"The problem is that the concept of atheism imposes upon us a false burden of remaining fixated on people’s beliefs about (a fable) and remaining even-handed in our treatment of religion (group delusion). But we shouldn’t be fixated, and we shouldn’t be even-handed. In fact, we should be quick to point out the differences among name that thingism, for two reasons:..."
Sam Harris, The Problem with Atheism

The same could be said of the problem with exmormonism, or ex any thing,
"The problem is that the concept of ex-anythingism imposes upon us a false burden of remaining fixated on other people’s beliefs about God and remaining even-handed in our treatment of "name that thing". But we shouldn’t be fixated, and we shouldn’t be even-handed. In fact, we should be quick to point out the differences among "name that thing ism", for two reasons:.."
#1. why?
#2. Why not point out similarities?
#3. Why not find common ground, and unite to defeat our greatest existential threat?
#4. What is it?

When we cant agree upon #4, that might be the root of the problem of human existence, tribalism wasnt an existential threat up until now.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/07/2018 04:36PM by koriwhore.

The single greatest threat to my existence is the fact that one day I may not exist.

S'alright. Existence is overrated.

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> one day I may not exist.


"May" not? If you figure out how to turn "Won't" into "May", please let us all know, ok?


;)

Why are you fixated on Sam Harris ? I do not recall him being voted spokesperson for "The Atheists".

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why are you fixated on Sam Harris ? I do not
> recall him being voted spokesperson for "The
> Atheists".
Why are you fixated on ad hominem attacks instead of focussing on the topic?
Im not fixated on anybody. Sagan, Einstein, NdGT, Bill Nye all say about the same thing.
I can provide links if you want.

That was not an ad hominem attack.

I.e., throwing the the question back at the asker, with a negative insinuation ("fixated"):

"As the name suggests, it is a literary term that involves commenting on or against an opponent, to undermine him instead of his arguments.

"There are cases in which, whether consciously or unconsciously, people start to question the opponent or his personal associations, rather than evaluating the soundness and validity of the argument that he presents. These types of arguments are usually mistaken for personal insults, but they are somehow different in nature, and the distinction is very subtle."

https://literarydevices.net/ad-hominem/

Yes, I guess you are right.

At some level one wants to know why the same figures and the same questions keep recurring, but that is more a psychological issue. So I guess "fixation" does qualify as an ad hominem attack in this context.

Oh Gawd. Here we go with the authority quotes again.

Sam Harris has authoritah?

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh Gawd. Here we go with the authority quotes
> again.


I was just about to say the same thing.....

this horse is so dead, its on to its 15th ressurection.

I wouldn't call this resurrection. The topic so dead and rotting the stench is intolerable. Wolves and bears have had their fill of the carcass. Any soft tissue left is barely clinging to the bones and vultures ate the eyes long ago.

A:

https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-problem-with-atheism

Comments:

I see Sam Harris' points, but don't entirely agree. He minimizes the struggles to [reduce racism] by citing the civil rights movement of the Sixties. In this country alone, when "the majority" of citizens went along in silence with slavery, there were then abolitionists, a civil war, and then, a century after that war, the "right" to sit in the front of the bus. Add another sixty years, and the losers' monuments are starting to come down. To call the number of those who oppose the removal of those racist icons "fringe," -I can only say that Harris did not have the benefit of seeing members of congress, POTUS, and many of those who voted for POTUS in the raw, as the article is dated 2007. I wonder if his views remain unaffected by more recent history. In less than forty years, the end of the civil war will be at it's bi-centennial, and we still we have the fight. That biblically-based fight, I might add. Dark skin and the authority to own others.

Moving that line of thinking into religion, and comparing religion to meditation, one involving metaphysics and one not, but imparting feelings of contentedness as being a primary goal of both, I would again have to disagree. If the purpose of [most] religions were those feelings of being contented, feeling sated and at peace, the religious would not seek to run the government, not seek to control the sexual lives of others, not insist that the world is 6000 years old, not do this and do that, which harms so many. They would be contented, find peace and joy within themselves and in their own worship.

I can put it in another light. Take the Americas, North, Cental and South. If the inhabitants of these lands are primarily religious, where are their souls, the collective souls of morality and peace, of right and wrong, in stopping the denuding of American rain forests? Do they not have enough collective abundance, knowledge and grace to know that it is wrong, and find a way to provide for those peoples, who instead are growing cows, while the religious majority snoozes right through a destruction that cannot be undone? No, let's talk about gay cakes and dead plantation-owner icons.

