Common Bad Beliefs Among Atheists?

[Beady]

That will work. Believe me I read it over and over again to myself while writing it. I thought it was accurate, but not clear. Your way is better. Thanks.

Not a problem. Feel free to correct me whenever the occasion arises.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

 

[Beady]

OK, I thought of another "bad idea" or two that a lot of atheists hold in common: religious believers aren't intelligent enough to see the truth, or are bastards that have attempted to lead them into some kind of spiritual slavery.

The truth is that most believers really are believers, and they see their various beliefs as the only true ways to world peace and divine forgiveness. Yes, they often cherry - pick and perform the most outrageous contortions to arrive at their conclusions, but their conclusions are nevertheless honestly held. I sometimes wonder if we atheists are non-believers only because we're incapable of such gyrations in logic.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

 

[phiwum]

With all due respect I disagree in regards to his topic. ( Not Scum, there is a difference) The problem is that Scum and you seem to want to create generalities that are meaningless.

While not all null hypotheses can not be proven, most cannot. That said, the person making the claim has the burden of proof. I cannot prove there is no God any more then anyone can prove there is one. But I have no responsibility to prove that as I am not making a positive claim.

I don't ask people to live their life by the rules of a being that no one can prove even exists. I don't pass the collection plate or ask that you to tithe part of your salary to promote it. The time to believe is when there is evidence for something, not before.

Fair enough. It may be that atheism is too diverse to identify typical fallacies. I think that the Scum is just trying to start a conversation here, but it just might go nowhere.

I thought the example in the original post was a decent point. Maybe you disagree.

 

[Elagabalus]

Fair enough. It may be that atheism is too diverse to identify typical fallacies. I think that the Scum is just trying to start a conversation here, but it just might go nowhere.

I thought the example in the original post was a decent point. Maybe you disagree.

I see it as something like this: Scum(an atheist) has invented a widget which he is excited about selling to other atheists. Scum hires a Marketing Firm to make a survey of atheists to find trends, likes, dislikes etc. common among atheists in order to make his widget more appealing to atheists.

Would the Marketing Firm be able to come up with such a list? I think, somewhere, they probably already have. Although, this isn't strictly a Religion and Philosophy topic.

Also, perhaps the term "bad" has too many negative connotations.

And tbf, I think some of the push-back stems from the fact that no target group wants to believe that their habits, buying trends, likes, and dislikes are in some ways predictable. Everyone wants to feel that they are not unduly influenced by the "machine".

 

[phiwum]

I see it as something like this: Scum(an atheist) has invented a widget which he is excited about selling to other atheists. Scum hires a Marketing Firm to make a survey of atheists to find trends, likes, dislikes etc. common among atheists in order to make his widget more appealing to atheists.

Would the Marketing Firm be able to come up with such a list? I think, somewhere, they probably already have. Although, this isn't strictly a Religion and Philosophy topic.

Also, perhaps the term "bad" has too many negative connotations.

And tbf, I think some of the push-back stems from the fact that no target group wants to believe that their habits, buying trends, likes, and dislikes are in some ways predictable. Everyone wants to feel that they are not unduly influenced by the "machine".

It's both a religion and philosophy topic, insofar as atheism is relevant to religion, and reasoning is relevant to philosophy.

Aside from your marketing analogy, which I don't quite see, and the above quibble, I think I agree with you.

 

[acbytesla]

OK, I thought of another "bad idea" or two that a lot of atheists hold in common: religious believers aren't intelligent enough to see the truth, or are bastards that have attempted to lead them into some kind of spiritual slavery.

The truth is that most believers really are believers, and they see their various beliefs as the only true ways to world peace and divine forgiveness. Yes, they often cherry - pick and perform the most outrageous contortions to arrive at their conclusions, but their conclusions are nevertheless honestly held. I sometimes wonder if we atheists are non-believers only because we're incapable of such gyrations in logic.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

I pretty much agree that most believers are sincere in their beliefs. I also don't think why we believe or disbelieve has anything to do with intellect. But it does have to do with intellectual honesty. It requires as you say 'gyrations in logic. I have no doubt that Isaac Newton was far smarter then I will ever be. The man invented integral and differential calculus in a couple of weeks so he could explain one of his conclusions about the cosmos and gravity. I struggled learning it. That said his deeply held beliefs and writings on Christianity are absurd. So smart people can and do hold stupid ideas. I have to admit I have laughed at the stupidity of some of theist's arguments. I have to remind myself I too would sound like a moron if I tried to make a pro-theist argument.

 

[angrysoba]

As for your specific argument where you quoted Stephen Weinberg that's another question. Do I agree with it? Yes and No. It's a generalization, but I understand and somewhat share the sentiment. Christopher Hitchens use to say it. It's in his book 'God is not Great, how religion poisons everything'. Voltaire said 'if you can get people to believe absurdities, you can get them to commit atrocities'.

Here is the problem if you really believed that an all powerful creator of the universe told you to rape and murder wouldn't you have to do it? Now go back and read the Old Testament.
Go through the great atrocities and conflicts and religion seems tied in a way to almost all of them. Religions don't make peace, they divide us. They make war. Both the Nazis and the Confederate Army wore slogans on their uniforms ( I think their belt buckles) that God was on their side. There is no question the Nazis final solution was justified by Catholicism. The middle east problem in Israel are easily solvable if not for the parties of God. I could go on an on about this. So while Weinberg's quote is not universally true, there is a great amount of truth in it.

Weinberg's quote argues for a necessary condition "that takes religion". This is easily shown to be false. Hence it is a bad argument. Maybe it could be refined so that it says what he meant by it, but until it is tightened up it is vulnerable to counterargument.

