Atheism

[Alexis Jacobi]

"In the end it is dishonesty that breeds the sterile intellectualism of contemporary speculation. A man who is not certain of his mental integrity shuns the vital problems of human existence; at any moment the great laboratory of life may explode his little lie and leave him naked and shivering in the face of truth. So he builds himself an ivory tower of esoteric tomes and professionally philosophical periodicals; he is comfortable only in their company...he wanders farther and farther away from his time and place, and from the problems that absorb his people and his century. The vast concerns that properly belong to philosophy do not concern him...He retreats into a little corner, and insulates himself from the world under layer and layer of technical terminology. He ceases to be a philosopher, and becomes an epistemologist."

— Will Durant

This is very good, Iambiguous, and gives us something to work in relation to. I will get to a response tomorrow.

Trust your mother — but cut the cards, I always say.

[iambiguous]

"In the end it is dishonesty that breeds the sterile intellectualism of contemporary speculation. A man who is not certain of his mental integrity shuns the vital problems of human existence; at any moment the great laboratory of life may explode his little lie and leave him naked and shivering in the face of truth. So he builds himself an ivory tower of esoteric tomes and professionally philosophical periodicals; he is comfortable only in their company...he wanders farther and farther away from his time and place, and from the problems that absorb his people and his century. The vast concerns that properly belong to philosophy do not concern him...He retreats into a little corner, and insulates himself from the world under layer and layer of technical terminology. He ceases to be a philosopher, and becomes an epistemologist."

— Will Durant

This is very good, Iambiguous, and gives us something to work in relation to. I will get to a response tomorrow.

Thank God?

[Alexis Jacobi]

If that blows your dress up …

[Veritas Aequitas]

That's actually just a definition of "agnosticism" -- unless it's coupled with a stronger claim, like, "because such don't exist." As you're wording it, it leaves wide open the possibility that God or gods still exist, but the speaker just "lacks belief in them."

And to "lack belief" in something that he either could know or should know is not any badge of honour, but rather just a confession of ignorance or inexperience. So it leaves the speaker open to the suggestion that he just hasn't got enough experience or thoughtfulness to know anything about the subject -- but it leaves the question of the possible existence of a God or gods inadequately addressed.

Atheists would be smart to reject so weak a definition. It leaves them no means to say that God does not exist, and puts the fault back on the speaker for "lacking" knowledge.

Here is how [a]theism started [> 3000 years ago?].

• Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

From the above, Psalm 14:1 triggered desperate believers to coin the term 'atheist' [one word for convenience instead of a narrative] to represent the "fools" as [a]theists in a very pejorative manner; this is with reference to those fools who do not believe in God.

Sorry: this is nonsense. You don't know a thing about it, obviously. Let me help you out, there.

Here's the real etymology:

In early ancient Greek, the adjective átheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless". It was first used as a term of censure roughly meaning "ungodly" or "impious". In the 5th century BCE, the word began to indicate more deliberate and active godlessness in the sense of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods". The term ἀσεβής (asebēs) then came to be applied against those who impiously denied or disrespected the local gods, even if they believed in other gods. Modern translations of classical texts sometimes render átheos as "atheistic". As an abstract noun, there was also ἀθεότης (atheotēs), "atheism". Cicero transliterated the Greek word into the Latin átheos. The term found frequent use in the debate between early Christians and Hellenists, with each side attributing it, in the pejorative sense, to the other.

The truth is that "Atheist" is a Greek word, as its form reveals; it was not at all invented by the writer of the Psalms, who was a Hebrew. It does not appear in association with Psalm 14, nor did it appear until much later. In fact, later polytheists used it to describe not people who believed in no gods at all, but rather anybody who was insufficiently reverent to all the many gods the Greeks believed in. In fact, the early Christians were condemned as "Atheists" by the Romans, because they believed in only one God, and not in the many gods of the Greeks and Romans.

The term 'atheist' originated somewhere around the 15th century.

I see how you think this is right: you're talking about its English usage, not its usage in Greek or in the ancient world. But it's not right. It didn't originate there, nor did the concept.

However, what the Psalm says is certainly right.

Nonsense??
It is your manner of approach that are irrational and immature.

