Atheism is not an Ideology?
Faith and Philosophy
| June 6, 2008
| Tim
For generations now, popular atheist apologists have blamed "religion" (or sometimes, more specially, Christianity) for most or all of mankind's self-inflicted ills. Pointing at the Catholic/Protestant wars in later European history, and having been weaned on (mostly mythical) accounts of Inquisitions, many argued that religion must surely be the foul hand behind most human suffering.
By the late 20th century, however, evidence began to mount (in the form of piles of millions upon millions of murdered innocents) that atheistic regimes had far outdone theistic ones in terms of their ability to murder and repress. So the defense quickly became that, well, different atheists had nothing in common, and it wasn't fair to lump them all together. Atheist apologists who themselves were extraordinarily fond of lumping Wahabis in with Quakers (e.g. Sam Harris) suddenly denounced the extreme unfairness of lumping Objectivists in with Communists!
And, more absurdly, the rallying cry (irony alert!) became that "atheism isn't an ideology", or, as one atheist I know put it, that "atheism teaches nothing". In a sense, that's as valid as pointing that "religion" is similarly nonspecific. But even while making the case, atheists inadvertently admit there are different atheistic ideologies (for example, Objectivists versus Marxists) -- just as there are different groups within theism. And I personally believe it's just as fair to generalize about atheistic subgroups, insomuch as they act or think in similar ways, as with others.
For example, consider the argument itself that "atheism teaches nothing" (in its various forms). That argument itself is an atheistic dogma, and you'll find it accompanying other atheistic dogmas on web sites like this one (and he's quoting another atheist, who's repeating the argument he's heard from yet another, and so on). I'm not saying all atheists are the same, but among a certain variety of aggressive and hostile Western atheists, you'll see the exact same arguments, assertions, and views being repeated over and over -- all while insisting that atheism implies nothing in particular!
In fact, I would easily assert that there is far more variety among "religions" than there are among atheists, making this atheistic protest even more inapt. There's far more dissent among "the religious" about, say, embryonic stem cells than among atheists. An atheist must believe we evolved by natural means, but a religious adherent can believe in unguided evolution (God is not involved in the universe), guided evolution (God set up those laws) or special creation. Materialists must reject the idea of spirits or miracles, but the religious can hold a great variety of views. Among the religious, there are many different understandings of what "God" might mean, all with greatly different implications -- but when you say there is no God at all, you select among a narrower set. For example, if there is no God, morality must be an evolutionary or social construct. On the other hand, if I believe in God, I can take either view: Perhaps God is beyond morality (and our moral beliefs are just our own invention, or a side effect of evolution) or perhaps God is moral, and then morals could possibly come from God.
Surely, on many of the above issues, atheist apologists would argue they are right, and those who dissent are wrong. "Well, of course we evolved under unguided natural laws. Some religious people recognize that, and some are still mired in the dark ages." Well, that may be so, but also confirms my point: that vocal atheists are quite sure of themselves, and that they tend to think along similar lines in regarding certain core topics.
You can't have it both ways, but militant atheists certainly try.
So is "atheism" an ideology? However you want to define "ideology", "atheism" is much, much closer to being one than, say, "religion". All the elements one might include in "ideology" can be found among groups of western atheists: a common outlook on certain points, repeated talking points and arguments, a shared set of enemies, social affinity networks, etc. This is particularly so among the more vocal Western atheists -- the sort who tend to repeat whatever argument is currently in vogue among their peers.
So, humorously enough, the popularity of the "atheism is not an ideology" argument is itself strong evidence that atheists can indeed be ideologues. And to the extent atheists share the same prejudices and outlooks, they can and indeed should be grouped and examined, just as we have done with the religious.
So, humorously enough, the popularity of the "atheism is not an ideology" argument is itself strong evidence that atheists can indeed be ideologues.
And here I thought all along that all the parroting between atheists, and lack of rational, coherent arguments, or accurate knowledge of history was a good sign that the vast majority of them were ideologues. :D
(And it should be "as they have done with the religious" in the last sentence. I don't recall grouping myself with Wahabbis... ;-) )
Okay, a little definition work, shall we?
Atheism means a lack of belief in God. Nothing more, nothing less. You can't blame or credit it with anything!
As for Objectivists and communists, you can lump them together under "irrational nuts".
As for there being less variety for atheists... reminds me of my favorite phrase:
"There is but one path to good.... and an infinite number to evil. Watch your step."
Or more specifically there is only ONE right answer for each question. The fact that theists have MORE varied answers isn't a good sign- it would be like saying communism is better than democracy because there is more different forms.
Why do atheists tend to have less varied answers to things with a supernatural component? Because the supernatural doesn't exist. Look at the very definition of the word- things are supernatural when you can't scrap enough evidence for them. So you relabel them and hope people fall for it.
As for ideology... that would be antitheism- the belief that religion is harmful and false. Antitheism is an ideology, one that you strawman.
Antitheists believe that religion is dangerous because it embraces the idea of faith.
They blame it for a large number, but not all, bad things.
Crimes that aren't religious are secular. Religious and atheists both have secular motivations. Secular is not atheism.
Marxist communists killed in the name of the revolution and their attempts to be their society manifest on Earth.
The fact that theists have MORE varied answers isn't a good sign- it would be like saying communism is better than democracy because there is more different forms.
Do you really believe that?
Why do atheists tend to have less varied answers to things with a supernatural component? Because the supernatural doesn't exist.
Nations have competed for centuries. If religious belief was not adaptive, wouldn't atheistic societies dominate ones with more religious belief?
Ultimately, the existance of anything is inferred indirectly from our senses. We call a thing true because belief in it helps us understand regular patterns in the world. People believed in electrons because they saw auger tracks, but they didn't see the electrons themselves. Similarly, people might believe in spirit if doing so helps promote a more predictive or adaptive model of the world or human behavior.
The fact that theists have MORE varied answers isn't a good sign
Of course. But I don't think that that's the argument. Christians don't lump themselves with Buddhists. The variety of faiths in existance argues only against those atheists who put all religions in one category "religion."
Clarification of the above, do you really believe that there is a greater variety of communist societies than democracic ones?
grr. I mean "are a greater variety of..."
Samuel! Welcome! Regarding your various points:
Okay, a little definition work, shall we? Atheism means a lack of belief in God.
Okay, a little here history work here, shall we? Atheism was formed from atheos (Greek for no-God) and -isme (late medieval French suffix). Historically, it has meant nogod-ism (a positive assertion of God's nonexistence), not no-godism (mere failure to believe in God). Read the classical atheists (Bertrand Russell, etc.) if you're unsure on this point.
The definition you would like everyone to agree to was proposed recently, in the 1980s, as a rhetorical device, by Anthony Flew, who admitted it was historically understood as described above, but also admitted, in the same essay, that he was frustrated with atheists having to defend their assertions.
So now atheists attack with positive assertions which only make sense given a presumption of nogod-ism, but retreat as though they had only ever asserted no-godism. Most the public hasn't bought it (nor do many prominent atheists, like Richard Dawkins, who use it the old way) but hey, it was worth a try, I guess. ;-)
(Side note: I have no problem with a group wanting to rename themselves. (It might provoke laughter, as Dawkins' attempt to insist everyone should call him and his friends "brights", but not protest.) But it's quite an odd thing when a group tries to broaden their definition to include others who have not been historically included -- quite without the consent of those others!)
You can't blame or credit it with anything!
Again, you demonstrate my point precisely!
First, you're not paying attention, or haven't read what was written above. Where did I "blame or credit" atheism with anything? But when challenged, you repeat your mantra again, unthinkingly.
Second, you don't attempt to justify or explain your assertion. Atheists credit atheism with a wide variety of good effects -- please read their websites, if you're unfamiliar with this phenomenon. Why are they wrong for doing so? Others blame atheism for reducing man to a non-spiritual being. Is that wrong too? If so why?
But you don't have to justify your assertion do you? Mere repetition is enough, isn't it?
Like I said: an atheist dogma.
Or more specifically there is only ONE right answer for each question.
If the question is formed or understood precisely enough, that is.
The fact that theists have MORE varied answers...
Ah, so you make my point again. Even you arenow willing to admit that there is more ideological variation among theists than atheists. Yet you contradict yourself: if atheism narrows one's ideological range, then it can indeed be credited or blamed for whatever that narrower range of views may correlate with.
The fact that theists have MORE varied answers isn't a good sign- it would be like saying communism is better than democracy because there is more different forms.
Sometimes that's true. But sometimes it's the opposite. Sometimes a group of people cluster around a solution because the evidence points roughly in that direction, but there's debate about precisely where.
Would you apply the same litmus test to biogenesis? After all, young earth creationists are all very specific on the date of creation, whereas evolutionists have a wide variety of ideas about when, where, and how life may have arisen. Shallow pools of water? Oceanic magma vents? Another planet? Interstellar space? On crystals? Your rule, if you truly wished to apply it consistently, would suggest the evolutionists must be wrong.
So my point here is that your form of argument is fallacious.
Why do atheists tend to have less varied answers to things with a supernatural component? Because the supernatural doesn't exist.
Wow: I thought just a second ago you were insisting atheism didn't imply anything. Now you assert categorically that the supernatural doesn't exist. So you're not an atheist, I take it?
Look at the very definition of the word-
Etymology's not really your strong suit, is it? Well, if we must: "Nature" refers to the natural order of things -- the material world, thus "supernatural" means that which transcends or is above it. There's nothing in said definition which shows it exists or not.
... things are supernatural when you can't scrap enough evidence for them.