There was a time an abolitionist had to stand and declare that slavery was wrong. He had to pick up arms, or support those who were able. He had to take on the label, wear the uniform, support the cause of freedom.

The same has been true of religious beliefs, through the ages. We need not elaborate on that history, but suffice it to say that there are those in this country still calling for the deaths of those who do not believe as they do.

I believe the most rational way for me to state my non-belief in invisible creatures who possess magic powers is to say I'm agnostic. I can neither prove nor disprove. But I don't say that, because I feel it to be a dodge, fence-sitting, a way of hiding that I do not now nor will I ever believe it unless I see it. I do believe it's more comfortable for believers for me to say I'm agnostic, but at this point, I am much less interested in the comfort of the majority than I am in the support of non-believers, those who may be afraid, as most of us have been.

And I ask:

1. Why are they afraid?

They are afraid of the religious. Of losing friends, family, home, children, jobs, community. It is the very nature of believing in a "one true god." Either that god has the power to create a universe, the power over life and death, or he does not. If he does not, then I'm not so sure that one could call that being a "god." And if he does have those powers, what human being, who truly believes, would seek the company of, or aid and comfort another who is willing to risk the wrath of that powerful god?

Those who would abandon an [atheist], a living, breathing human being for the sake of a god they can only hope to exist, I mean to call them out. Those who *know* the science of their religious texts to be *truer* than the science of mankind, those who worry not for the condition of a planet their god can [recreate as an Eden], I mean to show them their discomfort with me. I mean to make them admit (internally) that they live in total fear of an invisible god and the leaders who define that god, and that it causes them to shun and harm humans who do not believe as they do, causes them to make uninformed choices based in ignorance.

Religion is about the same sort of power that racists want and use. A self-made majority, power of god and country, definers of right and wrong, our way or the hghiway.

They make assertions: Our god lives, and is maker and ruler of the universe, and you will live according to his law.

To them I say, prove him.

I am atheist. Those three words. I don't have to say anything else.

Agnostic is too soft a word to counter the harm they cause, as they sleep, as they make war on and invest power in insignificant things. Evil is not an invisible adversary, it is believing in one.

Transtheism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transtheism

Post-theism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-theism

Metatheism: http://www.metatheism.org

Interesting. . .


-------------------------------------------------------

> Transtheism:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transtheism

I think this one is not really on point. My view, expressed many times on RfM, is that to encompass all faiths the term "religion" has to be defined so broadly as not necessarily to include god or gods. The reason is that some religions, notably Buddhism, do not have gods; or, in the case of Hinduism or Tibetan Buddhism, view the gods as illusory. Those gods are figments of reality that dissolve as one gets to higher truths.

This "transtheism" idea is similar to my preferred definition of "religion;" it is simply religion without gods. I therefore don't think it will be acceptable to most atheists because they reject the idea of the supernatural or the transcendental, which is fundamental to the trans-theistic religions.




> Post-theism:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-theism

I don't think theists will accept post-theism because it is basically atheistic. What I mean is that Nietzsche and the others believed that religion, including God/s is a cultural construct. "God is dead" did not mean religions (as cultural constructs) were dead. It meant that the Christian religion of Europe was dead and, as he said, would soon be replaced by new religions (as cultural constructs). So post-theism is a form of atheism, really, in the sense of there being no actual deity, only mass religious delusions that come and go.


> Metatheism: http://www.metatheism.org

This strikes me as pretty vacuous new-age jargon. It is live and let live, applied to religion. It may be an excellent idea, but it simply punts on the question of whether God exists.

I'm not sure any of those ideas help with the fundamental question of whether there is a supernatural world or not, which I think most people would consider the a/theist problem. My personal "solution" is agnosticism, not just in the literal sense of not knowing--though that is certainly true--but also meaning that I don't consider the question logically answerable and consequently don't care very much.

If you mean by "supernatural world" a meta-physical (beyond the physical dimensions) one, then I submit that the atheists who "have no belief" in it also have no belief (or experience) in subtler dimensions of themselves. That is, their dogma is that reality status is given to their (current) perceptual and phenomenal mind alone. They confine themselves to constructing a sense of self and a cosmology based on material observations alone that merely accounts for the apparent workings of conditionally manifested events of cosmic nature. Their myth is the so-called habitually experienced "reality" of a phenomenal self which seeks protection, nourishment, pleasure, and preservation in an uncaring, relatively hostile, and probably unaware universe of other phenomenal objects.

