Atheism

[David]

Right, but someone might develop an irrational faith that stems from a direct or indirect observation, couldnt they?

[NickDagger]

I highly recommend these videos (videos 3 and 4 especially) for fans of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris:

[grimcity]

Right, but someone might develop an irrational faith that stems from a direct or indirect observation, couldnt they?

Yeah, but it would require injecting assumptions into the observation rather than deriving information from it... sort've like creationism/ID/Young Earthers.

[Upgrayedd]

n his saucy name i pray, ramen.

[David]

Expand Quote

Right, but someone might develop an irrational faith that stems from a direct or indirect observation, couldnt they?

[close]

Yeah, but it would require injecting assumptions into the observation rather than deriving information from it... sort've like creationism/ID/Young Earthers.

Yeah, irrational faith comes in all flavors.

7:11

I highly recommend these videos (videos 3 and 4 especially) for fans of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris:

When asked in an interview whether or not he thought 9/11 was an inside job Noam Chomsky said, "Even if it was, who cares".

[Buddha]

Expand Quote

So knowledge is justified belief?

[close]

Knowledge and belief are two very broad words.

In science, knowledge could be considered a belief based on observation, collected data, the ability to falsify the position, and in some cases make predictions based on the data acquired. Having said that, people often "know" the wrong thing, so in the world of science theories are reworked with better data, as theories are self correcting.

From my understanding, supernatural faith is (loosely) knowledge without evidence.

Then there's belief... rational or irrational? I can't see my car, but I think it's rational to believe it's there since I parked in a secure garage like I've done for close to nine years. It would be irrational for me to believe that when I get out of the office and return to my car, it will instead be a pogo stick.

Scientific materialism relies on the irrational belief that the physical world has an objective reality.  

[grimcity]

I disagree, as there are plenty of scientific disciplines that acknowledge that reality is subjective... it's why we have cameras that see in the same wavelengths as insects or emitted from celestial bodies, sonar, the study of animals, microbes, and all the way down (or up to the grand) levels of quantum physics, where the rules of reality as we know them don't even apply.

Science simply looks at the natural world and tries to break down the mechanics of it all as best it can.

[Beer Keg Peg Leg]

he didn't say all scientific disciplines rely on that belief, just those that subscribe to a materialist view of the universe.

[BarcelonaCEO]

God is a metaphore for human optimal experience AKA "flow" or other sorts of altered states of consciousness (pick one you enjoy) in modern psychology. Skateboarding and other sorts of behaviour provides that feeling.

I dont give a fuck about freedom of belief if I dont have the freedom of interacting with nature and myself like I want, as long as I dont hurt anybody else. That implies doing all sorts of drugs. I say that because the western society in which we live in puts too much moral pressure and forces values in people, and thats not democracy. I dont care what the governments thinks it's better for all of us, we all should decide together.

Dont be foolished and shut down, dont believe, experience yourself, know yourself, make mistakes, learn from it and live through. You are the ultimate force, you have the vision, your mind moves matter in some way, and you know it.   

[grimcity]

he didn't say all scientific disciplines rely on that belief, just those that subscribe to a materialist view of the universe.

Science studies the natural world, not the supernatural, so to that degree it's all materialistic.

[NickDagger]

When asked in an interview whether or not he thought 9/11 was an inside job Noam Chomsky said, "Even if it was, who cares".

Oh lawd. Are you a 9/11 truther David?

[Hercules Rockefeller]

when i told my grandma that i was a vegetarian now, a few years ago after she asked me the fourth time in a few minutes if i wanted a schnitzel, she looked at my with big eyes and said "BUT GOD EXISTS!". i guess i?ll try and tell her that i am an atheist, maybe then she will stop to shove meat down my throat.

[Reev]

n his saucy name i pray, ramen.

All you need to do now is to move to Austria and put a colander on your head.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14135523

[Buddha]

Expand Quote

he didn't say all scientific disciplines rely on that belief, just those that subscribe to a materialist view of the universe.

[close]

Science studies the natural world, not the supernatural, so to that degree it's all materialistic.

If the natural world has no inherent physical reality independent of observation,  then the scientific naturalism of atheists is just as false a belief as the exoteric abrahamic faiths.  Am I wrong in assuming this materialist ontology in Atheism?

[grimcity]

If the natural world has no inherent physical reality independent of observation,

There are plenty of things in the natural world that haven't been observed scientifically or otherwise.

then the scientific naturalism of atheists is just as false a belief as the exoteric abrahamic faiths.