You stated earlier [see above]
IC 'That's actually just a definition of "agnosticism" '
My post was to counter your above.

I was not wrong, i.e.

The term atheist (from the French athée), in the sense of "one who ... denies the existence of God or gods",[11] predates atheism in English, being first found as early as 1566,[12] and again in 1571.[13] Atheist as a label of practical godlessness was used at least as early as 1577.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism

I read the Wiki article sometime ago and the
"In early ancient Greek, the adjective átheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless".." was added subsequently, thus I missed that.
I'll accept it as face value.

I did not state, the writers of the Psalms invented the word 'atheist' but rather that verse influenced Christians to emphasize on the term 'atheist' as a convenience and used is pejoratively. So the idea related to 'atheism' as I had stated started perhaps >3000 years ago, i.e. when the OT ideas first originated.

Buddhism an ANTI-theistic religion originated 2500 years ago.

In fact, the early Christians were condemned as "Atheists" by the Romans, because they believed in only one God, and not in the many gods of the Greeks and Romans.

There is no absolute rule on how a word can be used. Note the term 'gay'.
Just like what you are doing now, for the Romans to refer to Christians [monotheistic God] as 'atheists' in reference to polytheism is obviously a semantic error in reference to the general meaning of 'god' at that time.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The truth is that science never could tell us anything about the most important questions, like, "Why are we here," or "What is right and wrong," or "What is the meaning of life," or "What should we do," "What ought we not to do," "What do we owe each other," "What is a 'human right'?" or "What is a mind/soul," "Why is a picture beautiful," "What is the good society," or even "Does the human race deserve to survive?"
In point of fact, the scientific method couldn't even tell us, "What should science itself be for, and what ought it never to do?" In such areas, it's been utterly incapable of making any progress since the beginning.
So as great as science is, it seems its only great in a particular range of areas, and unable to speak at all on some others that are so important that none of us can ever live without them, apparently.

Who is insisting that Science can answers all the questions of the whole spectrum of life definitively?

Science [as defined] is merely one tool within the set of tools endowed upon humans to facilitate and optimize the well being of individuals and that of humanity.
Like any tool it 'cuts' both way, thus can be used for good or evil.
Scientific facts at best are 'polished' conjectures [Popper].

All the above questions you raised can be answered via philosophy-proper which is grounded on wisdom, morality, rationality and critical thinking.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Right. There's more to agnosticism, even. Agnostics can exist on a range: everything from what Dawkins calls himself, a "firm agnostic" to a "soft agnostic," which might well be somebody who is very nearly convinced of the truth of Theism.

But what's really the point is that such a definition isn't really going to cover Atheism well, or in a very flattering way.

That's what the "angry Atheist" types like Dawkins don't like about your position: they can't call faith a "delusion" if they aren't pretending to know that it is a delusion.

But even Dawkins retreats into agnosticism, when pushed. He doesn't want to have to defend Atheism as a knowledge claim. It's as aggressive as he wants, but too indefensible when questioned.

Even Dawkins claims that, interestingly. He thinks that we all have a normal inclination toward belief in a Being above us, and an impulse to worship. He says he even feels it, whenever he looks at the complexity and sophistication of biology. Nevertheless, he demands that we must fight and override that instinct, because, he says, it's not to be believed.

You are wrong on Dawkins' view.

As a scientist, Dawkins has to abide with the scientific principle of no certainty or absoluteness.
As I had stated, scientific facts at best are merely 'polished' conjectures.
Because he cannot claim certainty on any proposition, he has no choice but has to qualify his claims with some uncertainty.
But personally, he had stated in many occasions, he has ZERO [negligible] belief in a God.

But if Dawkins were to be a philosopher or argue his views from the philosophical perspective [philosophy-proper], then,

It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

[Immanuel Can]

Who is insisting that Science can answers all the questions of the whole spectrum of life definitively?

Not me. But anybody who floats the argument that if science can't tell us about something, then that thing isn't real, would believe that.

[Immanuel Can]

Right. There's more to agnosticism, even. Agnostics can exist on a range: everything from what Dawkins calls himself, a "firm agnostic" to a "soft agnostic," which might well be somebody who is very nearly convinced of the truth of Theism.