Enough evidence for what? Certainly, supernatural events aren't repeatable, or they'd be laws. But enough people have encountered such phenomenon that they're not unreasonable for thinking there's more to the universe than just the dimensions we can see and touch.
Atheists typically believe quite an array of unprovable things as well -- they're just usually, in my experience, less aware of them.
So you relabel them and hope people fall for it.
What did "we" relabel? Are you saying there was an older word for the supernatural, and that the word "supernatural" is a cunning redefinition by theists?
You're too fun: First, you demand everyone use a polemically-motivated, brand-new definition of atheism, then you complain about how awful it is when people "relabel" things in order to win debates!
Projection?
Antitheism is an ideology, one that you strawman.
I'm not sure how I could have "strawman"ed it if I didn't actually mention it yet.
But boy, you sure got me there again! Whew! ;-)
So what's your position? You have asserted categorically that the supernatural doesn't exist. So are you, by your definition, an "antitheist" -- or do you believe it's not in any way harmful to be completely wrong about such things?
But I don't think that that's the argument. Christians don't lump themselves with Buddhists. The variety of faiths in existance argues only against those atheists who put all religions in one category "religion."
Precisely right, Ryan -- you are tremendously insightful. When you're in a religion or worldview, it's very easy to define the rest of the world as differing with you along one axis. You draw a circle and say: "Us in here, all the others, out there." It's easy to see the whole world in those terms.
Atheists (in the typical meaning the word) draw that line along supernatural-belief. A Buddhist may draw it between those who have been "enlightened" (perhaps meaning they've realized the world is illusory, or other close meaning) and those who have not. Environmentalists are the ones who care about the planet, others do not. Christians talk about those who believe in Jesus, etc.
What's fun about your answer is that puts them up against each other. To the atheist, only they have the true answer, "knowing" the supernatural doesn't exist. But to the Muslim, the atheist is lumped in with all the other varieties of wrong answers among the Kaffir: godlessness, idolatry, "people of the book", the insufficiently committed, etc. The litmus test Samuel offered can be used to prove each is equally true, depending on the choice of criteria.
Which is why it gave both of us a chuckle, apparently.
In truth, the Western atheist is much closer to a Western Christian than the Christian is to, say, a Taoist (who could also count as an atheist, using Flew's definition) or Tibetan Buddhist. Most Western atheists are, in some sense, almost Christian (holding many Christian values and presuppositions) -- except for the God part. Only when you study other cultures, do you (or did I, anyway) realize how truly alien other belief systems can be.
First, variety of societies.
Technically "democracy" means direct democracy. There is only ONE form of direct democracy. However, I'm going to include Republicanism- it is only fair. All varieties of Republicanism are MUCH more similar than communist societies in the real world. Conceptually, the only possible differance are in structure- for example, parlimentary vs presidental, written vs unwritten constitution, public officials, public works- minor stuff. You can go through out the EU and the differance is minor.
Communist societies are MUCH more varied. They include all societies where the state controls all major economic activity. Not all were Marxist- that is just a small subsect. Excluding communal groups, you get a divirse missmass of the Incans (theocratic communists), the Romanians (the most prolife state EVER), Albania (purging the world of religion a preist at a time), CCCP (compare Stalin to his successors. Huge differance), The People's Republic (religion insures "social harmony", the economy is almost capitalist), North Korea (the leader is a God... no, his father, who is still leader, although he is dead. You won't pry him of that throne!), Cuba (New Soviet Man), Cambodia (Industry is bad, smart people are bad, glasses are bad- kill'em all) and Vietnam (Liberating people from Worse communists and even more corrupt governments).
They have. Western Europe was extremely secular during the age of exploration. They turned to scientists, not the bible for answers- how do you think they made those ships? Those guns? A society doesn't have to be of atheists to get said benefits- the simply must have atheistic science and be secular enough not to care. There is a reason the power that ruled the largest empires after 1800 where England and France.
Christianity in itself has an extreme number of answers. Is Jesus the son of God? Did he die? Trinity? What must be done for salvation? Etc...
Tim
Doesn't matter to me- I am a strong atheist. However, given that theist means "one who believes in God", it would seem it opposite would mean "one who doesn't believe in God".
I'm pretty sure you are wrong about the definition, but it is irrelevant. People who don't believe and people who declare God doesn't exist is more cumbersome.
? You declare that "atheism teaches nothing" is a point of yours, than declare it atheistic dogma... The correct word is secular. Atheism deals with belief. Secular deals with actions and ideologies. For example, Marxist Communism is a secular and antitheist ideology.
Why am I making this distinction? Because when people call things "atheistic belief systems" they make the word meaningless. Theists can have "atheistic" belief systems! If you mean a belief system that ONLY atheists can have, than that is true (not for communism- for Marxism).
No- all questions have right answers. If it is broad, than you have an answer with qualifiers, ex:
Can I cross the street?
If at a crosswalk and the sign says walk, yes. Otherwise no.
Do you know that sane people have MUCh narrower ranges of thought than crazy people? You know why? Because beliefs should be based on reality and when they aren't they wander.
No, they have multiple theories. One is right, the rest is wrong. That is what science is for. They know that- they just don't know which one and (in theory) everyone is willing to admit they will change their mind according to evidence.
The material world is all that exists.
Relabeling God. There isn't enough evidence for natural, so now God is supernatural.
Antitheists are people who believe religion is wrong and harmful. The "atheists" you attack are all antitheists. Given you strawman them, you are strawmanning both.
I'm an antitheist.
Tim (again)
Both worldviews are based on faith. So we can deal with them the same. Similar to the way we deal with objectivists and commies- they ignore reason when it suits them.
The only differance between atheists and everyone else is God belief. Since it is based on faith, dividing up the world that way makes sense.
Christian values? You do realize that is nonsense? Look at history- most of these values are recent. The ones that aren't happen to be universal.
I'll sum it up tomorrow.
Samuel! Welcome back! Normally, I try to let others answer their own comments, well, this was just too interesting:
Communist societies are MUCH more varied... All varieties of Republicanism are MUCH more similar than communist societies in the real world. Conceptually, the only possible differance are in structure- for example, parlimentary vs presidental
First, you seem to be using the word "society", but describing government structure. Those are different, you know? India and the UK may have similar government layouts, but that doesn't make their societies at all the same.
Second, it's just amusing: I've never seen Communism depicted as a flowering of many vastly differing forms, while Democratic Republics are, you know, cookie cutters. Albania's hostility to religion is, um, vastly different than the approach taken in most other Communist regimes? And Cuba's ideal of the "New Soviet Man" as being, um, very different than the ideal man who was to be created in Cambodia, the USSR, under Mao, the Song Revolution in N Korea, etc.
Well, alrighty then! We'll just have to split the difference here. But I thank you very much for clarifying your views on the matter.
Doesn't matter to me- I am a strong atheist. However, given that theist means "one who believes in God", it would seem it opposite would mean "one who doesn't believe in God".
I understand and see your point. But think more about the word "opposite", which means "opposed to". It carries a sense of pointing the other way. We don't say: "I'm opposed to X" or "my beliefs are the opposite of X" when we mean I have no opinion on X, or merely fail to enthusiastically assert X.
You're certainly welcomed to your own preferences, but history's history, and even Flew admitted at the time that he was trying to change the way the word was used.
I'm pretty sure you are wrong about the definition...
Okay, here you go. Anthony Flew himself, admitting precisely what he's doing and why:
Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of 'atheist' in English is 'someone who asserts that there is no such being as God', I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively.
The definition you feel is "right" never existed in any practical sense before 1984. Moreover, Flew also admits that he fully expects his reader will wonder why he's trying to make "atheism" mean what, at the time, most everyone colloquially called "agnosticism":
The introduction of this new interpretation of the word 'atheism' may appear to be a piece of perverse Humpty-Dumptyism, going arbitrarily against established common usage. 'Whyever', it could be asked, 'don't you make it not the presumption of atheism but the presumption of agnosticism?' It is too soon to attempt a full answer to this challenge and this suggestion.
So there you have it. You're repeating a fairly new definition, created in 1984 by Anthony Flew, created, as he admits, to try to change the debate -- that is, for polemic reasons. If you deplore "relabeling' things, then you must, for consistency, deplore this case as well.
Most people haven't caught on yet (and, as I've mentioned, even some prominent atheists don't play the game right) but many everyday atheists, in my experience, will insist this is what the word has always meant, and anyone who says otherwise is being sneaky or ignorant.
See what I mean? Received wisdom. Unquestioned dogma. The word always meant that! Only it didn't. All you have to do is read the classical atheists to discover it.
You declare that "atheism teaches nothing"
No, an atheist I know insisted upon that.
The correct word is secular.
No, secular simply means worldly, or temporal, or at least not overtly religious. Even Christians are being "secular" when they're at a non-religious job -- but we couldn't properly say they're being atheistic. This strikes me as an example of how trying to screw with one word ends up with people getting confused about a whole host of others as well.
For clarity, I want you to understand that I use "atheism" in the historical and popularly-understood sense. This is either fine because I have history and popular use on my side, or it's fine because if Anthony Flew and others can insist on their own definitions, than others can likewise.
I don't think word games are helpful, so I simply try to use the most common meaning of each word. So (for example) I also use agnostic in the everyday sense (not sure, no particular stance), not in the original (but much less well-known) sense of saying we can't know things.
For example, Marxist Communism is a secular and antitheist ideology. Why am I making this distinction? Because when people call things "atheistic belief systems" they make the word meaningless. Theists can have "atheistic" belief systems!
I agree that Marxism can be non-atheistic. (Nor have I argued otherwise, ever.) I wouldn't call "Marxism" an inherently atheistic belief system. (Nor socialism.) But when some belief system offers, as one of it's main dogmatic points, an assertion that no God exists -- and actively fights against such assertions -- it's certainly fair to call it "atheistic".