And that, it seems to me, is the purpose of self-scrutiny. It seems to me to be misplaced loyalty to settle for poor arguments. If, as you maintain, the religious people are less intellectually honest than atheists, then it will do atheists no favours by abandoning the moral high-ground by engaging in intellectual dishonesty themselves.

In keeping with intellectual honesty, can you not at least concede that the Weinberg quote satisfies the criteria that's been laid down - common, exclusive and bad?

 

[Elagabalus]

It's both a religion and philosophy topic, insofar as atheism is relevant to religion, and reasoning is relevant to philosophy...

Well ... not if we're talking about marketing! jk

...Aside from your marketing analogy, which I don't quite see, and the above quibble, I think I agree with you.

Is there anything left to agree with after you shot my entire text down in flames?!

 

[angrysoba]

I've thought of another example that both Hitchens and Sam Harris railed against (the latter even wrote a whole book dedicated to it), and that is that normative moral relativism. Harris believed that too many atheists commonly argued that there can be no such thing as moral realism. However, many philosophers have advocated rational arguments both for the incoherence of normative moral relativism and for forms of moral realism.

 

[phiwum]

Well ... not if we're talking about marketing! jk






Is there anything left to agree with after you shot my entire text down in flames?!

Your grammar was flawless.

 

[phiwum]

I've thought of another example that both Hitchens and Sam Harris railed against (the latter even wrote a whole book dedicated to it), and that is that normative moral relativism. Harris believed that too many atheists commonly argued that there can be no such thing as moral realism. However, many philosophers have advocated rational arguments both for the incoherence of normative moral relativism and for forms of moral realism.

It's a nice point, but maybe a tough sell in this crowd.

 

[acbytesla]

Weinberg's quote argues for a necessary condition "that takes religion". This is easily shown to be false. Hence it is a bad argument. Maybe it could be refined so that it says what he meant by it, but until it is tightened up it is vulnerable to counterargument.

And that, it seems to me, is the purpose of self-scrutiny. It seems to me to be misplaced loyalty to settle for poor arguments. If, as you maintain, the religious people are less intellectually honest than atheists, then it will do atheists no favours by abandoning the moral high-ground by engaging in intellectual dishonesty themselves.

In keeping with intellectual honesty, can you not at least concede that the Weinberg quote satisfies the criteria that's been laid down - common, exclusive and bad?

Oh, give me a break. Weinberg is making a point that has a lot of merit. It's also a memorable line. Is it an 'absolute truth'? No. But I don't believe in absolute truths. So no, I don't think the argument is intellectually dishonest.

 

[acbytesla]

I've thought of another example that both Hitchens and Sam Harris railed against (the latter even wrote a whole book dedicated to it), and that is that normative moral relativism. Harris believed that too many atheists commonly argued that there can be no such thing as moral realism. However, many philosophers have advocated rational arguments both for the incoherence of normative moral relativism and for forms of moral realism.

I haven't read Sam Harris's book, but I find I rarely disagree with him. I'll have to read it and ponder it. I do agree with Harris about a universal definition of morality which is about whether specific actions promote well being.

 

[phiwum]

Oh, give me a break. Weinberg is making a point that has a lot of merit. It's also a memorable line. Is it an 'absolute truth'? No. But I don't believe in absolute truths. So no, I don't think the argument is intellectually dishonest.

With due respect, I don't believe you.

Surely, any tautology is an "absolute truth", however you define that term, for instance. That the theory of natural numbers using classical logic entails that 2 is the only even prime is surely an absolute truth.

Perhaps your statement that you don't believe in absolute truths wasn't an absolute truth?

 

[acbytesla]

With due respect, I don't believe you.

Surely, any tautology is an "absolute truth", however you define that term, for instance. That the theory of natural numbers using classical logic entails that 2 is the only even prime is surely an absolute truth.

Perhaps your statement that you don't believe in absolute truths wasn't an absolute truth?

You're discussing concepts and labels. Kind of being a bit picky I'd say.

 

[angrysoba]

Oh, give me a break. Weinberg is making a point that has a lot of merit. It's also a memorable line. Is it an 'absolute truth'? No. But I don't believe in absolute truths. So no, I don't think the argument is intellectually dishonest.

You don't believe in absolute truths? This also seems to me a baby and bath water ditching common to atheists. I submit your position is a bad one.

 

[acbytesla]

You don't believe in absolute truths? This also seems to me a baby and bath water ditching common to atheists. I submit your position is a bad one.

So be it. Blame Socrates then.

No scratch that. I mean to say I don't believe we can absolutely know anything. Not that there aren't absolute truths.

 

[phiwum]

You're discussing concepts and labels. Kind of being a bit picky I'd say.

No, I'm discussing statements. Consider the following statement:

(*) The theory of natural numbers entails (using classical logic) that 2 is the only even prime.

This is simply, plainly, "absolutely" true. (That word is in quotes, since it has no obvious meaning.) There is no person who understands that statement, is competent in evaluating it and can doubt that it is true. And, indeed, it is not true because all such persons say it is true, but rather because that's a plain fact of the world, whether anyone recognizes it or not.

 

[phiwum]

So be it. Blame Socrates then.

No scratch that. I mean to say I don't believe we can absolutely know anything. Not that there aren't absolute truths.

I'm sorry, but why do you suggest Socrates has ****-all to do with your odd claim? Because he sure as hell wasn't a fan of radical relativism, if Plato is any guide. Nor of nihilism. Socrates knew some things. Not many, but a few.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm sorry, but why do you suggest Socrates has ****-all to do with your odd claim? Because he sure as hell wasn't a fan of radical relativism, if Plato is any guide. Nor of nihilism. Socrates knew some things. Not many, but a few.

This isn't Nihilism. Socrates said 'I know that I know nothing'. Nihilism is that life is meaningless. Totally different.