...but that's not the case. Scientific naturalism simply looks at nature and its mechanics. There's no great leap of logic or conflict of interest in observing things directly or indirectly and deriving data from those observations.

Am I wrong in assuming this materialist ontology in Atheism?

Atheism in and of itself doesn't espouse anything at all. It's a neutral, default position.

When it comes to philosophy, atheists vary.

[NickDagger]

Technically, wouldn't agnosticism be the neutral position?

[grimcity]

I'd say it's about as neutral as atheism.

[annoyedwithskating]

Technically, wouldn't agnosticism be the neutral position?

i dont see how one can ever be truly neutral, you either believe in god or you dont.

[grimcity]

A lack of theistic belief is a neutral position.

Some people may have worldviews on top of their lack of theistic belief, but then you're dealing with different philosophies that may or may not take a neutral position, or offer up some sort of non-neutral assertation/assumption.

[Inanimate Object]

You guys better not be talking about evolution in here.

[annoyedwithskating]

A lack of theistic belief is a neutral position.

Some people may have worldviews on top of their lack of theistic belief, but then you're dealing with different philosophies that may or may not take a neutral position, or offer up some sort of non-neutral assertation/assumption.

good point

[Mooley]

i was hoping to make up my mind 1 or 2 seconds before i die

Well hey, Christianity doesn't distinguish between a last second repentance and lifelong devotion so at least you'd be alright there.

[4LOM]

Believe in what you want, all that ends up mattering is how we treat each other. However it makes sense to you, we're connected. Our time is good or bad because of luck and our behavior.

Beliefs are not private, so you can't believe whatever you want.

Beliefs lead to actions. Actions affect others. Behavior that affects others is a matter of public concern.

So, if religious belief affects any one other than the holder of those beliefs, then public policy should guide our policy to religious beliefs and religious believers.

And if the social harms that follow from religious belief outweigh the social benefits of holding those beliefs, then it is our societal duty to make people rational enough to see that religion is bullshit. Since religion belief brings more harm than good to our world.

[David]

Expand Quote

When asked in an interview whether or not he thought 9/11 was an inside job Noam Chomsky said, "Even if it was, who cares".

[close]

Oh lawd. Are you a 9/11 truther David?

No. I'm not a truther. I just like the quote.

Expand Quote

Believe in what you want, all that ends up mattering is how we treat each other. However it makes sense to you, we're connected. Our time is good or bad because of luck and our behavior.

[close]

Beliefs are not private, so you can't believe whatever you want.

Beliefs lead to actions. Actions affect others. Behavior that affects others is a matter of public concern.

So, if religious belief affects any one other than the holder of those beliefs, then public policy should guide our policy to religious beliefs and religious believers.

And if the social harms that follow from religious belief outweigh the social benefits of holding those beliefs, then it is our societal duty to make people rational enough to see that religion is bullshit. Since religion belief brings more harm than good to our world.

Who says beliefs can't be private? Whether they're right or wrong, a person can believe in what they want.

Whether the belief is scientific, pseudoscientific, or religious, a person has a right to think however they want, even if their beliefs are not justified.

If you want to bring up issues of social harm, then I'd remind you that Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and other figure heads massacred and went to war over what were largely secular interests.

Religious belief and monasticism gave rise to scholasticism in Europe.

[shitset3000]

Whether the belief is scientific, pseudoscientific, or religious, a person has a right to think however they want, even if their beliefs are not justified.

If you want to bring up issues of social harm, then I'd remind you that Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and other figure heads massacred and went to war over what were largely secular interests.

I agree that people have the right to believe what they want, but I don't think that they have the right to do what they want based on their beliefs if its causing harm to other people. Hitler, Stalin, and Pot Pot? None of these evil person's actions were guided by the fact that they were atheist (Hitler is not even confirmed on that regard), they were just evil, evil men. The problem with religious belief is it causes normally rational and intelligent human beings to commit detestable acts based on their faith. Hitler and Stalin etc. were not normally rational human beings to start with.

[David]

A belief that is not justified will have little chance in court. Take the Scopes trial, for example. It's a good one.

Nobody can DO whatever they want, but believing in whatever they want is still fair game.

I never said those people were atheists, I said they were following secular interests.

You can say they were evil men, but on the other hand they were just willing to kill and send people to die for what they believed in.

Are human beings normally rational and intelligent? Thomas Hobbes would disagree.

Who says Hitler and Stalin weren't normally rational? They were simply men with an ungodly amount of power, doing what history tells us men with that much power tend to do.

[weedpop]

A belief that is not justified will have little chance in court. Take the Scopes trial, for example. It's a good one.