So if Lenin asserts, for example "Atheism is a material and inseparable part of Marxism", and you are a follower of Lenin, then you are indeed a follower of an atheistic system. It doesn't mean you personally must be an atheist (you could dissent with that point, or simply be confused, or going along out of some other motive) but it does mean that the system advocates atheism.
I'm not sure why this is so hard.
No- all questions have right answers. If it is broad, than you have an answer with qualifiers, ex: Can I cross the street? If at a crosswalk and the sign says walk, yes. Otherwise no.
The assertion was not: "All questions have right answers". (Which is false anyway.) Your assertion was that each question has only ONE right answer. Of course that's false, too -- don't be silly.
"Write a valid value of X: _________ where
X^2 = 16"
X can equal 4, but it can also equal -4.
Again, this is not that hard. Your suggestion that you "qualify" the question is just a way of saying that you'll answer a different question. But "X^4 = 16 where X>4" is not the same question as the last one; "X & Y" is not the same as "X & Y & Z" -- even though the later has just one more qualifier than the former.
So I guess, if all questions have only one right answer, then we must either define "two right answers" as being a valid interpretation of the words "one right answer", or we must say that the first broad question -- the one you felt you had to rephrase to answer -- didn't exist. (Because it had more than one answer, and all questions have one answer, therefore, it must not have been a question!)
I'm learning the most amazing things here.
(By the way, even your example of a question with "one right answer" has more answers. You could cross the street against the light. Or maybe there is no light involved. The question is ambiguous. You know what ambiguous means? It means capable of being decided in two or more possible ways. So I guess, since there are NO questions which can be answered correctly in two or more ways, there is no such thing as an "ambiguous question"! Somebody phone the dictionary people!)
Do you know that sane people have MUCh narrower ranges of thought than crazy people?
I've already agreed with you that in some cases a narrower variety of views surrounds the right answer. But I've also pointed out there are cases where the opposite is true.
Ignoring that answer, and then enumerating more cases of either type doesn't make your argument non-fallacious. Read the comment rules, please.
The material world is all that exists.
Thank you! Another unquestioned atheist dogma, repeated right here on my blog. Previously, you argued it didn't exist because of the "definition". I pointed out the definition seemed to imply no such thing.
So do you answer with evidence?
No, you simply repeat your assertion again.
So, one more time: What's your evidence that the material world is all that exists? Is it definitionally true (i.e. you're simply defining "material world" to mean "all that exists") or are you saying that you are sure nothing people would typically call "supernatural" exists?
I'll be happy to give counter-evidence. The universe -- that is "the material world" -- had a beginning. It apparently came out of something wholly unlike itself. So it follows that there is indeed something outside this universe / spacetime continuum.
That doesn't prove the existence of ghosts, ESP, etc. -- but it certainly does leave us knowing, full well, that there is something "out there" besides the visible dimensions in which we exist.
Given you strawman them, you are strawmanning both.
Where have I "strawman"ed someone? Second time I'm asking here. Please cite the passage, and explain the "strawman" in detail from the article above, or drop it.
Are you saying it's a "strawman" argument because I refuse to use your own definition of "atheist" and "antitheist"? Sorry, that's not what the word means.
Both worldviews are based on faith.
What both? I'm sorry, you're losing me here. You mean both as in the sentence before that, both "atheists" and "antitheists"? That would certainly be a refreshing admission, but I'm not sure that's what you mean.
BTW: I use "antitheists" to describe people with a viceral hatred of religion, not simply those who are sure God doesn't exist, but don't mind if others do.
Similar to the way we deal with objectivists and commies- they ignore reason when it suits them.
Right! You're making my case nicely. Sam Harris pointed out that Communism is a lot like a religion. Quite right there too. So you're both pointing out that atheism (or even "antitheism", if you prefer) is no guarantee that the one holding it is going to be particularly "reasonable" or immune from a kind of strong "religion."
That has certainly been my experience.
Christian values? You do realize that is nonsense? Look at history- most of these values are recent.
Most of what values, Samuel? You didn't even bother to find out what "Christian values" I was referring to before making your assertion to the contrary.
Well, regardless, best to you!
Technically "democracy" means direct democracy. ...Communist societies are MUCH more varied.
Your argument seems to be that Communist societies are different because they can uphold different values.
While democratic societies or democratic republics could certainly hold different values, you argue that they are the same because they are limited in their possible forms.
This doesn't seem like an apples to apples comparison.
Of course, I agree that a democracy might have certain prerequisites that a communist dictatorship of some form wouldn't require, so it might be more limited in that sense.
They turned to scientists, not the bible for answers. how do you think they made those ships? Those guns?
This seems like a false dichotomy. A society can either look towards the bible to decide how to self-organize, promote morality and treat one another OR they can make guns and ships? A society can easily do both.
How did people cooperate well enough to make these things, or accumulate enough capital to make them rather than simply competing more fiercely intra-nationally for power? Why did knowledge accumulate in the west, while the East, despite its numerous geniuses, seemed to lose so much of the knowledge it created. Inventions were created and then abandoned.
It's similar to the notion that famines are less frequent in democracies.
Who would say "you either look to farmers for food or you look to democratic government?" It's possible that farmers in a democratic society might produce more efficiently and have their product distributed more effectively. (Note: I'm not weighing in on whether the effect between democracies and famines is correlation or causation. Just that looking to social organization and the actual processes employed by people with a given organization are not mutually exclusive.)
There was an interesting discussion elsewhere on this same site and I'd be honestly interested to hear your take on it; why was it that western Europe managed to develop science, formally testing and rejecting hypotheses on a material basis and building a body of knowledge, while the more atheistic yet still advanced Asian cultures failed to do so?
A society doesn't have to be of atheists to get said benefits
Can you point me towards any society of mostly atheists who actually have gotten said benefits?
Francis Bacon wasn't an atheist.
He writes in "The Essays: Of Atheism" that "a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion."
link
Newton wasn't an atheist. You could make a long list of scientists and natural philosophers who were theists, which makes it peculiar to refer to science as 'atheistic.' If many self described theists have made strides with what you see as 'atheistic' and many atheistic societies (of different flavors) do not then perhaps you may have misjudged the effects of Judeo-Christian beliefs on those who hold them? Of course, Marxist atheism is a destructive form of atheism. Folks like Asimov seem to be beneficial. But can you point me to a society that consists predominantly of good atheists?
Theists can have "atheistic" belief systems!
Might there be some (of what you rather uniquely label) "atheistic" belief systems which are even supported and created predominantly by Judeo-Christian beliefs? If so, the term 'atheistic' seems deceptive if it occurs in a predominantly Judeo-Christian society.
The academic system of citation was a direct secularization of the religious system, for instance.
No- all questions have right answers. If it is broad, than you have an answer with qualifiers, ex:
Can I cross the street?
If at a crosswalk and the sign says walk, yes. Otherwise no.
And all questions have as qualifiers, at the least, the premises they are based on.
Can I cross the street outside of the crosswalk? Yes, if I don't care about the laws.
If all questions have one answer and all questions have, as qualifiers, the moral premises that they are based on then either there are many right answers to a question depending on one's moral assumptions or there is some way to prove a single morality.
There isn't enough evidence for natural, so now God is supernatural.
Patterns in the narrow sense can easily be a part of larger patterns.
While humans are made up of chemicals I certainly wouldn't describe most human interactions in terms of chemistry. By using a different vocabulary I'm able to think about events and make predictions which would elude me if I restricted myself to simple physics, chemistry and biology.
Screw it. I tried writing it out, but I realized the definitional things are just word games. Either Flew is wrong or the English language was missing an obvious word (agnostic doesn't count- it is about knowledge).
So skipping the word games because we have managed to agree they are pointless...
Marxism is atheistic- they are no theocratic Marxists. As for Lenin's statement, that is refered to as antitheism- the belief religion is false AND harmful. Atheism and activism.
First off, negative numbers DON'T occur in real life. Atheism and theism deal with reality and MUST have a single correct answer. Societies also occur in reality, and guess what? They have the same constraints.
You simply showed the problem with rules- there are looks and lots of qualifiers for unique situations.
If you give an example of a real life of twp answers to one problem, than the answers are probably either very similar or situational- one uses resource a, another resource b and thus implementation depends on the situation. For example a pontoon vs steel bridge. If you need a bridge up NOW, use pontoon. Long term use steel (Yes, I'm simplifying- I am not an engineer.)
The material world is all that exists based on evidence and definition.
Evidence- nothing supernatural has ever been proven.
Definition- the term "natural" is used to include everything in this universe. Things that are natural obey natures rules.
Now, you claim that it had to come from something... why? Could the universe simply be uncaused? Or take its cause with it? What makes you think the rules inside apply to the whole?
I was refering to buddists and Christians. Both are based on faith. Therefore I can deal with them similarly.
That is correct. However, I try for reasonable ness AND it is possilbe- not for theists however.
Well, I don't live in a hole in the ground- I know what you mean by "Christian values". It is nice you assume I have no idea what I am talking about.
In an effort to make things simplier I will list definitions. If you don't like them, provide your own words- you need to cover the same definitions however.
Theist- A person who believes in God.
Faith- Believing something in spite of the evidence
Atheist (weak)- atheist agnostic. Does not believe in God.
Atheist (strong)- believes God doesn't exist
Antitheist- An atheist who believes religion is bad.
Christian Values- Values that exist in Christianity but not other belief systems. Alternatively, values that Christianity has consistantly held.
