Atheism

I say, Thomas old chap....you seem to have missed this post
http://able2know.org/topic/141106-615#post-5918296
and I would really appreciate an answer .

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
The dictionaries are all over the place on this, and the neutrality of the analysts you point to is suspect.

I'm not going to repeat it all. If you want a detailed response to this claim (which I seriously doubt) then read the last 10 pages or so of this thread.

I have been reading the posts on this thread. It doesn't change the fact that the dictionaries are all over the place on the definition of "atheism," and the fact that the neutrality of the analysts you point to is suspect.

In regard to your quote of Ruse, he was saying that Humanism does bear strong similarities to conventional religion. He wasn't referring to Atheism.

You tied together your quote of him and your assertion that many pyschologists have described "atheism" as a "replacement belief system" which supplants religion.

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

I have been reading the posts on this thread. It doesn't change the fact that the dictionaries are all over the place on the definition of "atheism," and the fact that the neutrality of the analysts you point to is suspect.

1. You haven't been reading very attentively, then. You missed the extensive list of dictionary definitions quoted by religion.org (or whatever it was), as well as their explanation of who uses your definition (less 2%) and why.
2. I didn't "point" to that unbiased site. Someone you was trying to refute my claims cited it.

Read this post, for example, and the discussion which led up to it in the preceding couple of pages.

http://able2know.org/topic/141106-608#post-5916115

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

You tied together your quote of him and your assertion that many pyschologists have described "atheism" as a "replacement belief system" which supplants religion.

1. You haven't read the articles by Ruse, have you?

2. You haven't read other posts made in this thread either, for example the one in which an atheist claims that "humanism" was adopted in the '30's as a "replacement" for the term atheist, in an attempt to make atheism sound more presentable and acceptable to those who oppose it.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

But atheism is a lack of belief in god(s). A lack of belief isn't a belief system.

Dawkins himself distinguishes an atheist from an agnostic, and he obviously has a very strong belief that there is no god, even if he doesn't quite claimed to have absolutely proved it.

Quote:

Dawkins identifies himself repeatedly as an atheist, while also pointing out that, in a sense, he is also agnostic, though "only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden".

And of course Ruse is not the only person to criticize Dawkins, his book, and his typical statements in his numerous speeches and debates on the subject:

Quote:

... the book received mixed reviews from critics, including both religious and atheist commentators.[29][30] In the London Review of Books, Terry Eagleton criticised Richard Dawkins for not doing proper research into the topic of his work, religion, and setting up a straw man to make his arguments against theism valid...

Oxford theologian Alister McGrath argues that Dawkins is ignorant of Christian theology, and therefore unable to engage religion and faith intelligently. In reply, Dawkins asks "Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns?"...

David Bentley Hart says that Dawkins "devoted several pages of The God Delusion to a discussion of the 'Five Ways' of Thomas Aquinas but never thought to avail himself of the services of some scholar of ancient and mediaeval thought who might have explained them to him ... As a result, he not only mistook the Five Ways for Thomas's comprehensive statement on why we should believe in God, which they most definitely are not, but ended up completely misrepresenting the logic of every single one of them, and at the most basic levels....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion

That page also states that "Dawkins argues that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other". Dawkins has always used Darwinism as virtual "proof" that there is no god. It is because of this stance that Ruse (rightly) equates ontological naturalism with atheism (which that brand of metaphysics presupposes).

Quote:

Dawkins has argued against creationist explanations of life in his previous works on evolution. The theme of The Blind Watchmaker, published in 1986, is that evolution can explain the apparent design in nature....Dawkins had long wanted to write a book openly criticising religion, but his publisher had advised against it. By the year 2006, his publisher had warmed to the idea.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
You tied together your quote of him and your assertion that many pyschologists have described "atheism" as a "replacement belief system" which supplants religion.

1. You haven't read the articles by Ruse, have you?

No. I was responding to your qoute.

layman wrote:

2. You haven't read other posts made in this thread either, for example the one in which an atheist claims that "humanism" was adopted in the '30's as a "replacement" for the term atheist, in an attempt to make atheism sound more presentable and acceptable to those who oppose it.

That's one persons assertion on the matter. It doesn't change the fact that humanism and atheism are not synonymous.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

It doesn't change the fact that humanism and atheism are not synonymous.

It's becoming more apparent with every post you make that you are probably one of those who thinks matters of substance are decided by definition and whose idea of debate and discussion is endless semantic quibbling.

Not my cup of tea, sorry.

2 Replies

@layman,

So those are Dawkins' assertions. His assertions do not define atheism definitively.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
It doesn't change the fact that humanism and atheism are not synonymous.

It's becoming more apparent with every post you make that you are probably one of those who thinks matters of substance are decided by definition and whose idea of debate and discussion is endless semantic quibbling.

Not my cup of tea, sorry.

That what you've been doing, howerer.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

This thread is, as it has been almost since its inception, thoroughly trashed. For that we can thank the fanatical theists and agnostics. They can never leave well enough alone.

Incidentally, the "non-stamp collector" thread hasn't been trashed by anyone. It was not trashed by fanatical stamp-collectors or people who aren't sure if they collect stamps or not.

Is there a lesson here?

