Is your atheism predominately a science success or a theism fail?

[Thor 2]

I am concerned that this is the message given in some churches and mosques. And I am also concerned that you demonise all churches and mosques because of the attitudes of some.

Seriously, Thor. I'm kind of tired of trying to tell you that there are good, socially progressive and responsible churches that do not promote these messages - and that there are a lot more of them than you have ever acknowledged. You see only the worst of the worst, and assume that they're all like that. You have always done it, ever since you started posting on these topics, and though I have called you out on it every time, you refuse to even consider an alternative point of view. To you, all religion and expression of religion is by definition evil and irredeemable. Apart from anything else, that's just factually incorrect, and to continue to cling to it despite all available evidence is poor thinking.

Oh my you do go on!

You are making some kind of judgment about me and rounding it off to portray me as some kind anti theist demon however. You refuse to acknowledge that I have on a number of occasions, applauded the stance taken by some moderate theists on some matter or other. You refuse to admit that you at times engage in a slanging match with theists, every bit as aggressive as that of others here.

If the theists we are engaged with here were just Jainists I would have nothing to say. That is not so however and the woo they believe in impacts on us all. It may not impact on me directly but does on others I care about.

I don't know why, because I've explained my point to you any number of times. Oh wait, I do know why. It's because you just can't understand anything that contradicts your preferred narrative.

Your points are elusive arth and your summation of my position dodgy.

Apparently for you, the label of "religious" is an insult. Okay. Aren't you therefore deliberately insulting people every time you refer to someone as religious? How do you reconcile that with your claim that you "love the believer, hate the belief".

You Threw the line "Like arguing with a religious person" at me! Give me strength.

By the way, you know what that's very close to, right? Why do we give you a pass when we don't let religious people "love the sinner, hate the sin"?

Now, are you going to accuse me of supporting paedophiles and extremists again? Because if you are, we're done.

Why should you give me a pass when we don't give religious people a pass?

 

[arthwollipot]

*sigh*

Whatever. I'm tired of having this conversation yet again. Neither of us have anything new to bring up, so let's just move on, yeah?

 

[Thor 2]

*sigh*

Whatever. I'm tired of having this conversation yet again. Neither of us have anything new to bring up, so let's just move on, yeah?

So after starting this conversation yet again you are now tired of having it again. ....... *sigh* indeed.

 

[arthwollipot]

So after starting this conversation yet again you are now tired of having it again. ....... *sigh* indeed.

Yeah, tell me about it. Next time I try, please remind me that it's completely useless because you will never acknowledge my point. Start from there and maybe I can avoid this feeling of frustration in future.

 

[ynot]

Yeah, tell me about it. Next time I try, please remind me that it's completely useless because you will never acknowledge my point. Start from there and maybe I can avoid this feeling of frustration in future.

If by "acknowledge" you mean "agree with", then you may avoid feeling future frustration by not having the unreasonable expectation that others will agree with your "point" by default. (Hint - I don't agree with your "point", and I'm sure Thor 2 doesn't either).

 

[Thor 2]

If by "acknowledge" you mean "agree with", then you may avoid feeling future frustration by not having the unreasonable expectation that others will agree with your "point" by default. (Hint - I don't agree with your "point", and I'm sure Thor 2 doesn't either).

Your'e doing better than me ynot. I don't even know what "the point" is.

 

[arthwollipot]

Your'e doing better than me ynot. I don't even know what "the point" is.

AGAIN!!!

There are more good, progressive churches than you have ever acknowledged, and your contention that all churches are evil negates, marginalises and stigmatises them.

Is that clear enough? Seriously what the hell is so difficult about that?

 

[arthwollipot]

If by "acknowledge" you mean "agree with"

No I don't mean that at all. By "acknowledge" I mean "show some indication that you have actually read and understood what I have said".

Thor's post above where he claims not to understand what my "point" is even when I have explained it very clearly many many times" is exactly what I'm talking about.

I'm talking to a brick wall here, and that's what makes me say that it's like arguing with a religious person.

 

[ynot]

AGAIN!!!

There are more good, progressive churches than you have ever acknowledged, and your contention that all churches are evil negates, marginalises and stigmatises them.

Is that clear enough? Seriously what the hell is so difficult about that?

AGAIN!!!

You conflate theism and theists.

I'm sure Thor 2 will answer for himself . . . but . . .