Christianity- belief Jesus is the final prophet.
Ryan
Look at what the Europeans did. The bible said the world was made in seven days... and they took it literally. Until they realized it was wrong and declared it "metaphorical". The fact is that they left scholasticism and rote knowledge and moved onto experimentation- and given the previous idea that the bible had all the knowledge you'd need... well, it was change.
Read Guns, Germs and Steel. It will give a good answer. The short answer is that China had, for must of its history no external enemies and only had internal problems- so it controlled and stifled science and technology if they were problems. So it didn't advance (many inventions cause HUGE uphevals). Ditto for Japan. India was broken up into too many small states. Indochina? I don't know.
Also, Asian societies weren't atheistic. India (Hinduism), Indochina (Hinduism, Buddism, Islam), Japan (Buddism, Shintoism- Emperor is a living God), China (Buddahism, Confucism, Taoism, Ancestor worship, Pantheon).
http://www.godchecker.com/pantheon/chinese-mythology.php
It is just "they are so spiritual" crap.
The reasons famines are less common under democracies is two reasons
- the government takes famine contol measures
- democracies didn't exist during the times in human history when famines happened regularly.
Currently the only societies that have ever been atheists in human history would be in Western Europe and Japan. Prior to 1945 I don't believe there were any mostly atheist countries. I'm not sure about the stats for Eastern Europe.
The majority of scientists where theists up until the time of Darwin. Given that for a large period of time apostacy was punishable by death, it makes sense.
That was my point. You only get a narrow range if you are trying for specific agreed upon results. Truth however is one of them.
But human actions are built on chemistry. We simply don't use it because it is too complicated. The fact remains that you CAN make more detailed predictions what people will do using chemistry, biology and physics. It is rare because the system is so comlicated.
However, I try for reasonable ness AND it is possilbe- not for theists however.
What is possible? I'm not sure what you're saying here.
Faith- Believing something in spite of the evidence
Faith would probably be better defined, at least by theists, as "believing something with evidence short of proof." At the heart of this discussion is the evidence for or against the relevant views.
Christian Values- Values that exist in Christianity but not other belief systems. Alternatively, values that Christianity has consistently held.
Why do Christian values have to be exclusive to Christianity?
I can think of quite a few that are shared by other faiths and some atheists.
I'm familiar with the concepts in Guns, Germs and Steel though I haven't had a chance to read it yet. I like Diamond's emphasis on wide latitudes of land mass and megafauna as important criterion for civilization. China had both. But "internal" or "external" enemies seem entirely matters of definition rather than statements of fact. Tibet was certainly in conflict with China. The Mongols managed to gain control of it. Why are there so many stone walls all over China, enough to eventually string them together into the Great Wall, if conflict wasn't a problem. What do you think about the Battle of Tumu? Why does India being broken up into small states inhibit science if conflict supposedly led to science in Europe?
Also, Asian societies weren't atheistic.
Not all of them, of course. You seem to be conflating atheism and materialism, though. I've had at least one friend who was atheistic but believed in spirits, the zodiac, etc.
In the same way that I wouldn't presume that you were a communist simply because you were an atheist I wouldn't assume that you were a materialist simply because you were an atheist.
I have never seen an atom, but I believe that they exist because I observe their effects. Similarly, I believe that God exists, in part, because belief in God has an observable, positive effect on people.
The reasons famines are less common under democracies is two reasons
- the government takes famine contol measures
- democracies didn't exist during the times in human history when famines happened regularly.
But you seem to be missing the point I was making; social organization and the particular process used for growing food both have roles in producing and distributing food. They are not mutually exclusive.
Also, famines happen even today. So I have a little trouble with your point #2.
Currently the only societies that have ever been atheists in human history would be in Western Europe and Japan.
How did you arrive at that conclusion?
The fact remains that you CAN make more detailed predictions what people will do using chemistry, biology and physics.
Can you? For the most part, I use different mental constructs when looking at the two fields, and this is despite a fairly extensive study of hormones and nutrition. There are a few concepts that can cross over, but for the most part I don't think about "happiness" or "the benefits of law" or "trust" using concepts from, say, biochemistry. I don't sympathize with my friends because they have a serotonin deficit, but because they're sad. And I know how that feels. Sympathy can't really be understood, at least currently, by starting with physics and working up. It might be justified as evolutionarily adaptive, but that's not really the same thing.
Perhaps it might be possible one day. Perhaps not. But I don't see us being at the point where difference between the fields really blur quite yet.
It is impossible for theists to be entirely coherant and rational.
No, evidence short of proof would be... evidence!
Because than they aren't Christian values. They are values happen to hold. The differance is that the first is tied to Christianity and the second isn't.
They could be values they hold because they are Christian, but than atheists can't have them.
The walls were due to repeated internal conflict. And to control the peasents and their movement.
Also, the majority of China's history is under one dynasty or another. The dynasties prized stability, not change.
Tibet was never a threat to China.
The Mongols only conquered China once. The Manchus only conquered China twice. China has existed for over 2000 years. It is negligable. The Imperial Army managed to keep the barbarians at a nusience level for centuries between.
As for the battle of Tumu, it notes the reason the Mongols won is the Ming screwed up. Compare the number of invasions vs peasent revolts and you will see which is the bigger of the two is.
Indian states where incredibly small. Northern India is seperated from Southern India by hills. The whole country is about a third the size of the US with dozens of waring states packed into less due to the deserts, mountains...
European states were much bigger.
Given that the Chinese made a shrine of Confucious's house and worshipped the man as a God, I'm thinking their atheism has been overhyped.
As for atoms and God... you can see an atom using an electron microscope. The true differance is that the of an atom explains something in a way to make predicitions possible- while the idea of God doesn't. There are a host of other reasons.
-atoms are falsible.
-atoms are testable
-atoms are... you get the idea.
For famine I am refering to a situation where a large portion of an area is in sudden danger of dying from lack of food. You seem to be confusing it with people starving to death.
Poll data. I didn't include Eastern Europe- they might be atheist or not depending on how repressive and how many conversions.
Simple. The whole feild of drugs works on this principle. You change a persons mind and thoughts with chemicals.
In principle it is possible to break down everything into physics. We use shortcuts because we don't have an infinite amount of time.
As for "I know how that feels", that would be empathy and the mirror neurons.
Samuel!
Screw it. I tried writing it out, but I realized the definitional things are just word games. Either Flew is wrong...
But Flew wasn't incorrect about English usage. As I said: read older works by atheists and discover the answer for yourself. The usages he cites were (and still largely are) the accepted popular meanings. Thus he plainly admitted he was introducing a completely new meaning. I can attest to this: I was alive in the eighties, and knew how the word was being used at the time.
Even so, that's not the point: the point is more how this demonstrates a group of atheists functioning as an ideological sect.
definitional things are just word games... (agnostic doesn't count- it is about knowledge).
Well, *playing* with definitions -- coming up with new ones, or novel or unexpected ones, or ambiguous ones -- is indeed a word game. But crisp definitions can help clarify things. Flew admitted he was moving "atheist" into agnostic territory -- where most neologisms and new terms are meant to refine and narrow, not suddenly make a popular term more ambiguous.
And now, after decrying word games, you say the popular usage of a word "doesn't count"! Look, friend, if most people called being unsure about God "fleem", I'd tend to use that word. My intent is only make things clear to the average reader -- not win some debate with odd or new rhetorical devices.
First off, negative numbers DON'T occur in real life.
The question I posed was a mathematical one, in the standard form any student of mathematics would expect. In that context, there are indeed multiple right answers. How you feel mathematics bears on "real life" is quite another point. (Amusing as it may be to watch my "anti-theist" guest object to my invocation of the standard rules of mathematics.)
If referencing math throws you off, we can change it to a question like: "Name a color people like." There are multiple right answers to that, too. Or "Give a recipe for pizza."
Samuel: it seems to me you're making absurd statements in order to avoid admitting some simple thing you need not have contradicted in the first place: Sometimes questions allow for multiple valid answers. Isn't it just simpler to say: "Oh, I erred?" We all do, it's not a big deal. If you're not capable of admitting error, they're you're also not capable of learning.
And if you can't agree to something that basic, then either you and I occupy separate of planes of existence -- and we share no common perception of reality (I mean, the idea that ambiguous questions exist isn't exactly obscure metaphysics!) -- or you're psychologically unable to admit error -- and I'm wasting my time.
The material world is all that exists based on evidence and definition.
Sigh. Two more basic errors...
Evidence- nothing supernatural has ever been proven.
So if it hasn't been proven, then it doesn't exist?
My friend, you're almost a century behind on your philosophy and mathematics. Godel showed this assertion wrong generations ago. Look up his incompleteness theorem: given any set of starting axioms, things can be actually true and false without being provably so.
Aside from that, your assertion is self-refuting. You're necessarily implying that the only things which exist or are true are those which have been proven. But you can't prove that statement itself. By your own rule, your statement must therefore be false.
That's called proof by negation, and a rather simple one at that.
Definition- the term "natural" is used to include everything in this universe... Now, you claim that it had to come from something... why? Could the universe simply be uncaused?
Perhaps -- some try to argue that way. (There's a simple rebuttal, though.) Either way, the universe would still be a contingent entity. We can also think of something into which our spacetime fabric is expanding. That thing or space would thus not be part of the cosmos.
What makes you think the rules inside apply to the whole?
What whole? You mean including non-universe things? Yes, that's precisely my point: I think rules inside don't apply to everything. Indeed, those rules tell us directly that they can't.
For example, in the universe, most people think of events as having causes. But if you play those causes backwards, you must end up with a first thing, with no cause in this universe -- an origin. That thing itself thus proceeds from something non-universe-y.
