Not believing in God.
You’re a regular Jacques Lacan ain’tcha?
I know you’re morally opposed to listening to anything Der Trihs posts, but really, he has a point. When you start declaring that atheism is an ideology, then there’s something wrong with the way you’re viewing the world. In this instance, it looks like you’re looking in a mirror.
And “not believing in god” isn’t a value. “Feels like theists should be argued into learning the truth” is, but it’s not part of atheism and not shared by all atheists.
I like arguing against what I percieve to be incorrect opinions. That I don’t immidiately roll over and concede the minute that somebody fails to listen to my arguments doesn’t make me a zealot, by any definition of it that I know. My failure to declare that you’re right doesn’t mean I’m incapable of discussing things on other terms, either. I’m simply disinclined to aquiesce to your desire to declare your opinions as unvarnished fact unopposed.
By the way, do you think that you are a zealot? Are you convinced that that blind spot isn’t there? Have you stopped beating your wife lately?
Do you mean in our world today or necessarily? If the former, definitely true, from thousands of years of commingling, if nothing else. If the latter, then the question is whether we are genetically religious. If we are, then religion will always be intrinsic - at least for a very, very long time. If not, then it is possible that religion will no longer be intrinsic. Perhaps this will be the case in Europe in 100 years or so, barring Muslims.
I don’t know, since I experienced the triple whammy of parents, neighborhood and genetics. My religiousness peaked when I was going the Hebrew school, for instance, clearly social pressure. How culturally Jewish would I have been if I had grown up in the middle of nowhere - how about if I was adopted?
My question was really about which Christian universals (besides the fact of going to a church) are different from the ones I have. Are the American universals, or human universals? I know some churches closer to the shuls I went to culturally than they were to some other churches, like my old roommate’s in Texas. Christianity covers a lot of ground these days.
Pressure which was there before the war.
If your point is that we live in and are influenced this tremendous web of social pressures, some of which are religious, I have no disagreement at all. But religion is far from monolithic, even Christianity. The concept of god, which is also not monolithic, has influence also, even for people with no belief. So, do we actually disagree?
Well I suppose that depends on whether you think that culture is a necessary consequence of genetics or not. That’s beyond my ken. I am not saying that religion is our lot forever, but the fact that we are unalterably affected by it. Kind of like walking through a door. If all of our ancestors walked through the same door, we are not capable of extricating ourselves from the consequences of that.
I don’t know about separating the nature vs nurture thing. I do not know enough of genetics, but the ‘what ifs’ are irrelevant. You had the upbringing you did have, so therefore, as a result, your formative years were impacted by a religious upbringing. I am not talking about defining the outcome of a religious upbringing. Not everyone will react the same way to a similar experience, I am just saying that the religious upbringing had a role. Some people react to religious inculcation by lashing out against religion for the bulk of their adult lives. Others go with it whole hog like the Hasids down the street from me. Still others pick and choose their values, with some continuing to identify themselves as religious, while other choose to define themselves as areligious.
They might not be different from what you have. My point is that a lot of the secular humanist ideals have come as a result of accretions from having roots in a Judaic or Christian society. This is one of the the causes of the deep rift in the culture wars between us and the Islamic world. I think the belief in Jesus as the son of God is pretty evidently one you don’t share. While there are some sects that don’t take that notion literally anymore, you can’t reject the notion of Christ as the savior and remain Christian.
Absolutely, and that pressure pushed the country toward the war. John Brown for instance applied a great deal of pressure.
Yes, the bolded part is precisely what I am getting at. I think we do agree, but with one thing I’d like to mention. When I talk about Christianity having universals, I mean things that give it a unique identity as Christianity as opposed to just society at large, or distinguishing it from Islam, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, or Hinduism. It may not be monolithic, but there are unifying feature that give Christianity a unique identity. If it were to lose those, it would cease to exist as a meaningful entity around which people can cohere. Arguably that’s one of the biggest issues facing Christianity today. As the Pope has said, he can see a leaner but more faithful Catholic church in the future.
0 is still a value. Same as 1. Or 3. Or pantheism.
This is my biggest point of contention with Harris and Dawkins. I understand the fear, but if a person isn’t careful the best way to end up dogmatic is with fear. And you can’t say they don’t stoke the flames at times.
– numbering mine.
1- Hardly a failure in light of the non-provided evidence. Mind you, and I may be wrong, but I believe you also mean to convey that it wasn’t a failure. Guess I just don’t see the need to tap-dance around mswas’ axiomatic decrees.
2- This, IMHO, is the crux of the matter. I have yet to read a single, direct answer to any queries on his axioms. Not to DT, yourself, Mr Dibble nor to myself.
Just a lot of hand-waving and the same response as in his prior thread: ‘open (yet) another thread! Meanwhile I can assert whatever I want!’
The moon is made of cheese. Trust me on that.
Well, I am not sure I can explain it to you, and that’s the problem. To you atheism seems morally neutral, to a Christian or a Jew it’s immoral. Excluding God from his own creation is one of the greatest sins there is in Abrahamic faiths, and that is agreed upon by the three main Abrahamic faiths. So as much as you want it to be value neutral, it cannot be. It’s not that I misunderstand atheism, I think it’s that you misunderstand religion. I am not applying any doctrine or dogma to atheism in a universal sense, but it is not value neutral.