You are making some kind of judgment about me and rounding it off to portray me as some kind anti theist demon however. You refuse to acknowledge that I have on a number of occasions, applauded the stance taken by some moderate theists on some matter or other. You refuse to admit that you at times engage in a slanging match with theists, every bit as aggressive as that of others here.

Bolding mine.

 

[Thor 2]

AGAIN!!!

There are more good, progressive churches than you have ever acknowledged, and your contention that all churches are evil negates, marginalises and stigmatises them.

Is that clear enough? Seriously what the hell is so difficult about that?

What am I supposed to say to this I wonder, given that I can't recall making a statement vilifying all churches as evil? I have been consistent in my assessment of theism, being at odds with the wellbeing of society and even the theists themselves though. If you can't see the difference here then I am at a loss.

I do admit to cynicism when considering those Christians attending those "happy clappy" type churches you have spoken of. They may leave the services feeling all warm and fuzzy, feeling the experience has had a positive and fulfilling effect, although an un- fulfilling effect on their wallets. I am cynical when considering the spiritual leaders of these churches, who's own faith may not be so fulfilling, but who's wallets certainly are.

 

[Thor 2]

AGAIN!!!

You conflate theism and theists.

I'm sure Thor 2 will answer for himself . . . but . . .

Bolding mine.

Thanks ynot.

Seems to be a failing of comprehension of some in being able to see anti theism as different from anti theist. I can see why some theists will deliberately pretend to not differentiate, because they may want to identify the atheist as an enemy, but why arth does it ...... ?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Thanks ynot.

Seems to be a failing of comprehension of some in being able to see anti theism as different from anti theist. I can see why some theists will deliberately pretend to not differentiate, because they may want to identify the atheist as an enemy, but why arth does it ...... ?

So theism is independent of theists, just like gravity is independent of humans. The joke is this: Theism is not independent of the humans, who do that. It is not theism, which is the cause of theists and theists is the effect of theism. Theism is a behavior in theists. Imagine that all humans were no more, we know have a reality in which we still have e.g. gravity. Would there still be theism?

From a different angle because theism is wrong, i.e. it has no positive evidence and is a mistake/error in thinking, it would follow that a human, which is a theist, is wrong. There can be no thinking with a human and thus wrong thinking is done by a human.
Now I don't mean wrong in a moral sense, but wrong in the cognitive sense, but that has a limit.
There are 4 different categories of wrong:

1. Wrong in doing with a body; i.e. someone can't fly solely by flapping the arms.
2. Wrong in abstract thinking sense; i.e. 2+2=5.
3. Wrong in the moral sense; i.e. to cause harm in another human. That requires the evaluation, that causing harm, is wrong; it is subjective and wrong is wrong to somebody; i.e. somebody thinks/evaluates that causing harm, is wrong.
4. Wrong in the transcendent sense; i.e to claim that somebody can know in detail what has reality independent of the mind, other than there is something, which has reality independent of the mind. I.e. das Ding an sich.

So a gnostic theist is wrong in the following senses:
From reality as it appears, she/he can't point to God.
She/he thinks, the belief in God, is evidence of God. That is magical thinking, because it means that the belief in God is what causes God to exist. God is the effect caused by the belief in God.
She/he thinks, that morality is not possible without God, but doesn't understand morality is the effect all the way back to the replication of the gene; i.e. biology.
She/he does special pleading, because only she/he and her/his kind has a special transcendent knowledge. She/he is different!

But is it a fact that it is something she/he can do. The joke is that any belief is real, if it has real consequence as subsequent other behavior; e.g. i.e. the belief in witches causes the burning of witches at the stake.

All 4 categories of wrong and thus right are cognitive; i.e. takes place in brains and you have no natural science evidence for the fact, that theism is wrong. The only reason theism is wrong is because you and other humans think, it is wrong.
There is a category of words, which have no referent independent of human brains. E.g. useful, that it works, meaningful, that it matters and so on. All of these words requires brains and that it is useful to somebody.
I accept that you subjectively think that theism is wrong. It is a fact that you can do so. But it is not a fact, that I think theism is wrong. Nor do I think it is right. I don't need theism, because I can do without it. But that doesn't make theism neither right nor wrong. I simply have a life without the belief in a God/Gods.

I don't hate nor like theism. I am indifferent to it, because I can do without it. Now if you want to debate whether theism is morally wrong, I am "your man", because I am philosopher and I am good at meta-ethics inside methodological naturalism.