Some people point to quantum events, which have no known cause in this universe. I would point out that (a) they operate upon the fabric of the universe it self, which wasn't coalesced at the start, and (b) we don't know that those are truly causeless, just that they have no cause inside this universe.
Likewise consider entropy, which must always increase inside our universe. If a low state of entropy (that is, a high state of order) arose from nothing, that would be a violation of the laws of thermodynamics. Therefore there must have been some context in which that could occur, something which wasn't governed by the rules of thermodynamics which govern this universe.
When you start using terms like "in this universe" (or a distinction like "inside" versus "the whole") then you allow room for something to be outside of the universe as well.
And thus can't say this cosmos, and all the matter it contains, must be all there is. Then you yourself have admitted otherwise.
I was refering to buddists and Christians. Both are based on faith.
As is atheism, my friend -- especially stronger varieties of it. You've made several unprovable statements so far (and not a few provably false ones), and undoubtedly I could get a few more.
Well, I don't live in a hole in the ground- I know what you mean by "Christian values". It is nice you assume I have no idea what I am talking about.
The question was whether you know what *I* was talking about. Interesting: you still insist you knew which Christian values I meant, but haven't named them yet. I doubt you do know, since I tend to name rather unusual ones.
But okay, since the first one to expose his hand here "loses" (the other can say: "Oh yes, that's what I thought!") I'll choose to lose: The values I was specifically thinking of were a belief in progress, a belief in universal laws, lifelong monogamy, and the importance of mercy.
You claimed these were recent developments? I think you're wrong again if so. (Or you must be defining "recent" in an odd way!)
Among the definitions you offer are a number of unusual and atypical uses. Take "faith" for example. When a man says he has "faith" in his wife, or in capitalism, does he mean that he trusts them in spite of evidence to the contrary? So your definition is quite odd, and applies, apparently, only in a narrow number of cases -- to people whose views you dislike.
Of course a Christian (or other adherent) usually believes that he or she is following the evidence. So even when they say "faith" they are not typically meaning a belief which contradicts evidence. Faith is something weaker than proof (the man cannot prove his wife has never cheated) -- it means a holding conviction not currently completely supported by evidence.
Also: I found it interesting that you said "agnostic" (meaning not sure, not "cannot know") was an invalid definition, but then used it define a class of atheist. :-)
Kibbitzing on your comments to Ryan:
The bible said the world was made in seven days... and they took it literally. Until they realized it was wrong and declared it "metaphorical".
You're in error here. There have been a variety of approaches to the subject over the years (and among different groups). The church father Origen argued that the word "day" did not mean 24 hours as far back as the second century.
Samuel: Also, Asian societies weren't atheistic.
Ryan: Not all of them, of course. You seem to be conflating atheism and materialism, though. I've had at least one friend who was atheistic but believed in spirits, the zodiac, etc.
Precisely. (I have too, Ryan.)
That argument was especially odd, Samuel, given that you yourself just defined "atheism" as mere failure to believe in God. This is why I say most atheists aren't even "with the program" -- guys like Dawkins scream about the evils of religion, but, of course, if atheism is just a-theism, then all kinds of religions can be atheistic -- including (surprisingly!) polytheists!
That's why I hate these bizarre and novel rhetorically-motivated definitions. They do nothing but muddy the waters. But hey, when you're tired of being pinned down in debates, what else can you do? Change your mind based on evidence? ;-)
Ah! I see we're cross-posting. Sorry 'bout that...
It is impossible for theists to be entirely coherant and rational.
Well, then, you should certainly depart, no? Just tell yourself: "I am an atheist, therefore I am smart and rational. It doesn't matter that this guy made points I couldn't refute -- he is a theist, therefore he is stupid."
Okay? You'll feel better about it, and we can all get more rest.
And, when you've got some extra time, you should take some classes in formal reasoning, and look up some of the subjects I've pointed you to above. Then you, when you meet another theist, can pretend that you've known such things all along (or that you learned them from another smart "anti-theist" like yourself) and avoid the same mistakes you're making above in your next debate.
You won't even have to admit you're wrong in front of me! You can just write that I'm stupid and leave in a huff. See? I'm offering you the best of all possible worlds.
Going back a bit, just noticed this fun assertion:
But human actions are built on chemistry. We simply don't use it because it is too complicated. The fact remains that you CAN make more detailed predictions what people will do using chemistry, biology and physics.
Actually, no. Sorry, but you're either wrong yet again, Samuel, or you're oddly defining words.
Saying that "chemistry" predicts what human beings will do is a bit like arguing that the way to predict the output of a computer program is to study physics, particularly focusing on the structure of copper and silicon atoms.
You can learn how the circuits work, true, but the ability to anticipate or induce higher-level behaviors would be called Computer Science, not physics. Moreover, a computer made of iron gears and strings would produce the same result -- as would a simulation of a Turing machine done with pencil and paper -- given the same software.
Likewise, thinking occurs in an organic framework, but that doesn't immediately prove that it's simply limited to that -- much less that chemistry is the proper course in which you should enroll if you wish to learn about human behavior. ;-)
Yes, I agree, these things DO involve physical interactions. And yes, if you had a huge amount of time, you could indeed spell much of it out that way. But at some point you'd have to represent those higher rules and forms, and, at that point, the discipline takes on a new name -- such as "anthropology" or "chess strategy" or "psychology". Okay? Learning about covalent bonds teaches you nothing about how to beat Boris Spasky, or how to prove the correctness of an algorithm.
Also, you're wrong about this giving the ability to make detailed predictions. You don't know quantum theory, and you haven't studied chaos theory, or you wouldn't say such things. Yes, you can characterize, in general, how such systems work, but no, you cannot "make detailed predictions". Chaotic systems (like brains and weather) do not, in fact, yield to those kinds of approaches.
Finally, asserting your beliefs is not the same as proving them. Besides the errors above, there's more to proving that the human mind is mere chemistry than simply asserting, however many times, it must be so.
I can offer evidence to the contrary. Can you offer evidence for your view? (Again: Evidence is not a mere assertion.)
Side note to the reader: This is a classic atheist dogma. The atheist insists that "atheism teaches nothing", and, not long afterwards, they're busy implying that the best way to understand the universe is as giant wind-up physical/chemical clockwork, and that people are just machines. Of course, that's a logical implication of radical materialism, but "I have no ideology" prevents them from admitting what's going on, and the examining the kinds of impacts it could have. A religious person admits their ideology, and experiences doubt and self-examination from time to time. Atheists, in my experience, almost never admit to having such self-examinations and doubts. They are right, so what's to question?
In the long run, the materialist must either live with the hypocrisy (they don't treat their loved ones and self like mere machines, and don't vote along those line either) or they end up embracing extremely harmful social policies of the kind they've supported repeatedly in the past.
They could be values they hold because they are Christian, but than atheists can't have them.
Just a side note: Samuel, I try not to pick on people's spelling or grammar, but this is just driving me nuts. The word is "then", not "than". "Than" is used for comparisons: "I, Samuel, am much, much smarter than these stupid theists." The word "then" is used for chronological precedence: "After I told them they were irrational, then I did some research into what they'd said."
Stop writing that way. It's a small point, but it makes it look like you're not even sure of some of the most basic rules of English.
And don't be silly: of course one group can adopt things from another, and give proper attribution. If I own a "Chinese vase" it doesn't mean I must be Chinese, nor living there! (I'm simply referring its origin, not its current location.) If I celebrate an Irish holiday (say, Saint Pat's Day), it doesn't imply I can't be American, or can't still call that holiday "Irish", in the usual fashion, referring to it's origin.
Why do I repeatedly have to explain such basic aspects of English usage to you? Do you have anything to offer here beyond asserting bizarre modalities of word usage? Why do atheists so often show this proclivity to imagine they can "win" debates by coming up with novel (and completely atypical) rules by which they demand language be used?
In this case, Samuel imagines he has "won" this argument with you because when you say it's an "X-ese/ian" value, you could only have meant it is currently being USED or HELD by X, rather than naming point of origin. Yes, certainly that's how the English language works. I drive a "Japanese" car because -- I'm Japanese! If I were American, then it wouldn't be a Japanese car anymore, would it, Samuel?
Geez.
Of course the tactic is ineffective anyway: My point here was that Western atheists have adopted many values which originated in Judaism and Christianity. Trying to play with the wording to pretend it meant something else only forces me to rephrase the assertion in another way. It doesn't refute my assertion about ideological proximity (which I assume you have conceded, given that you can't seem to offer a rebuttal) nor make it go away.
European states were much bigger.
It depends. Some of the places in Europe which had the most advancement were actually very small autonomous regions, such as Amsterdam, and (much earlier) cities in Northern Italy, and places like Venice. England also, before it was united. The larger European states, on the other hand -- like France and Spain -- provided comparatively little technological innovation.
This is the problem I have with Diamond: A lot of what I've heard he says seems to be just plain wrong and easily refuted. But people seem to lap it up anyway.
Given that the Chinese made a shrine of Confucious's house and worshipped the man as a God, I'm thinking their atheism has been overhyped.
