousands? Hundreds? Actually, fewer than 25. Yet the event still haunts the liberal imagination. It is strange to witness the passion with which some secular figures rail against the misdeeds of the Crusaders and Inquisitors more than 500 years ago. The number sentenced to death by the Spanish Inquisition appears to be about 10,000. Some historians contend that an additional 100,000 died in jail due to malnutrition or illness. These figures are tragic, and of course population levels were much lower at the time. But even so, they are minuscule compared with the death tolls produced by the atheist despotisms of the 20th century. In the name of creating their version of a religion-free utopia, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong produced the kind of mass slaughter that no Inquisitor could possibly match. Collectively these atheist tyrants murdered more than 100 million people. Moreover, many of the conflicts that are counted as "religious wars" were not fought over religion. They were mainly fought over rival claims to territory and power. Can the wars between England and France be called religious wars because the English were Protestants and the French were Catholics? Hardly. The same is true today. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not, at its core, a religious one. It arises out of a dispute over self-determination and land. Hamas and the extreme orthodox parties in Israel may advance theological claims - "God gave us this land" and so forth - but the conflict would remain essentially the same even without these religious motives. Ethnic rivalry, not religion, is the source of the tension in Northern Ireland and the Balkans." -Do I believe Hitler, Stalin, and Zedong were Atheists? No, but their reasons were not religious. Full article: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1121/p09s01-coop.html

aletheist
Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2009
Location: Olathe, KS

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 623

Posted 11/06/09 - 12:48 PM:	#33
baden511 wrote: Theists forget that atheism is the default position for every human being, which is why I don't like the word (I don't think we should define the default position in the negative). You were an atheist once mtboger. This presupposes that God does not exist. If God does exist, then it may be that theism is the default position; perhaps we all start out knowing God, but then our bad choices alienate us from him, making atheism possible. After all, Jesus advocated "faith like that of a child." baden511 wrote: Having purpose on the other hand is natural Please clarify. In what sense is purpose natural? What is the naturalistic basis for our sense of (ultimate) purpose? baden511 wrote: In any case, I ask you to ask yourself this: what you are going to do during your eternity of bliss? What purpose then? You are looking at a purposeless oblivion according to your own doctrine. Many Christians would say that their purpose is "to glorify God and enjoy him forever," and Jesus defined eternal life as knowing God. These activities would hardly constitute "a purposeless oblivion."
"Be attentive, Be intelligent, Be reasonable, Be responsible." - Bernard Lonergan (1904-1984)

sheps
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 15, 2008
Location: United Kingdom

Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 429

Posted 11/06/09 - 12:50 PM:	#34
Wosret wrote: Then I want no part of it. Will you be the one to force all atheists into a mold, despite their protests? Personally I do not demand that others hold positions that I believe that their other positions are somehow related to, though not explicitly, nor implicitly in the positions that they actually espouse. How am I forcing anyone into a mould? I just think that being an atheist means having a wider variety of philosophical positions than you do. Obviously, the WAY you get to these positions can vary, but just as theists offer their religious perspective on various matters, atheists offer their non-religious position. What's wrong with saying that atheism or theism generally applies to more things in life than just the question of whether there is a deity or not? I personally think that there can be atheist literature, art, film, music, social philosophy and political theory. I simply cannot see how I'm 'forcing' anyone to do anything by saying that I believe one's atheism to affect many different areas of ones life, just as I believe that someone's communism, someone's Christianity, or someone's belief in the primacy of technology can affect their views. If anything, you're forcing them into moulds as much as I am by insisting that atheism cannot be a wider philosophical position, and that atheists must limit their atheism to philosophy of religion.
The Midnight Sun Never Sets.