Most theists conventionally live in the same ego-perceived universe, but they rather childishly turn for existential salvation to a Parental God. Atheism is the ultimate denial of that Parental God, more like adolescence, with a vision of saving themselves--eventually--through materially-focused science and technology.

Richard Foxe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you mean by "supernatural world" a
> meta-physical (beyond the physical dimensions)
> one, then I submit that the atheists who "have no
> belief" in it also have no belief (or experience)
> in subtler dimensions of themselves.

You're probably right -- but that's not a "doctrine" of atheism, and if that's the case, it's only because people who claim there are such "subtler dimensions" have zero evidence they exist.

> That is,
> their dogma...

There is no dogma in atheism.
Particular atheist may engage in "dogma," but that's got nothing to do with atheism.

> ...is that reality status is given to
> their (current) perceptual and phenomenal mind
> alone.

That's not "dogma." It's what can be shown by evidence. The people you refer to in this case simply don't engage in belief without evidence ('faith') or fantasy or wishful thinking.

> They confine themselves to constructing a
> sense of self and a cosmology based on material
> observations alone that merely accounts for the
> apparent workings of conditionally manifested
> events of cosmic nature.

Such people don't engage in wishful thinking, fantasy, and belief without evidence. That's not "confining" -- in fact, it's what leads humans to look for evidence of unknown things, rather than just make shit up and "believe" it. This is a good thing.

> Their myth...

There are no myths in atheism, and the above isn't a "myth."

> ...is the
> so-called habitually experienced "reality" of a
> phenomenal self which seeks protection,
> nourishment, pleasure, and preservation in an
> uncaring, relatively hostile, and probably unaware
> universe of other phenomenal objects.

As I noted above, that's patent bullshit. You're simply trying to make excuses for the unsubstantiated fantasies you believe without evidence.

> Most theists conventionally live in the same
> ego-perceived universe, but they rather childishly
> turn for existential salvation to a Parental God.

...for which there is no evidence of any kind.

> Atheism is the ultimate denial of that Parental
> God, more like adolescence, with a vision of
> saving themselves--eventually--through
> materially-focused science and technology.

Atheism isn't a denial of anything, let alone "ultimate." The vast majority of atheists would gladly accept the existence of some god-thing if there were any evidence one existed. There isn't. So they don't believe your claims there is one.

And there is no "vision" of anything in atheism, just like there's no dogma or myths or anything you mistakenly ascribe to it. It's wholly and simply a rejection of god-claims -- for any reason, but usually because the people making the claims have no evidence and make the most ridiculous, fallacious, fantastical arguments that don't merit any "belief" for them.

“Atheism isn't a denial of anything”

Oh, I think it is. Religion has been around a long time, and it hasn’t always been sweetness and light. Scapegoating, inquisitions, human sacrifice, wars and enslavement. If you allow for multiple lives, the soul might not have gotten over being burned at the stake. Something inside them needs to be Atheist. But coming a little closer to Earth, the pain of this life is sometimes just too much to deal with. Atheism makes it easier.

Belief in the supernatural is more tricky because in that realm belief and evidence are tied together. You can’t separate them. The popular assumption that you can is faulty, but correcting that belief makes Atheism more difficult. It seems these days, being materialist is as hard as being Mormon. Mormons are just further along the curve.

Babyloncansuckit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> “Atheism isn't a denial of anything”
>
> Oh, I think it is. Religion has been around a long
> time, and it hasn’t always been sweetness and
> light. Scapegoating, inquisitions, human
> sacrifice, wars and enslavement. If you allow for
> multiple lives, the soul might not have gotten
> over being burned at the stake. Something inside
> them needs to be Atheist.

I don't allow for "multiple lives." There's no more evidence for that than there is for claimed "god" things.

As for "something inside them needs to be atheist..."

Learning to think rationally suffices nicely. No need to appeal to anything "inside them."

> But coming a little
> closer to Earth, the pain of this life is
> sometimes just too much to deal with. Atheism
> makes it easier.

It does? Not that I'm aware of.
Just like it's not a denial of anything, it doesn't offer anything to deal with pain, either.

> Belief in the supernatural is more tricky because
> in that realm belief and evidence are tied
> together. You can’t separate them. The popular
> assumption that you can is faulty, but correcting
> that belief makes Atheism more difficult.

Um...I didn't follow that.
Belief in the supernatural isn't tied to evidence.

> It seems
> these days, being materialist is as hard as being
> Mormon. Mormons are just further along the curve.

Atheism is not "materialism." There is no doctrine or dogma or anything else stating "materialism" in a lack of belief in claimed god-things.