Ok fair enough. In the above paragraph I explained it better. It may be valueless, but valueless is not value neutral. Nothing is value neutral. We all take an existential stance as to what we believe.
No, the issue is that every discussion you try to turn into, “Prove God exists.”, that is where I find it tedious to debate with you. You are doing it less now, so I am more interested in discussing with you. You see a desire not to be bored by tedious arguments as some sort of weakness in my position.
No, I am not convinced the blind spot isn’t there. And yes, I have stopped beating my wife lately. 
No thanks; we had more than enough fun mixing up the different definitions of words in that other thread.
(And so maswas agrees with it. :rolleyes: )
That is as succinct as that can be put. Thank you.
That’s not a value, as said.
And it happens again. Whenever religion comes up, people trying to defend it start playing word games. That’s not the definition of value that’s being talked about, obviously.
In other words, they should shut up, pretend they believe, and let the believers ride all over anyone and anything they like. Funny how many criticisms of atheism boil down to “shut up, submit, and don’t burst our bubble !”
Given the truth about religion and the attitude of those that follow it, you can’t speak honestly and truthfully about them without “stoking the flames”. They SHOULD be feared.
How does “0” differ from “neutral” in this context? I’d certainly not agree that its the “same” as 1 or 3. 0 posits nothing. Can’t get any more neutral than that. Let the 1s and the 3s duke it out if they must.
When back, they are most certainly allowed to bring an argument with a logical foundation. Unfortunately that appears to be a problem with faith-based beliefs.
Gee, I wonder why?
No. But I like your passion as you hack at the strawman.
See… I like to fancy myself a reasonable man. A bit cool headed. I can’t say I never slip, but… the voices of Dawkins and Harris can get a bit shrill at times. And the adherents go still further.
Dogma=Dogma
Dogma=Certainty that must prevail
Tell me the atheism being displayed doesn’t fit that mold?
This precisely shows why you are not qualified to have these discussions. These sorts of logical analogies are used all the time. If something stretches your ability to understand you accuse them of word games. Funny that, considering Anomalous Reading is an atheist.
Only if you define Abrahamic values as all that matter. You are asserting that the atheist in question has those values, or that they automatically apply.
Yes you are, and yes it is.
Blatantly incorrect. What is the non value neutral aspect of “rocks are hard” ? Or of “there is no yellow goblin on my shoulder” ?
“There is no God” isn’t a statement of values; it doesn’t even say if that’s desirable, or if you should or shouldn’t believe in God anyway. It’s a statement about reality as it appears to be.
It is a weakness in your position. You make claims that require a God, then declare that you won’t debate the matter. It’s a worthless, empty argument.
Waves hand I’m an atheist. I think 0 IS the answer. But it is still an assertion of truth. If I ask what 1-1 is you’ll say 0. It’s a value. And the 1-1 is exactly the argument Dawkins and others make. “I’m just atheistic to one more god than you.”
It’s an assertion of truth. Quibbling over what number is default advances no one’s cause as far as I can see…
No I am pointing out that it is in direct conflict with Abrahamic values, and as such cannot be neutral, because if it were neutral it wouldn’t conflict with other belief systems from which people derive their values.
Appears to be TO YOU.
I debate the argument with people who have a stronger grasp of it, or at least aren’t mean and nasty about it.
An atheist can’t possibly be excluding God from his own creation, don’t get ridiculous. If god’s real, then his is regardless of what the atheist believes or not. Regardless of any personal insecurity problems that various people or dieties may have when people don’t agree with them.
Atheism is value neutral - it’s the “null hypothesis”, if you’ve heard of such a thing. You’re trying to claim that there’s no 0 on the number line here, that the term “neutral” doesn’t even have meaning, and it’s just not going to happen. Neutrality is what you get when you pick nothing. Atheism is, at its core (and remember, atheism includes most of the agnostics, too), picking nothing.
And, more relevent to the definition of “value” we seem to actually be mostly using, atheism doesn’t come prepackaged with any values attached to it. A sheer belief isn’t a value unless it imparts importance to something. Good grief, man.
I admit it, I’m a sucker for challenging fallacies and falshoods and have a difficult time letting such things pass, which draws me into tangents pretty readily. I’m always willing to hop back to topic though, if my debating partner isn’t desperate to fixate on the tangents (even to make lots of pointless noise about how above them he is).
And it’s not in what you don’t want to debate, it’s the pretentious, ad-hominemy, anger-inducing way you don’t debate it that indicates a weakness in your position. You pollute your other arguments with the way you choose to take dumps on responses you don’t like.
For the love of Odin I hope you recognized that that was your blind spot I meant there, and that you are here understanding and accepting the problems with that post of yours.
If 0 is accepted as a value, that doesn’t everything have a value relative to everything else? What’s a Tasmanian tribesman’s opinion on a pen sitting on an accountant’s desk in Omaha? Zero? What about the pencil next to it? Zero, also, huh? Well, what about the stapler…
Much easier rule - if it’s zero, don’t count it.
Thought I’d play some more.
If you really must assign a value to atheism, try “-1” as that is the exact number of gods less that we don’t believe in. Versus pantheists I’d go with a “?” value, and lastly in comparison to Deist why not use “close cousins” as value?