Samuel, the common Chinese people were very prone to these sorts of religious gestures, offering sacrifices to ancestors, spirits of various sorts, etc. But if you'll take some time to do some serious study, you'll discover that the ruling elites and Mandarins looked down on such folk religious practices:
On a functional level, at least, both Confucianism and Taoism can be considered atheistic. Neither is founded on faith in a creator god like Christianity and Islam are. Neither promote the existence of such a god, either. Confucian texts describe a "Heaven" which is a transcendent, personal power of some sort. Whether this qualifies as a personal deity or not is a subject of debate, but it seems at least possible for a person to follow Confucian teachings and be an atheist. Basically the same issue exists for Taoism: belief in some deity may be included, but may not be absolutely required. [1]
Nature and ancestor spirits are common in popular Taoism. Organized Taoism distinguishes its ritual activity from that of the folk religion, which some professional Taoists (Daoshi) view as debased. This sort of shamanism is eschewed for an emphasis on internal alchemy among the "elite" Taoists. [2]
Different social classes, writes Xunzi, interpret sacrifices differently: “Among gentlemen [junzi], they are taken as the way of humans; among common people [baixing], they are taken as matters involving ghosts....
Dividing what is clearly too broad a category (Chinese religion or ritual) into two discrete classes (elite and folk) is not without advantages. It is a helpful pedagogical tool for throwing into question some of the egalitarian presuppositions frequently encountered in introductory courses on religion: that, for instance, everyone’s religious options are or should be the same, or that other people’s religious life can be understood (or tried out) without reference to social status.
Treating [Imperial] Chinese religion as fundamentally affected by social position also helps scholars to focus on differences in styles of religious practice and interpretation. One way to formulate this view is to say that while all inhabitants of a certain community might take part in a religious procession, their style -- both their pattern of practice and their understanding of their actions -- will differ according to social position. Well-educated elites tend to view gods in abstract, impersonal terms and to demonstrate restrained respect, but the uneducated tend to view gods as concrete, personal beings before whom fear is appropriate. [3]
It's the same dichotomy we see recently in the west: The elite scholars and professionals viewed belief in the supernatural as primitive and backwards.
Thus leading Chinese scholar Joseph Needham to remark:
It was not that there was no order in nature for the Chinese, but rather that it was not an order ordained by a rational personal being, and hence there was no conviction that rational personal beings would be able to spell out in their lesser earthly languages the divine code of laws which he had decreed aforetime. The Taoists, indeed, would have scorned such an idea as being too naïve for the subtlety and complexity of the universe as they intuited it. [4]
Sorry, but you don't get a much more credible Western authority on Chinese history than Needham. Feel free to look him up some time, if you think I'm incorrect on this point.
The bible said the world was made in seven days... and they took it literally. Until they realized it was wrong and declared it "metaphorical".
I'm not sure about the mix between literal and metaphorical interpretations, historically. I'm sure many took the bible literally. But you do understand that revelations, for instance, is an explicit metaphor designed for an age when there was no mass communication or freedom of speech. How else would you communicate with thousands except with a story that only the initiated could understand? I think that there's a reason that Americans are known for speaking so directly and it comes from having one of the longest traditions of freedom of speech in the world.
Similarly, you have people like Philo of Alexandria who did make metaphorical rather than literal interpretations of Genesis.
I don't know enough to give anywhere close to a comprehensive cover of this topic, but there were metaphorical exegeses of Genesis and other parts of the bible long long before the age of the earth had been calculated in the millions of years.
The reason agnostic doesn't work is it can be used to descibe theists. You know people who believe in God, but don't know he exists.
Currently people are using atheist to mean "people who don't believe in God". Claim it is dogma or what not, but unless you can come up with another word that means the same thing, I'm going to use this one.
It is a category, okay? That means, irrelevant of the definitions it exists and that is what I am talking about- people who lack a God belief. People who aren't theists.
That was rather pointless. We are back exactly where we started.
You are right- subjective matters of taste and preferance do have multiple answers. Since you obvious didn't get what I am saying, I will be more specific-
For questions about reality, there is only one answer.
Is that better? So, people may have many favorite colors, but a person will have one (or none that is there most favorite). What I was refering to, and you didn't seem to realize would be things that physically exist. Specifically God. Morality I also tack on because, by definition there is only one best way for a given situation.
Fine, I'll be more precise (again). If there is no evidence for something, than there is no reason to believe it exists. If there is no evidence for something and if it did exist there would be evidence, than it doesn't exist.
Godels theorm is completely irrelevant in this case. He says that you can't have a system that justifies itself. I am basing my statements on an external standard- reality.
Nice sophism by the way. Once again, I have to explain something so basic it defies belief. The reason we use evidence to prove things occur in reality is because evidence is pieces of information about reality and it turns out that examining reality is the best way to understand it.
Once again, I avoid the theorm by bacing my system on reality.
Except an uncaused universe is the current best theory explaining the universe. And you really don't understand space-time; it isn't expanding into anything! When they say our universe is reality they mena it- you can't get out of it and there is nothing beyond it. Nothing!
Once again I have to be specific. Please put thought into your responces. The whole is the universe. Why must the same rules apply to the universe as the inside (specifically being caused)?
There isn't anything outside. Given your total inability to understand me, I'll skip this until you take an astrophysics class.
That would be because I used inexact langauage. I changed the wording- are you happy now?
Screw it- you nit pick and nit pick and not a once have you adressed my arguments! Do you have anything to say that isn't nonsense?
Christian values you named:
belief in progress, a belief in universal laws, lifelong monogamy, and the importance of mercy
Belief in progress is incredibly new. The belief in universal laws existed with the pagan philosohers, lifelong monogomy... hmm- given that there are other groups who practice the same thing (hunter gathers... who have done so for, what? 195000 years) and mercy... You do realize how... odd that is? Christian mercy is relatively new- I mean, we are talking about people who the Muslims thought were barbarians because they slaughtered whole populations.
All these values are (amazingly enough), not new to me. I HAVE heard variations of this before. It is the classic "Christianity is good because it encourage science, civilization, etc". It is also complete nonsense.
My personal favorite part is how you don't think it through. It is a constant- none of the objections our thought through. If Christianity brings progress and science, than God wanted Europeans to rule.
I am refering to the religious definition of faith. The ones you give also have an alternate definition- trust. Trust is based on evidence.
Believing your wife hasn't cheated on you is based on evidence. It may not be proof, but it is evidence based. Believing because you believe is faith. Believers may believe they use evidence, but when you find a contradiction, they have faith.
Complain to Huxley- HE is the one who invented the term agnostic. I am interested what the origional word that meant lack of belief in God is- I mean you'd think they would have come up with a word that means "unbeliever"...
link
Here. It is Huxley desribing how he developed said word.
That is great. The problem? The book says seven days. So you have to take it metaphorically- it doesn't really mean days. The problem? It says days.
Atheism is a lack of belief in all Gods. Once again you COMPLETELY miss the point.
Did you even take a look at the link? Listing Gods from Chinese Mythology?
Here is another one
http://www.paralumun.com/chinesegods.htm
God of war, God of wine... sounds very polytheistic to me.
Next post (I am a machoist)
Must speck slowly...
Okay, only one position is correct, right? Which means all the others are incorrect (To avoid mindless nitpicking, I am refering to religions- most are mutually contradictory).
Therefore only one is the most reasonalbe.
Religion is a special case where there are NO reasonable arguments (so far you have used arguments from ignorance- the only ones available).
Not all theists are stupid. You? Maybe- but I don't hold it against you. There are MUCH worse things- you could be irrational AND logically consistant
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/02/mailvox-sharpening-knives.html
You are familiar with reductionism and materialism? In principle you could predict how something would work from its parts. We can't, but it can be done. Choatic systems occur because of imperfection in measurements cause accumulating error, "quantum" is a neat buzzword, but becomes irrelevant on larger scales... I have heard of them- they are irrelevant for what I am talking about.
I have the default position. I am simply saying the human brain consists of what we can actually find. You are the one claiming there is a magic part.
How does not treating loved ones like machines imply hypocricy? Sure, they are the sum of their parts as am I, but you know what? How the heck is that in any way relevant? Also, there is a differance between "machines" and "loved ones that follow deterministic rules"- one can feel pain. I have something called empathy so...
What? I don't care if things are deterministic. I care about if it is true. You seem (Once again) to be completely ignoring that.
Never!
I was just checking your claim because your wording was vague to such a degree that there were several reasonable interpretaions. You know, the sloppiness you constantly attack me on.
You could have meant
-values only Christians have
-values invented by Christians
-values practiced by Christians
-values monopolized by Christians
You went with invented. Unfortunately it is blatantly false for the ones you give. For example "mercy" wouldn't make sense... unless you meant Europeans upheld it as a value. Given that they didn't practice it more than there enemies (less actually- running down their own men was done repeatedly by knights).
Here is a list of Indian princedoms and states that existed in the British Raj
http://www.worldstatesmen.org/India_princes_K-W.html
It ignores those the British destroyed. Given how many of them there are, and the size of India, I'm going to have to say they where pathetically small compared to European states.
To give you an idea, here is a map of the current Indian divisions (states in the federal term)
link
Nope- you don't know what you are talking about. Just enough knowledge to believe you are smart, but lacking in actual depth.
? How is that at all relevant? Current theologians believe in a "God" that is almost atheistic. Also given the fact peasents where hte overwhelming majority of the populaiton that would make the society... theistic. Come on, it isn't that hard.
You just contradicted yourself. I'm going to assume that Needham meant Chinese Culture, but guess what? Peasents don't get to participate in Chinese Culture. Look it up- only literate people leave behind records, peasents weren't literate, and most culture is determined by the people at the top. Look at our own history for starters. Most of the Medieval tales are about nobility. The exceptions are the folk tales.
How else would you communicate to thousands of people instantly, similtaneously and without error? That would take something like divine intervention! Wait a minute...
Well, this was long. I'll try to some up my salient points.
-Several times I said prove in an inaccurate form. You can't prove something when the alternatives are unfalsible. A better term is supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence in such a way that there is no reason not to think that it is true.