It just so happens, though, that the only evidence we have about reality is "material." That doesn't mean we won't ever have evidence of something else, but to "believe" in "non-material" things without evidence is the same problem as believing in claimed god-things without evidence.

I'm not a "materialist." I'm accept what can be shown by evidence, and a non-believer in things that can't be shown by evidence. Provide some evidence for "non-material" claims, and I'll accept 'em. So far, nobody has managed to do so.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:

> It just so happens, though, that the only evidence
> we have about reality is "material." That doesn't
> mean we won't ever have evidence of something
> else, but to "believe" in "non-material" things
> without evidence is the same problem as believing
> in claimed god-things without evidence.
>
> I'm not a "materialist." I'm accept what can be
> shown by evidence, and a non-believer in things
> that can't be shown by evidence. Provide some
> evidence for "non-material" claims, and I'll
> accept 'em. So far, nobody has managed to do so.

It seems that for you, "evidence" is something that IS material: it needs to be observed or felt by the senses of the physical/material body that you take as yourself. That does sound like materialism, "the position that nothing exists except matter — things that can be measured or known through the senses" (dictionary.com). There is much in science that can be measured only by technology that extends the senses (though it is still interpreted through our bodily senses), and most of that technology is of very recent development.

Does that mean the things discovered via such technology did not exist before? Of course not--but they were invisible and "non-material" to previous eras. It should be reasonable to assume there are practically infinite vistas of currently invisible and unmeasurable energies and forces. What status would you give these at this point? Just speculations? Will we have to wait for the requisite technology to give them "reality"? Some have said that the body itself has latent senses which can potentially register much more, constituting a different kind of evidence, though such claims are often dismissed as fantasy--until a machine can do it, repeatedly.

Richard Foxe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It seems that for you, "evidence" is something
> that IS material: it needs to be observed or felt
> by the senses of the physical/material body that
> you take as yourself.

It needs to be testable/repeatable by others. If it can't be, it ain't evidence.

> That does sound like
> materialism, "the position that nothing exists
> except matter — things that can be measured or
> known through the senses"

Nope. I don't make any kind of claim as to "nothing exists except..." It's extremely likely that lots of things exist we don't know about, so to make such a claim would be arrogant and irrational.

However...just how can we measure anything that can't be known through our senses? I'm not excluding that as a possibility, but I'm happy to point out that no method for measuring anything except by our senses currently exists.

> There
> is much in science that can be measured only by
> technology that extends the senses (though it is
> still interpreted through our bodily senses), and
> most of that technology is of very recent
> development.

Yeah, so?

> Does that mean the things discovered via such
> technology did not exist before?

No. See above. You're the one insisting I'm a "materialist" by that definition, and I already told you I'm not. So why ask questions about why I accept something I already told you I didn't? That's a bit silly.

> Of course
> not--but they were invisible and "non-material" to
> previous eras. It should be reasonable to assume
> there are practically infinite vistas of currently
> invisible and unmeasurable energies and forces.

It's never reasonable to assume anything.
As I stated above, it's likely (that's a statement of probability given what we know, not an assumption) there are such things.

> What status would you give these at this point?

Unknown. Undiscovered. Unmeasurable.
Not worthy of "belief" without evidence to show they exist.
Once we do have such evidence, accepting them is reasonable.
Until we do, it's not.
And "believing" outrageous things people make up out of thin air, just because there might be things we don't know yet, is absolutely ridiculous.

> Just speculations? Will we have to wait for the
> requisite technology to give them "reality"?

Yep. Only not giving them "reality," just a reasonable basis for accepting their reality. There's a difference.

> Some
> have said that the body itself has latent senses
> which can potentially register much more,
> constituting a different kind of evidence, though
> such claims are often dismissed as fantasy--until
> a machine can do it, repeatedly.

Some have said lots of things, most of which turn out to be patently false. And they're not dismissed as "fantasy," they're dismissed us unverifiable claims, hence not worthy of "belief." Again, there's a difference. We can reasonably use "fantasy" for claims shown *false* by evidence -- things like Hebrews being slaves in Egypt, Adam & Eve being the first humans, etc. For unknown things, they're simply unverifiable claims.

Speculation about what we don't know is useful -- it can lead us to figure out ways to find out by observation/experiment (leading to evidence) whether or not speculated things exist.