But what's really the point is that such a definition isn't really going to cover Atheism well, or in a very flattering way.

That's what the "angry Atheist" types like Dawkins don't like about your position: they can't call faith a "delusion" if they aren't pretending to know that it is a delusion.

But even Dawkins retreats into agnosticism, when pushed. He doesn't want to have to defend Atheism as a knowledge claim. It's as aggressive as he wants, but too indefensible when questioned.

Even Dawkins claims that, interestingly. He thinks that we all have a normal inclination toward belief in a Being above us, and an impulse to worship. He says he even feels it, whenever he looks at the complexity and sophistication of biology. Nevertheless, he demands that we must fight and override that instinct, because, he says, it's not to be believed.

You are wrong on Dawkins' view.

No, I'm right. I can even link to where he says it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Right. There's more to agnosticism, even. Agnostics can exist on a range: everything from what Dawkins calls himself, a "firm agnostic" to a "soft agnostic," which might well be somebody who is very nearly convinced of the truth of Theism.

But what's really the point is that such a definition isn't really going to cover Atheism well, or in a very flattering way.

That's what the "angry Atheist" types like Dawkins don't like about your position: they can't call faith a "delusion" if they aren't pretending to know that it is a delusion.

But even Dawkins retreats into agnosticism, when pushed. He doesn't want to have to defend Atheism as a knowledge claim. It's as aggressive as he wants, but too indefensible when questioned.

Even Dawkins claims that, interestingly. He thinks that we all have a normal inclination toward belief in a Being above us, and an impulse to worship. He says he even feels it, whenever he looks at the complexity and sophistication of biology. Nevertheless, he demands that we must fight and override that instinct, because, he says, it's not to be believed.

You are wrong on Dawkins' view.

No, I'm right. I can even link to where he says it.

OK, there was a mixed-up.

I was explaining Dawkins' stance on atheism, i.e. he is not a typical agnostic.

If Dawkins has stated all humans has an impulse for a God, I would agree with that.

I had stated all over this forum,
ALL humans are programmed with the proclivity to believe in a God based on an evolutionary default driven by an existential crisis due to inherent cognitive dissonances.
Such a belief of theism has its pros then and now, thus was adaptive, but as humans continue to evolve to the future, the pros of theism are being outweighed by its cons.
As such, humanity need to wean off theism naturally and gradually toward the future within the next 75, 100, 150 or more years.

[Immanuel Can]

You are wrong on Dawkins' view.

No, I'm right. I can even link to where he says it.

OK, there was a mixed-up.

I was explaining Dawkins' stance on atheism, i.e. he is not a typical agnostic.

If Dawkins has stated all humans has an impulse for a God, I would agree with that.

He has. He's also insisted he's a "firm agnostic," and not an "Atheist." Those are the terms he used. He also became an Atheist at 17. Look it up, if you doubt me.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No, I'm right. I can even link to where he says it.

OK, there was a mixed-up.

I was explaining Dawkins' stance on atheism, i.e. he is not a typical agnostic.

If Dawkins has stated all humans has an impulse for a God, I would agree with that.

He has. He's also insisted he's a "firm agnostic," and not an "Atheist." Those are the terms he used. He also became an Atheist at 17. Look it up, if you doubt me.

Here is Dawkins' latest discussion on his position where his focus is on the Science perspective;

Religion Is Still Evil - Richard Dawkins
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaRVzooavRI

Transcript [part] from above;