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 710

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/06/09 - 12:59 PM:	#35
mtboger wrote: This is what I was looking for!...thanks for helping me understand. Also, I was thinking that there are some factors in our society which would make an Atheist vocal. Gay rights, abortion issues, etc, are just some reasons why nonbelievers feel the need to voice their thoughts, since these issues have strong religious roots. Good, I had to think about it for awhile; at first I thought you might be implying Dawkins was the devil trying to fill up hell. In regards to the political questions; the problem isn't just that we might disagree with what is or isn't moral. It is something a bit a broader. Namely, a religious belief should not be the foundation for any form of legislation, because this conflicts with our desire not to be subject to another persons religion. In example, we both think stealing is wrong, because it denies a person the right to their property. You may also think stealing is wrong, because it is part of your religious belief system. Well, according to the principles of our constitution, your reason can not be included when determining whether or not stealing is wrong. So, it isn't just the right to choose or marry, but to be free from anothers religious beliefs infringing on your life. If you think abortion is wrong, then don't have one. If you think gay marriage is wrong, don't get one. But, it is one's own secular right to make that choice.
Or not.

rigelrover
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2009

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 560

Posted 11/06/09 - 01:02 PM:	#36
Cheshire wrote: Dawkins [is] the devil trying to fill up hell. Cheshire this is quite the ad hominem! I can't believe you would say such a thing Edited by rigelrover on 11/06/09 - 01:51 PM
I am more interested in questions than answers; dialog than dictation. If we can reasonably believe that there is not just a breach, but a fundamentally unclosable gap between the individual mind and the ultimate nature of the reality; the primordial thing in itself, then 'true' mystery does exist.

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: Nova Scotia Canada

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2876

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/06/09 - 01:43 PM:	#37
sheps wrote: What's wrong with saying that atheism or theism generally applies to more things in life than just the question of whether there is a deity or not? Because they're not at all equivalent, "non-religion" is not a position, it is the lack of one. You're comparing apples and oranges. Atheism is a rejection of something, and doesn't itself imply the acceptance of anything else -- if you think it does merely because of your experience with atheists, then you're just generalizing, and ignoring how the term is commonly used, especially among self-professed atheists, like myself. I personally think that there can be atheist literature, art, film, music, social philosophy and political theory. I don't. I think there can be secular those things. What possible political theory follows from the position that theism is false? If you are merely talking about self-professed atheists that do these things, then sure, of course -- but this would be mere correlation, and association. I simply cannot see how I'm 'forcing' anyone to do anything by saying that I believe one's atheism to affect many different areas of ones life, just as I believe that someone's communism, someone's Christianity, or someone's belief in the primacy of technology can affect their views. Because you're equating the rejection of a single metaphysical position, with the acceptance of a whole string of philosophies, political theories, and moralities. You cannot make this point merely by pointing to other things and claiming them analogous. If anything, you're forcing them into moulds as much as I am by insisting that atheism cannot be a wider philosophical position, and that atheists must limit their atheism to philosophy of religion. I'm doing no such thing -- I am merely saying that whatever other positions they take are not implicit, let alone explicit in the information that they are an atheist alone. Edited by Wosret on 11/06/09 - 02:24 PM
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

sheps
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 15, 2008
Location: United Kingdom

Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 429

0 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/06/09 - 02:35 PM:	#38
Wosret wrote: Because they're not at all equivalent, "non-religion" is not a position, it is the lack of one. You're comparing apples and oranges. Atheism is a rejection of something, and doesn't itself imply the acceptance of anything else -- if you think it does merely because of your experience with atheists, then you're just generalizing, and ignoring how the term is commonly used, especially among self-professed atheists, like myself. We can't allow ourselves to be dragged back into the 60 page debate on whether atheism is a belief structure. It's not been long enough yet! All the same, 'non-religion' is a position, in the same way that 'not taking a political position' is...a political position. Wosret wrote: I don't. I think there can be secular those things. What possible political theory follows from the position that theism is false? If you are merely talking about self-professed atheists that do these things, then sure, of course -- but this would be mere correlation, and association. Being 'secular' is nothing to do with being an atheist, as secularism merely means neutrality on the point of belief - a refusal to sway towards religion or atheism. I believe you could write a novel which has an atheist message, just like I could write a novel which had a socialist message. Claiming that people who believe in secularism are all atheists is false. Many just want to practice their beliefs in the private sphere. A state ban on religious teaching would be a political position following from the position that theism is false. Marxism, also, is based on a rejection of idealism and a pursuit of materialism; Marxists take an atheist position towards religion in a political system. I'll admit, though, that atheism rarely DIRECTLY leads to new political systems or structures. Wosret wrote: Because you're equating the rejection of a single metaphysical position, with the acceptance of a whole string of philosophies, political theories, and moralities. You cannot make this point merely by pointing to other things and claiming them analogous. So you're saying that your belief that there is no God has had no impact on any other sphere of your life, that it has had no bearing on your existence? Is the question of atheism or theism a purely academic one then? If this issue didn't have any impact on any other area of our lives, why would we all be debating it so fervently here? Wosret wrote: I'm doing no such thing -- I am merely saying that whatever other positions they take are not implicit, let alone explicit in the information that they are an atheists alone. I'm going to have to just disagree with you on this one; I think the huge question of whether or not one believes in God must affect ones view of other things. If you believe it doesn't, thats fine, but I want to make it clear that I'm not shoving anyone into straightjackets, I just think that all our beliefs on a variety of issues (politics, economics, ethics, religion) all influence and are tied up with each other. I cannot imagine a human being who is objective enough to believe or disbelieve in God, and make that opinion totally independent from all other areas of his thought. Huh, maybe I'm just a weakling for allowing atheism to permenate other areas of my thought.
The Midnight Sun Never Sets.