"Belief" about what we don't know isn't all that useful. It's most often asserted with false certainty -- which isn't merited. It doesn't lead to observation/experiment to see if what's "believed" really exists, it's asserted as fact without any foundation. It's taking a stand before there's any knowledge about the subject. It's the opposite of reasonable acceptance that we don't know lots of things, and questing to learn more -- because it's making a decision about the truth of something without any backing for it. That doesn't lead to learning or discovery, it leads to dogma and ignorance and stubbornness.

Whether something is outside of reality (supernatural) or transcends reality (metaphysical) is immaterial. You speak of the subtler dimensions as if they exist and you speak of reality as if it were transcendent.

My childlike mind refuses to speculate on things that cannot be measured or observed. Your post is tantamount to a parent telling a child "because".

As for the parental god and atheism being the denial of that parental god. You aren't giving enough credit to atheists. They are perfectly capable of disbelieving all sorts of things. I reject the idea that one must work to achieve a natural state. Which is a common theme in Buddhism or Taoism. I reject the idea that god is a natural thing because that doesn't sound much like god.

My atheism is simply an expression of my rejection of from the ass answers. It has nothing to do with being childish or dogmatic.

As for the op. Definitially speaking theism and atheism are dichotomous and there is nothing wrong with that. If you want to say that being atheist is no different than being theist because you must have faith or believe in things that cannot be proved to be either I also have no problem with that. If you want to say that being either requires an interpretation of data, go ahead. But don't point out a dichotomous thing and then call it a false dichotomy.

I agree with what Hie and Jacob have said.

I also have another complaint. Why is it that you and some others insist that the only real form of transcendence involves God or religion? Why can't the bliss one feels when listening to a great opera or watching the tide roll in at dusk qualify as transcendent experience?

Those things transcend the quotidian and bring people together over centuries and millennia. In my mind they are perhaps the highest in human experience. They are neither theistic nor atheistic; there needn't be religious debate over the transcendence of such experiences.

In short, I think your discussion of transcendence is too binary and denies--if you want to think in such terms--many of the ways in which God manifests.

Saying the not faith of atheists is the same as the faith of theists is the same as saying not collecting stamps is a hobby.

I have dedicated years of my life to not collecting stamps. It is my passion.

But are you doing everything you know you could do in the pursuit of your passion?

Or to reverse it, is there anything less you could be doing as you do not collect stamps?

When I married I divested myself of the need to handle stamps by letting my wife buy the stamps and manage our snail mail. I'm more committed to this avocation than most.

You aphilatelist!

But am I a new aphilatelist or an old aphilatelist?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/08/2018 06:51PM by GregS.

Koriwhore joined RfM at a time when fiercely rehashed debates on why atheism is the default position on the question of belief in the existence of god were raging and he had nothing novel to contribute to those conversations.

Instead, he carved himself a niche by challenging the accepted definition of atheism as advocated by the majority of atheists on RfM. In the beginning he equivocated on the dictionary definition(s) of atheism, misinterpreting key words like disbelief and asserting or assuming that dictionaries are prescriptive rather than descriptive.

He then changed tactics by appealing to what he considered to be authorities within the scientific community, quoting the likes of Carl Sagan (his favorite) and since quote mining to find anything he can cling to.

Rather than have an honest discussion about the definition of god, the evidence for such a being, or simply conceding that by far the majority of atheists on this site describe atheism as lack of belief, he simply sticks his fingers in his ears and screams lalalalalalala.

Conclusion: Koriwhore is using RfM as a means of extracting dopamine from his brain through a crude and simple agitation of the status quo.

Recommendation: Stop feeding the trolls.

"accepted definition of atheism as advocated by the majority of atheists on RfM." ...

And what would be that definition ?

Dave, he said "the majority of atheists on this site describe atheism as lack of belief." That may not be one of the strict dictionary definitions, and it blurs some lines with other terms (agnosticism), but I think it does describe at least a very common sense of atheism as felt by most "atheists" on this board.

Yes, that. Thanks.

While Koriwhore paints a picture of atheism that effectively shifts the burden of proof by defining atheism as the claim that no god exists. I've observed that this caricature pushed by Koriwhore does not adequately fit the majority view of atheists on this forum who simple reject the theistic claim due to lack of being convinced.

Or a paucity of interest, due to a lack of any need.

Maybe he was hit in the head by a God particle.

hahahahahahahahahahahahaah.

the_lurker Wrote:
> Conclusion: Koriwhore is using RfM as a means of
> extracting dopamine from his brain through a crude
> and simple agitation of the status quo.


> Conclusion: the_lurker is using RfM as a means of mental masturbation.

Are you ready for your bukkake finale close up?