[RD] I'm a great fan of hers [Ayaan Hirst Ali who converted to Christianity] and I have talked to her about this I think the respect in which we differ is that for me what really matters is the truth claims of Christianity.
and for her what really matters is the morality the politics actually I think for her Christianity is a Bastion against something worse as Hilaire Belloc said always keep a hold of nurse[?] for fear of finding something worse
and for her I think she wants a faith which will help people to stand up against worse faiths and she singles out Islam she singles out China I think and Putin and wokeism
and I'm with her on all those
and to the extent that I think that a religion might be valuable for political reasons I would go along with her but I think
it's the wrong way to approach religion I think that what really matters about a religion is whether it's true
and to adopt a religion for almost as though is saying well I don't believe this nonsense but it's very good idea if other people do and there's something patronizing about that she doesn't do that
she go she says I believe in it I am a Christian and therefore it's
not patronizing but I think the fundamental motivation is a political and a moral one I
I presume as both an atheist and as a person with an understanding of not
just biological but also memetic Evolution having coined the term meme
you'll have to think of religion as essentially something which serves some kind of social function that that must
be why it exists it's why it evolved given that that's the case is it really so inappropriate to think about religion
in terms of how it serves us socially if that from our shared worldview must
be what religion really is
from an academic point of view I think it's very interesting question what religion is all about, what does it serve a social function does it even have an evolutionary benefit and that interests me as an academic
to me though it's a huge step to go from even saying it's a good thing even saying that that I wish there were more Christianity in the world even from to say that is nothing to do with believing it it's truth claims I mean truth claims like there is a Divine Creator who made the universe and made the laws of physics their Divine Creator who made the world who listens to our prayers who forgives our sins who sent Jesus to be born of a virgin and then and then had him crucified
I mean those are all truth claims of course none of that
matters as long as it helps us fight Putin as far as

well that that's the difference between me and and Ayan I I
suspect that that she doesn't really believe any of that

[AO] and presumably many Christians and I've seen many Christians
reacting to this story of Ayan's conversion issuing a similar skepticism
as many atheists have been saying well we care about Christianity as a set of Truth claims we care about it saying
something real about the world if somebody can become a Christian just by preferring it as a as a as a more
comfortable worldview what does that say about Christianity I mean I said a moment ago that well for us religion
just is a social tool essentially and I think that the ability to adopt
Christianity just because of its social function is evidence in favor of our case that that's all religion is

[RD]yeah I think we agree about that I think where we perhaps don't agree no I wouldn't say we disagree I would say that our fundamental motivation is a bit different because I think that for you well if I ask you what do you think the the worst thing about Christianity is I suspect you say something moral something about the of evil
something about the the the horrific ideas of the of Paul and and the early
Christian fathers that that that that we all born in sin and and
and we needed the death of Jesus to save us that's the kind of thing that I
suspect drives your atheism whereas for me I that's irrelevant I mean for me I I
talk about it
but for me what really drives it is the scientific question
is is there a Creator underneath the universe because if there
is then it's a profoundly different kind of Universe from a scientific point of view from if there isn't to me that's
the big question the problem of evil to me wouldn't shouldn't be a real problem because you just say well there could be
an evil God and that that so that that that's a lesser question for me

[Immanuel Can]

Here is Dawkins' latest discussion on his position where his focus is on the Science perspective;

I'm not interested in him, other than the fact that he's one of the most celebrated of the so-called "angry Atheists." I think what he knows about "religion" as he calls it, would just about fit in a thimble.

[attofishpi]

Here is Dawkins' latest discussion on his position where his focus is on the Science perspective;

I'm not interested in him, other than the fact that he's one of the most celebrated of the so-called "angry Atheists." I think what he knows about "religion" as he calls it, would just about fit in a thimble.

I don't think you understand how much information can be stored within a thimble.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is Dawkins' latest discussion on his position where his focus is on the Science perspective;

I'm not interested in him, other than the fact that he's one of the most celebrated of the so-called "angry Atheists." I think what he knows about "religion" as he calls it, would just about fit in a thimble.

If the above is that little you know of Dawkins, how come you talk as if you know a lot about him in the earlier posts.

Yes, Dawkins appears to be an "angry Atheist" perhaps he was molested by a priest during his childhood days. I don't agree with such attitude. As a biologist, what he lacked is the Psychology of Religion and empathy for the majority of supposedly good-minded theists.

On the other hand, Christians [and Muslims] in the desperate grip to God also do not have empathy for non-theists as human beings.
I just had a personal bad encounter from some Christians; one son of my relative coerced his father [terminal, bed-ridden and skeletal] into declaring his faith for Christ; the father is his weakened state agreed due to the son's persistence; but later he told the other children he does not accept Christ; the father died a week later and the other children gave him a non-Christian burial.
This is spiritual terrorism!

[attofishpi]

Hey Atheists ... is this a mindless link SOUL n SOLE ?