-Tim, despite my dismissal tone, I don't think you are an idiot. You do know things- you just don't truely understand them.
-You make the mistake of arguing from conclusions (about materialism). I focus on truth.
-You nit pick. Can you adress any of my points?
-You argue from ignorance. I can't concieve of an explanation for the start, therefore it must be God. Given the current theories work perfectly fine without God, this is more a case of ignoring the science.
Did I miss anything?
Tim - This is the problem I have with Diamond: A lot of what I've heard he says seems to be just plain wrong and easily refuted. But people seem to lap it up anyway.
While I believe some of what Diamond says (as noted earlier) I can appreciate the ideological gap that he fills. "If all people are equal regardless of race, then how do we explain the material success of some societies and the relative weakness of others in an entirely materialist context prior to the age of exploration."
Sameul -
Because than they aren't Christian values. They are values happen to hold. The differance is that the first is tied to Christianity and the second isn't.
The issue for me is which values Jews or Christians would be more likely to hold. Or, as Tim noted, which values tend to originate with Jews or Christians and are later adopted by surrounding atheists. It makes a big difference which direction this river is flowing in terms of figuring out how religious changes will effect society over time.
As for atoms and God... you can see an atom using an electron microscope. The true differance is that the of an atom explains something in a way to make predicitions possible- while the idea of God doesn't.
People believed in atoms long before they could observe them using an electron microscope. Belief in them was predictive before they could be seen. For instance; auger tracks and stociometrical ratios in chemistry. Check out "logical positivism," a philosophical viewpoint which seems to describe your views and which Karl Popper had some good (entirely materialist) criticisms of.
Samuel, please consider that religious ideas might be predictive in explaining the behaviors of large numbers of people, the politics they support, and the outcomes of those politics as well. This seems to be a notion that you reject out of hand without even discussing evidence for or against it. This would be one very good example of exactly what Tim is saying about atheists not being aware that some of their views are ideological rather than evidence based.
Simple. The whole feild of drugs works on this principle. You change a persons mind and thoughts with chemicals.
To a limited extent. But you're still missing my point. Do you really use terms from Chemistry and Physics to describe how you relate to people? Using different sets of terms can allow you to deal with higher level concepts. This is why biology is not usually discussed using terms from physics (except for a few exceptions like entropy and relative enthalpies) or why psychology is not usually discussed using terms from cellular biology. When you deal with a larger, more complex system it can be helpful, even vital, to create a new vocabulary even if the rules from a more reductionist system might still apply.
Also, Jeff Hawking makes an excellent argument in his book "On Intelligence" that since we cannot even model small neural systems accurately on computers yet, that our failure to model a human brain on a computer is not simply due to lack of processing power but to a fail in our own models.
From wikipedia;
However, despite the popularity of this field, to date no plausible neural or computational models have been put forward to describe how mirror neuron activity supports cognitive functions such as imitation.link
In principle it is possible to break down everything into physics. We use shortcuts because we don't have an infinite amount of time.
The terms we use in daily life let us make predictions based on relatively little information and knowledge. If someone is being dishonest with me, I can't break open their head and examine their neural structure. And even if I could, people don't have the knowledge or tools yet to extract information from someone that way. But using a different toolset of concepts allows me to be socially functional. And it allowed people to make predictions even when they thought people used their hearts to think and their brains to cool blood.
Samuel - Currently people are using atheist to mean "people who don't believe in God". Claim it is dogma or what not, but unless you can come up with another word that means the same thing, I'm going to use this one.
You seem to advocate some type of materialism. There are spiritual beliefs which are atheistic and you seem very opposed to them. Why not call yourself a "materialist" or "logical positivist."
Samuel - Morality I also tack on because, by definition there is only one best way for a given situation.
You might want to be careful here. If something is "true by definition" then it is, invariably, an assumption that preceeds any kind of evidence or test.
When they say our universe is reality they mena it- you can't get out of it and there is nothing beyond it. Nothing!
Samuel, how could you prove or test what is or is not "outside of our universe"? You cannot gather any evidence on this topic. I don't think the problem is with Tim's understanding of physics.
We're dealing with a topic where we are all agnostic, in the original sense of the term. Any beliefs on this subject are based on faith.
The belief in universal laws existed with the pagan philosoher
Samuel - noone else is defining "Christian values" as values which only exist within Christianity or are unique to Christianity. That is your definition. If you don't address the premises that Tim's argument is based on, you're just going to talk past him and not understand what he's saying.
If people of a given nation are more likely to hold certain values because there are a larger number of Christians or Jews in that nation, it seems fair to attribute those values to Christians or Jews even if the values are not original to Christians or Jews. To pick up Tim's metaphore, saying "I have a Japanese car" does not imply that the Japanese invented cars. Meerly that they produce them, and are the source for my particular car.
It is the classic "Christianity is good because it encourage science, civilization, etc". It is also complete nonsense.
Evidence? You seem to have put the conclusion before your argument.
Trust is based on evidence.
Tim has asserted that there is incomplete evidence for God. Why not ask what that evidence is and evaluate it? The logical process that you use to do so would help to demonstrate Tim's assertions.
That is great. The problem? The book says seven days. So you have to take it metaphorically- it doesn't really mean days. The problem? It says days.
Samuel - Why does it have to be taken literally. You can certainly find people who didn't take it metaphorically even before any scientific system calculated the age of the earth. There are a number of religious texts of various faiths which are interpreted literally by outsiders, with metaphoric meaning delivered to 'insiders.' The apostles, while Jesus was alive, are a perfect example of just such a system.
God of war, God of wine... sounds very polytheistic to me.
I'm not sure that you're seeing Tim's point here. Many Chinese elites didn't believe in polytheism, even at points in history when they were immersed in it.
Religion is a special case where there are NO reasonable arguments (so far you have used arguments from ignorance- the only ones available).
Christianity poses that "a tree is judged by its fruits." In other words, we judge a spiritual belief by the morality of the people or society that it produces.
Of course, noone is claiming that any belief system makes people perfect. Far from it. The question is to what degree it transforms the society that embraces it. And the belief is always embraced incompletely by a given society. So to what degree was Roman society different from Christian Europe? Both were brutal in their own way. But they were not identical.
You are familiar with reductionism and materialism? In principle you could predict how something would work from its parts. Choatic systems occur because of imperfection in measurements
I'm sorry, but that view has been effectively scientifically disproven. Quantum mechanics is supported by good evidence, even if some refer to it without understanding it. Are you really saying that you think its been disproven?
Additionally, a self modifying system that interacts with its environment is going to be different than a finite state machine. You won't be able to predict behavior purely from internal components.
Life forms are neither random nor deterministic. They are stochastic.
Humility, meaning an accurate understanding of just what we can and cannot do as human beings, is important here. If we knew everything, things might be different. But we simply don't. And the tools we use to conduct our lives have to account for that fact.
Samuel, instead of looking at spirit as "magic" (which I don't believe in), consider it as an emergent property of a simpler system.
Please consider that the criterion that you give for why science didn't emerge in India or China are, to the extent that they can be disprovable, disproven. You use an exactly opposite standard for India and China to explain why the two didn't develop science. One is, by your standards, too large and unified. The other is too small and divided. It seems non-falsifiable.
Given the current theories work perfectly fine without God, this is more a case of ignoring the science.
Science can explain what happens in the universe. It can be predictive. But it isn't really capable of explaining why the universe started. Even those who follow the science (and are atheist) acknowledge that the universe is rather improbable. See Tim's recent article on Dawkins and the creation of the universe.
The reason agnostic doesn't work is it can be used to descibe theists. You know people who believe in God, but don't know he exists.
Yet another novel definition? Samuel, just go look up the word in a dictionary if it confuses you. Here: First part: "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable." Christians say God, or things about him, can't be known? I'm sure most of them would be extremely surprised to learn they believed that!
Second half of first definition: "one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god" That would also not apply to a Christian.
Nor would the second definition, concerning the matters being discussed here: "a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something"
Currently people are using atheist to mean "people who don't believe in God". Claim it is dogma or what not...
I've never claimed nobody uses that definition. As I've said before, I agree that certain atheists wish this to be the prevailing usage. But it simply isn't.
That was rather pointless. We are back exactly where we started.
You don't need to re-iterate your definition over and over, okay? I see your definition, I've known it for over a decade. I reject it, I have explained why. If you have something new to offer, then great. Otherwise, you don't need to keep explaining "it's a category", etc.
Yes, of course it's a category. That's why I pointed out the new definition was unusual in that it was broader and less precise than the old one. Go reread.
You are right- subjective matters of taste and preferance do have multiple answers. For questions about reality, there is only one answer.
No: "Name a pizza recipe" is not a subjective question, nor is a matter of preference. There is a word "pizza", and a variety of dishes which satisfy that definition. Thus there are also a variety of recipes which produce pizzas. That's not a matter of mere opinion, that's simply a fact about the world we live in.
You are quite wrong here, and I have demonstrated why each time. Simply ignoring those responses, and then repeating your assertion over and over (as you have done yet again) isn't a rebuttal, nor does it provide counter-evidence.
Fine, I'll be more precise (again). If there is no evidence for something, than there is no reason to believe it exists.
It probably looks the same to you, but that's an entirely different criteria than arguing that only provable things exist, which you asserted last time. I take it you now concede your previous argument was then, in fact, mistaken?
Regarding your newest proposition, that we shouldn't believe anything without evidence:
You have categorically asserted that the human mind (indeed, the whole person) is nothing more than chemicals. Great! So I have asked you for evidence for your position. Since you have now asserted we should not believe things without evidence, I'm eagerly awaiting that evidence.