Nobody can DO whatever they want, but believing in whatever they want is still fair game.

I never said those people were atheists, I said they were following secular interests.

You can say they were evil men, but on the other hand they were just willing to kill and send people to die for what they believed in.

Are human beings normally rational and intelligent? Thomas Hobbes would disagree.

Who says Hitler and Stalin weren't normally rational? They were simply men with an ungodly amount of power, doing what history tells us men with that much power tend to do.

Nazism (especially the racial component) was a profoundly irrational philosophy, and Stalin was a paranoid egomaniac. Look into how he handled The leadup and initial reaction to operation Barberossa. An excess of power does tend to make people do irrational things - usually with the help of numerous psychological and sociological factors relating to large, powerful autocracies - but I think its safe to say that personality as well as the irrational beliefs that both of them held contributed greatly to their actions.

Humans are certainly not 100% rational beings but the last thing we need at this stage in our development as a species is another faulty belief system to keep the wool pulled over the eyes of much of the population in regards to important social issues. Sure, some of the first academics may have been monks but I hardly think that intelligent design debate is helping kids learn more about biology. Just look at the history of the enlightenment; when reason and a mechanistic outlook on nature started to threaten Christianity as the dominant ideology of the time (at least among a certain class), the church started condemning and banning every science book in sight.

[smokecrack]

give this a shot. really interesting read

http://www.highexistence.com/mind-blowing-story-talking-to-god/

edit: i had a feeling this might be overlooked. it's a story of an atheist having a conversation with a random person who claimed to be God. now more likely than not, the story is fiction and the author knows people aren't that dumb in the first place. the way this story is written is pretty brilliant though. not like it's an nbd or anything, but there's some great lines in there. especially this one:

Atheist: ‘so we’re not obliged to “please” you or follow your alleged guidelines or anything like that?’

God: "absolutely not. Never issued a single guideline in the lifetime of this Universe. Have to find your own way out of the maze. And one early improvement is to stop expecting me – or anyone else – to come and help you out.’'

[David]

Expand Quote

A belief that is not justified will have little chance in court. Take the Scopes trial, for example. It's a good one.

Nobody can DO whatever they want, but believing in whatever they want is still fair game.

I never said those people were atheists, I said they were following secular interests.

You can say they were evil men, but on the other hand they were just willing to kill and send people to die for what they believed in.

Are human beings normally rational and intelligent? Thomas Hobbes would disagree.

Who says Hitler and Stalin weren't normally rational? They were simply men with an ungodly amount of power, doing what history tells us men with that much power tend to do.

[close]

Nazism (especially the racial component) was a profoundly irrational philosophy, and Stalin was a paranoid egomaniac. Look into how he handled The leadup and initial reaction to operation Barberossa. An excess of power does tend to make people do irrational things - usually with the help of numerous psychological and sociological factors relating to large, powerful autocracies - but I think its safe to say that personality as well as the irrational beliefs that both of them held contributed greatly to their actions.

Humans are certainly not 100% rational beings but the last thing we need at this stage in our development as a species is another faulty belief system to keep the wool pulled over the eyes of much of the population in regards to important social issues. Sure, some of the first academics may have been monks but I hardly think that intelligent design debate is helping kids learn more about biology. Just look at the history of the enlightenment; when reason and a mechanistic outlook on nature started to threaten Christianity as the dominant ideology of the time (at least among a certain class), the church started condemning and banning every science book in sight.

In hindsight, yeah, Nazism didn't make a whole lot of sense (people these days might say nationalism on the whole should be tossed aside, but then you have patriots who'd scream "NWO" over the idea of losing sovereignty) but back then they thought they were being scientific. Stalin must've been simply doing whatever it took to secure his power, paranoid or not. As far as secular education goes, you have a point.  If they're lucky enough, people can later choose to go to whatever college they want, be it MIT or a divinity school.
When it comes to the enlightenment, the Royal Society and the 'Invisible College' might have had its roots in a Rosicicrucian Enlightenment. Frances Yates wrote about this sort of thing in many of her books. When you talk about "the church" I'm guessing you mean the Catholic Church. They''re not the only ones in history to ban books.

[Chris]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

When asked in an interview whether or not he thought 9/11 was an inside job Noam Chomsky said, "Even if it was, who cares".

[close]

Oh lawd. Are you a 9/11 truther David?

[close]

No. I'm not a truther. I just like the quote.

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

[close]

[close]

Whether the belief is scientific, pseudoscientific, or religious, a person has a right to think however they want, even if their beliefs are not justified.

I like this David guy.