3 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Setanta wrote:

This thread is, as it has been almost since its inception, thoroughly trashed. For that we can thank the fanatical theists and agnostics. They can never leave well enough alone.

Incidentally, the "non-stamp collector" thread hasn't been trashed by anyone. It was not trashed by fanatical stamp-collectors or people who aren't sure if they collect stamps or not.

Is there a lesson here?

I guess it comes down to what are people interests, what they feel or care more about/ Religion or stamp collecting? I guess stamp collecting is less volatile and emotional and less likely to hold one's interest on this particulars Op?

This ia an updated version

2 Replies

@argome321,

Quote:

I guess stamp collecting is less volatile and emotional?

Good guess, Arg.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

His assertions do not define atheism definitively.

If I were you, I would probably respond that by definition one always defines thing "definitely," ya know?

But I ain't you.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

The case for believing in god just isn't that strong.

Thomas...the case (as you put it) for "believing" there is a GOD...is the same case for "believing" there are no gods.

The question actually is: What is the true nature of the REALITY of existence.? Does it contain a maker/creator...GOD...or are there no gods?

Theists pretend they have a logical answer in guessing there is a GOD...and often guess that a GOD is necessary to explain existence.

Atheists pretend they have a logical answer in guessing there are no gods...and often guess that the existence of a god is impossible.

Both are frauds.

It doesn't take the philosophical equivalent of a rocket scientist to realize the "debunking" you think you are doing...is bunk.

Anyway...how ya been. Hope all is well with you.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Incidentally, the "non-stamp collector" thread hasn't been trashed by anyone. It was not trashed by fanatical stamp-collectors or people who aren't sure if they collect stamps or not.

Ah yes...Stamp Collecting...its proper name is Philosophy, dont you know ?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Incidentally, the "non-stamp collector" thread hasn't been trashed by anyone. It was not trashed by fanatical stamp-collectors or people who aren't sure if they collect stamps or not.

Is there a lesson here?

What have you got against stamp-collectors?
Philatelists make great friends and business partners.
(Unlike those numismatists who just want to nickel and dime you.)

0 Replies

@argome321,

Quote:

Religion or stamp collecting? I guess stamp collecting is less volatile and emotional...

The same philosopher of science that I cited earlier, Michael Ruse, believes that arguments which parade as being "about religion" or about "religion vs science," are really just arguments about socio-political issues. It's not very long, and some people really don't like to read much, so...

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

The same philosopher of science that I cited earlier, Michael Ruse, believes that arguments which parade as being "about religion" or about "religion vs science," are really just arguments about socio-political issues. It's not very long, and some people really don't like to read much, so...

Personally, I don't know. I'm apolitical.

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

A bad argument remains a bad argument even if it accidentally comes to the "right" conclusion.

But Ruse isn't claiming that the argument is 'bad', as in invalid. He's only claiming it's unsophisticated. His objection is about the style of Dawkins's argument, not the substance.

Suppose I claimed that one plus one equals three. You rebut my claim, and your argument is, "just put a jelly bean into a cup, and then another, and then count how many jelly beans are in the cup." If I replied, "that's a very unsophisticated argument", that would be true. So what would you do about it? Would you seek to make your argument more sophisticated by adding big Latin words and wrapping it into complicated grammar? Or would you stick to your guns and say, "My argument is valid. Who cares how sophisticated it is?"

I don't see any place in Ruse's article where he's claiming that Dawkins's arguments are inadequate for refuting the case for believing in gods. All he's objecting to is lack of sophistication. You agree, or else you wouldn't have quoted the article the way you did. You have no reason to deflect my question toward Ruse, and I'll just ask it again: So what if Dawkins's arguments aren't sophisticated?

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

The true non-believers are people who do not believe or guess in either direction. The more firm the guess is in one direction or the other...the closer each is getting to "belief."

Frank, I think you and I are pretty much in agreement about these issues, but, as I have touched on before, I'm really not crazy about your constant stress on the word "guess." To me a "guess" is something that is made without any particular basis at all. It is not an "estimate" (which is far more respectable). It certainly is not a "considered opinion." It is just some willy-nilly conclusion offered without thought or basis. Like if I flipped a coin to see whether I would answer "true" or "false" on a true/false test question, that would be what a "guess" is.

To me calling every conclusion a "guess" just levels all attempts at knowledge to the same "equal plane," which I think is wrong. I just don't like the categorical suggestion that: "one answer is as good as another," or, more generally, that "every answer is just as valid as any other."

In response to another post, I made a brief comment about "deism." Although I'm no deist, it is a position which seems to be much more about reason than "guessing" (or faith, or obedience to convention).

Some very brilliant have, based on long observation and considerable reflective thought, concluded that "nature suggests that there is a god." Others, equally brilliant, say "nature suggests that there is not a god." Right or wrong, provable or not, these are not mere "guesses." The arguments put forth for either position are deserving of consideration and respect.

Every conclusion we draw about anything is just based on the (always limited) information available. It can't be called "knowledge" in any absolute, platonic sense. But there is no need to make absolute certainty the only possible measure of "knowledge." Some "guesses" are simply much better than others, best we can tell.

Of course "reason" is not always what it seems to be, either. As Hume once said:

Quote:

“Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.”

I think I know exactly what he's suggesting, but I also think he's going a little too far, there.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know