On the other hand, I have offered you evidence for the contrary position, which I will gladly provide after you offer yours.
Godels theorm is completely irrelevant in this case. He says that you can't have a system that justifies itself.
Once again you are in error. If you're confused, focus on the word "incompleteness". Look, here's a reasonably terse summary:
In 1931, the Czech-born mathematician Kurt Gödel demonstrated that within any given branch of mathematics, there would always be some propositions that couldn't be proven either true or false using the rules and axioms ... of that mathematical branch itself.... The implication is that all logical system of any complexity are, by definition, incomplete; each of them contains, at any given time, more true statements than it can possibly prove according to its own defining set of rules.
Compare with my previous statement:
Look up his incompleteness theorem: given any set of starting axioms, things can be actually true and false without being provably so.
Incompleteness is not the same thing as "self-justifying". (And we don't talk about "justifying" in philosophy or math anyway, we talk about proofs.) No assertion is (ultimately) "self-proving" since each rests on unproven axioms -- that's logic 101, we didn't need Godel for that. Logic can weed out inconsistent assertions, but all positive proofs are ultimately contingent upon acceptance of the axioms or postulates.
Once again, I avoid the theorm by bacing my system on reality.
Err, Samuel, the implications of the incompleteness theorem are not an optional aspect of reality. Any time you talk about what is provable (as you have done), you have to understand and work around the limits it implies.
Nice sophism by the way...
It's not a sophism: that's actually what it means. At the time, Bertrand Russell had been working on the Principia Mathematica in which he thought he could prove all things mathematical. Another group of atheists, called the "logical positivists" asserted the same sorts of things you have been asserting here. Godel's proof sent shockwaves through the academic world and simultaneously discredited both projects.
The whole is the universe. Why must the same rules apply to the universe as the inside (specifically being caused)? There isn't anything outside.
I'm sorry: What does "the inside" mean, in contrast with "the whole"? Specifically, what part is a member of "the whole" which isn't also part of this "inside"? These are your terms, so I'm simply asking you to clarify them.
I use "the whole" to include things which might be outside our universe. (Others use the word "Landscape" or other variants.) You say "astrophysics class" would teach me there is nothing outside our universe, but, again, you are in error: visit such a class, and you will learn about multiverse theory, which asserts there might be things outside our universe.
Or read Stephen Hawking, who writes about something which must have come before the universe which he calls, for shorthand, "God." I assume you'd accept that Hawking has an adequate understanding of what might or might not be allowed in the field of astrophysics?
If not, please, by all means, write to him and set him straight. ;-)
(I love it: You assert I'm completely out of it, each time offering a statement which is widely disbelieved by the top authorities in the field. In response, I offer you specific things you can go look up. I beg you to do some basic research, Samuel.)
Screw it- you nit pick and nit pick and not a once have you adressed my arguments!
Samuel, unlike you, I actually quote what you say line for line, and have answered almost everything you have said. See the previous point: You asserted astrophysics allows nothing outside (our universe, I presume), I have referred you to at least two separate sources of evidence which contradict your assertion.
You may call this "nit picking" (which implies, of course, I have answered you and found many small problems -- though I don't think they're small at all), but I call it simply "responding with counter-evidence."
Belief in progress is incredibly new.
No, my friend, it is not. Unlike many other reigning systems which proposed the universe went in cycles (Plato, most of Eastern thought, etc.), Genesis proposed a beginning, and the prophets of the bible had this idea things were getting better and better without any need to go back again. (Isaiah 9:7, for one example).
The belief in universal laws existed with the pagan philosohers
I'm fully open to evidence for this proposition. Please provide some!
lifelong monogamy... hunter gathers... who have done so for, what? 195000 years
Sigh. Read this, please. (Do you do *any* research, or do you just make this stuff up as you go?)
Christian mercy is relatively new...
The Christian understanding and ideal of mercy is as old as Christianity (older, actually, as it comes out of Judaism). (And it's kind of the main theological point of the system.)
I mean, we are talking about people who the Muslims thought were barbarians because they slaughtered whole populations.
Here you are mistaken about both the nature and value system of Islam and the Crusades - which began with Muslims, not Christians, slaughtering whole populations. The Christian response was belated and of almost no interest to Muslim historians. See here for more evidence.
The ones you give also have an alternate definition- trust
Right! That's precisely my point: that most people use "faith" and "trust" as near synonyms. For example, a Christian preacher might equally say: "Put your trust in Jesus" or "Put your faith in Jesus" -- meaning the exact same thing.
My point is that if you're going to talk about what kind of "faith" a believer has, you have to find out what they (and most people who aren't atheists, frankly -- and even most atheists, when using the word in every other context) are meaning when they say the word.
Believing your wife hasn't cheated on you is based on evidence. It may not be proof, but it is evidence based.
Right. That's why a man in such a situation might respond by saying: "No, I have faith in my wife." The same thing might be said of a man who can't prove capitalism always works: "I have faith in capitalism." They have evidence, but not proof.
Believing because you believe is faith. Believers may believe they use evidence...
If they believe they have evidence, then for them, it's not just "believing because they believe", is it?
...but when you find a contradiction, they have faith.
But I don't think most believers believe they have seen meaningful contradictions which overturns their faith. From your point of view, yes, of course you have been taught that. But from their point of view, you're mistaken, or the contradictions fall short of implying that.
The idea that faith is against evidence seems to be peculiar to atheists. They aren't aware that others don't share it -- and as such "anti-theists" are a tiny minority, this definition is revealed as yet another project to define a word oddly in order to "win" some kind of debate. As with the definition of "atheist", most don't realize they're doing it, undoubtedly.
That's why these discussions are so interesting.
Complain to Huxley- HE is the one who invented the term agnostic. I am interested what the origional word that meant lack of belief in God is...
I understand that you'd like everyone to use the original sense. Acknowledged. Nonetheless, I want to point out that that doesn't imply that people's current usage "doesn't count", to quote you. The word "unknowable" works quite nicely as a synonym or explanation of Huxley's definition, on the (rare, in my experience) times you meet someone who actually holds and argues such a position.
The book says seven days.
Yet it uses the word "day" in a manner which implies the word is NOT literal. After spelling out seven "days" [Hebrew: yom], Genesis 2:4 then says: "This is the account of the heavens and the earth, in the day [yom] of their creation" (NAS) -- referring to the previous chapter, which just enumerated seven "yom"s (days). That seems to imply that even in early Genesis, "yom" can't be said to only mean a specific time period.
Also, one might note that the sun (by which days are measured) isn't created until later in the account -- implying the author must have been thinking of a non-solar kind of day.
But even if that were wrong, then so what? Even if the account was meant literally (perhaps that was the way God had to communicate it, given the limits of science at the time) -- so what? I find it amazing that even if so, it's a much more correct account than any of its competitors, including the prevailing materialistic scientific view which dominated just a generation ago.
Did you even take a look at the link? Listing Gods from Chinese Mythology?
Did you even take a look at what I wrote in response? Did you not even notice that I admitted and agreed that the common Chinese people believed in gods and spirits? Go back and reread, looking for the word "elites" and what it says about their beliefs.
Please put thought into your responces... Must speck slowly...
Samuel, if you're going to condescend, at least spell right when doing so. It's hilarious to see someone say I haven't put any thought into my "responces", or that they need to "speck" slowly to me because I'm so stupid and don't think about what I'm saying. :-)
I'm not saying this to shame you, but because this is one of those things where everyone else notices, even if you think its unimportant.
You are familiar with reductionism and materialism? In principle you could predict how something would work from its parts. We can't, but it can be done. Choatic systems occur because of imperfection in measurements cause accumulating error...
What do you mean by "in principle"? Do you mean "in theory", or "in reality"? If the second ("it can be done"), then you're contradicting yourself: In reality, we can't make accurate, specific non-near-term predictions about chaotic systems for the exact reason you mention: we can't know enough about the precise state of everything -- and those differences quickly multiply from tiny to large.
Then you ignore what you just asserted and claim that since quantum effects are small, effects could never multiply from small to large. Well, yes they can (as you just admitted), and a chaotic system is exactly the circumstances under which that could and does happen.
I am simply saying the human brain consists of what we can actually find.
No, to be precise, you asserted you knew the human mind consisted only of chemical components and reactions. You then asserted that you only should believe things which have evidence. So I'm asking evidence for your assertion that you know the mind is only chemistry.
I have evidence to the contrary (what you'd call "the magic part"), which I will gladly give once you give yours -- or once you admit you have none.
How does not treating loved ones like machines imply hypocricy?
If things are only the sum of their parts (you just stated), and they are nothing but chemistry (as you have stated), then we should treat human beings as nothing more than larger chemical structures -- in a word, machines. There's no "ghost" in there, so we're nothing more than big chemical machines.
And if so, then, other than personal or social preference, why bother treating people as any different than any other chemical or physical machines? Human beings then have no objective meaning nor rights.
How the heck is that in any way relevant?
It's relevant because we tend to embrace different social and political policies if we feel humans have intrinsic value, or feel they are simply meat-machines. (See the context in which I made the statement, please.)
Also, there is a differance between "machines" and "loved ones that follow dete | 
So, humorously enough, the popularity of the "atheism is not an ideology" argument is itself strong evidence that atheists can indeed be ideologues.
And here I thought all along that all the parroting between atheists, and lack of rational, coherent arguments, or accurate knowledge of history was a good sign that the vast majority of them were ideologues. :D
(And it should be "as they have done with the religious" in the last sentence. I don't recall grouping myself with Wahabbis... ;-) )
Posted by: Michael Zappe on June 6, 2008 10:34 AM