With regards

 

[ynot]

Well self-proclaimed "philosopher that’s good at meta-ethics inside methodological naturalism”, you’re apparently hopeless at understanding what Thor 2 and myself are saying. Hint - We aren't saying theism is independent of theists at all. Perhaps you should try critical thinking rather than philosophizing?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Well self-proclaimed "philosopher that’s good at meta-ethics inside methodological naturalism”, you’re apparently hopeless at understanding what Thor 2 and myself are saying. Hint - We aren't saying theism is independent of theists at all. Perhaps you should try critical thinking rather than philosophizing?

You do understand that theism is not wrong, unless you think is wrong. That also goes for the non-moral versions of the word "wrong". All versions/variants of wrong are cognitive, subjective and relative when it comes to wrong. Theism is not wrong as how reality works in practice, because it is a fact that some humans do theism.
In the "ladder" of reality, it goes like this:
Physical->chemistry->biology->culture/psychology->theism. Theism is as much a fact of how reality works in practice as gravity is a fact. Theism is no more or less wrong than gravity is.
It is the is-ought problem in a sense. From the fact theism is fact, does not follow whether you ought to do it or not. Whether you do or don't do theism is cognitive, subjective and relative.

But theism is not wrong in itself and it is only wrong dependent of human evaluation of in the end human behavior.
You don't have to hate theism or think it is wrong. You just have to say the following to a theist: I accept you as a human, but I won't do as you do. I do it differently. Now do you want to move along, fight or cooperate? If you want to fight, I don't do that any more. I am a pacifist now, so you might as well kill me. So what do you want to do?

There is no right/wrong or good/bad out there independent of your brain. That takes places in your brain. That is the same for all other humans capable of right/wrong or good/bad. It takes place in their brains individually and can be shared inter-subjectively, but it is not independent of human brains.
Theism is only wrong if you think so and if you hate it, it is something you do. The hate is not in theism as such, it is in you. And if other humans hate you, it doesn't follow with logic/evidence that you ought to hate their behavior and/or them.
So if you hate theism, you can't use science to give evidence for that the hate is right/true/correct, because the scientific methodology is objective and what you do is subjective.

With regards

 

[ynot]

I see you continue to choose philosophizing over critical thinking (I tried). No surprise I guess given you're a self-proclaimed philosophy expert.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I see you continue to choose philosophizing over critical thinking (I tried). No surprise I guess given you're a self-proclaimed philosophy expert.

Yes, you can hate theism without hate theists. Can you hate theism only using critical thinking?
Since you claim critical thinking, you can also answer if you can hate theism only using critical thinking, right?

In context you are claiming critical thinking and the concept of "hating theism", so it follows natural to combine both: Can you hate theism only using critical thinking?

You can't get around this. You using critical thinking concerning reality includes hate. So using critical thinking and knowing how reality works, you can answer.
Of course, you don't have to answer, but the problem is that you claim that you can, because you use critical thinking and you know how reality works.
In short I hold you responsible, because you claim that you are. You claim you can answer, therefore you ought to answer. You speak with critical thinking, therefore you ought to do so.

With regards

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

RE: Is your atheism predominately a science success or a theism fail?

This could be a false dichotomy, because science doesn't cover hate, so if theism failed because if you hate it, it is not about science or theism as such, but emotions.

So ynot, here we are again - critical thinking versus emotions. So besides predominately, is there something else predominately going on. Well, hate apparently.

Edit:
Another take:
All atheists only have in common that they are atheists, so hate shouldn't be relevant, because critical thinking apparently involves objectivity as without biases including emotions, right, ynot???

 

[arthwollipot]

You conflate theism and theists.

Theism is not independent of theists. You literally can't have theism without theists.

 

[Thor 2]

Lots of squabbling going on here in my absence.

My take on this is quite simple, as I go along with the analogy that religion is like a virus, a virus that effects the thinking capacity of the afflicted. Sure it cannot exist without the mind it invades, but it is a something in its own right just as polio is.

I suppose I could elaborate on this, and stack heaps of words around the notion as Tommy has done in his thesis ^, but it is a simple idea so forgive the brevity.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I'm an atheist on the basis that I am not "sold" by anyone's particular "God" and/or Religion. It's not really a "fail" for them, because apparently it seems to work for them, and they're happy believing that. It's also not a "fail" for me, because I'm not asking anyone to justify their beliefs to me. I don't care why you believe what you believe. For all that matters, you could have no reason to justify why you believe in your God.