Mariner
Longing

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 4371

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/06/09 - 04:51 PM:	#39
The history of proselytism clarifies a lot about this question. "Indigenous/Primitive" beliefs were not proselytizing. People who believed in them didn't care that their neighbors believed in gods with different names. The first "jealous god" in history was, of course, Yahweh; and His "jealousy" was quite a puzzle for the peoples who came in contact with the Israelites. For your ordinary 10th century BC Israelite, the fact that other peoples were worshipping Baal was of no concern for him. Yahweh was the God of Israel. He knew that he, as an Israelite, had to worship Yahweh; and that this imposition was the result of a Covenant between Yahweh and Israel (to which he was a party, as an Israelite). So, in this stage, there was still no room for proselytism. We had either indifference or (if a Israelite worshipped an alien god) righteous anger at a broken pact. Between other peoples, in the polytheist world, there was also no incentive for proselytism. Alexander didn't want to force Indians to worship Zeus. There was a widespread agreement that there were "many deities, One Truth" (which is still a tenet of Hinduism, the most important extant representative of polytheism), and so no need for proselytism. The idea of proselytism was probably born with Isaiah (Deutero-Isaiah to be precise). It is in his books that we see the idea that "all the nations will be converted". However, in Isaiah this is still supposed to be a process "in the hands of Yahweh"; Yahweh, not ordinary people, would convert all the nations. But here, as far as I can tell, was the first instance in which the "conversion of others" was deemed to be desirable. It was, however, firmly embedded in an eschatological context; Yahweh would convert all nations only after Israel, the Suffering Servant, had paid for the sins of the world. Jesus reinterpreted this (correctly, as I would say, being Christian ); He was the Suffering Servant. And He gave the Great Commission to the apostles (Matthew 28:16-20): 16And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. 17And seeing them they adored: but some doubted. 18And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. 19Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. This was the birth of proselytism. All other proselytizers are either following this command or reacting to it (e.g. Muslims). Including atheists. "Christian atheists", such as Dawkins and other "atheist horsemen", are reacting to the Christian culture of proselytism. Note how this story explains the difference between Dawkins and Buddhists, by the way. Buddhists don't care about the Great Commission one way or the other. If your question is "why do modern atheists so often (not always, of course) try to convince others about their own beliefs", I think this is the most important answer; they are reacting to a historical fact which goes into the constitution of their beliefs (consciously or not). If, though, your point is more like "it is inconsistent for Dawkins et al. to be active proselytizers, given their stated beliefs", then I can only agree. But that isn't a question, it is a conclusion . P.S. The hypothesis that the rationalizations about "how religion is bad" are the fuel for their righteous anger is disconfirmed by their lack of enthusiasm in accepting the "crimes of atheism", or the "positive tally of religion" as such; anyone who is spurred by righteous anger would consider both sides of the equation.
"In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't." -- Blaise Pascal "The more I am by myself and alone, the more I have come to love myths" -- Aristotle in his later years

mtboger
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 17, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 21

Posted 11/06/09 - 06:35 PM:	#40
Great response Mariner...that is a conclusion, but somehow I made it into a question. Thanks.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Last

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.