History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedConfronting Militant Atheism

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 45678>
Author
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1899
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jan-2008 at 16:19
I've provided a quote from Dewey that illustrates the syntagm "militant atheism" (labeled there also "aggresive atheism") not atheism. There are plenty of books on the atheist propaganda in Soviet Russia and its satelites illustrating the same syntagm. No matter what I invoked you have ignored and your alleged unsuccesful search sounds so disingenous when Google returns more than 20,000 hits on it, also over 600 hits in books and also over 600 hits in articles. Even a Wiki article (which you seem to have consulted) shows the syntagm (exemplifying also with organizations, like that Soyuz Bezbozhnikov I already mentioned) but makes little difference in meaning, rather that is term is used today by "some theists" ("sometimes used pejoratively") and by "some atheists" (such a succession of complementary terms makes the intended differentiation a useless one). Even the Wiki article is an insufficient material on the question, those Google hits should provide you with enough to search and chew for several days if you're truly interested in the topic.
 
I do not understand what purpose that link serves. If that guy is a militant atheist then what? You want me to extract a doctrinal foundation from each speech just to make a point? Isn't that guy an atheist, isn't he bashing religion, isn't this enough to see he has a doctrinal support (just notice how often he parallels the "bashing atheists" with institutions like Church which they openly declare they have a doctrine) which he shares with other militant atheists? Isn't this q.e.d.? Case closed.
 
I also cannot stop wondering why do you seek to disrupt the discussion in almost every reply (you have used extensively both terms "militant" and "atheism" in this discussion and you ask me about their meanings????)


Edited by Chilbudios - 22-Jan-2008 at 16:27
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 1211
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jan-2008 at 08:19
Certainly, what you say is correct to some point. Let's see what wiki states:(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism)
 
Militant atheism

The active antitheist stance is sometimes called "militant" atheism.[7] In 1922 Lenin wrote an essay On the Significance of Militant Materialism, in which he commended the journal Pod Znamenem Marksizma as a "militant atheist" journal. He defined this as "carry[ing] on untiring atheist propaganda and an untiring atheist fight".[8] The League of the Militant Godless was established in the Soviet Union as a militant atheist organisation,[9][10] and the term has also been applied to a number of key figures in the development of Marxism, including Karl Marx,[11] Friedrich Engels[12][13] and Joseph Dietzgen.[14]

Today the term militant atheism may be used by theists as an epithet for the "militant evolutionists [who] want to silence the idea of creation".[15]. It is sometimes used pejoratively to describe people who are considered to campaign too actively and outspokenly or militantly for atheism and against religion: "those who advocate the elimination of religion" as opposed to "progressive, enlightened people who are simply 'nonbelievers'."[16] Catherine Fahringer of the Freedom From Religion Foundation has suggested that the label militant is often routinely applied to atheist for no good reason "very much as was the adjective 'damn' attached to the noun 'Yankee' during the Civil War."[17] Despite the term's pejorative status, some atheists choose to self-identify as militant.[18]

I still don't find a definition for militant atheism. The only thing I agree with is what I've highligted in the quote above. A syntagm is not a definition. It's like I said before about homosexuality: The fact that there are active/militant homosexuals doesn't make homosexuality militant.
From this perspective I stick to my opinion: the term militant atheism does not describe something that is, it rather describes a stance of some atheists. It's extreme form is antitheism and antireligion which you agreed that are not the same with atheism. Therefore an atheist, a miltant one, might be antireligious or antitheist. Therefore I consider that using the term militant atheism is unapropriate and makes a harmful impression about atheists.
I consider religion harmful in many aspects but I don't consider myself to be antireligious or antitheist in the broad sense of the term.
I consider most religions to be militant because they establish rules that the believers must respect. Atheism does not establish rules.
I share the same basic belief/concept as Richard Dawkings. He is a militant atheist. I'm not or if you like I could be considered a moderate one. Confronting Dawkings miltant atheism is also confronting my atheism sinec there is no difference between them. Confronting Dawkings militant stance and arguments is something totally different.
Here's a final nonsense you seem to dislike: Militant atheism is militant atheists.
 
 
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Status: Offline
Points: 965
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jan-2008 at 10:23
Hmm.... Non atheists....  by definition... are people who have belief systems............ So they need to develop atheists into belief systems.,,,,,,, Militant atheism just seems to me to be a belief system developed by non-athiests.
 
Athiests then for some reason acknowledge it...... this some reason seems to me to be stupidity (non-believers don't have the monopoly on stupidity).
 
Confronting "Militant Atheism". Or should I more correctly say "Atheism". Simply provide scientific proof God exists............. confronted successfully.
 
 


Edited by Paul - 23-Jan-2008 at 10:24
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 1211
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jan-2008 at 11:28
Originally posted by Paul Paul wrote:

Confronting "Militant Atheism". Or should I more correctly say "Atheism". Simply provide scientific proof God exists............. confronted successfully.
I concur. With one slight difference: irefutable proof. How many times have you encountered the phrase "There is proof that God exists, only you non believers don't see it"?
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1899
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jan-2008 at 12:45

Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:


I concur. With one slight difference: irefutable proof. How many times have you encountered the phrase "There is proof that God exists, only you non believers don't see it"?
This double-standard is specific to a dogmatic flavour of atheism, held with religiousity. There's no irefutable proof in science, there's no irefutable proof in any branch of knowledge concerning us or the world around us. The only irefutable proofs are in mathematics and logic and the proofs are valid only from a given set of premises (talking of which, there were already in this thread presented succesful ontological arguments, i.e. from a given set of reasonable premises it was concluded that God, an entity defined to display "godly" attributes, necessarily exists). Someone saying "I'll believe in God only if you bring me the irefutable proof of it" when electromagnetic theory is not irefutably proven yet relied on daily, can be only someone who doesn't want to believe in a God.

Cezar, on militant atheism you're continuing the same strategy (I still consider any argumentation on atheism and not on militant atheism as a red herring). I wonder on what criteria have you emphasized a part of that Wikipedia article. Have you not noticed the The active antitheist stance is sometimes called "militant" atheism with the footnote: Baggini, Julian (2003). Atheism: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 101. ISBN 0-19-280424-3 (a reference which is not invoked again neither in this paragraph nor elsewhere in the article, thus very likely this "sometimes" does not refer to the following "some"-s and "sometimes"-es)? Have you not noticed the Despite the term's pejorative status, some atheists choose to self-identify as militant? (with some examples in the footnote). And I honestly can't believe someone discussing this topic for days and confessing an unsuccesful search he could find a Wiki article but missed materials like the following (it took me ~30 minutes to compile this list):

Alberto Hidalgo, "Philosophical Materialism"
( http://www.revistadefilosofia.com/Phylosoph_Materialism5.pdf )
The ontological materialism support a militant atheism against the new wave of fundamentalism. For this is not enough the Enlightenment theory about the priestly deception, nor the Marxist idea about the "people's opium". According to G. Bueno throughout his evolution man was accompanied by religion, not for having a divine gene or one sacred faculty inside, but for having been he come in contact with the Pleistocene big predatory animals, which he could hunt, but which he could become a prey. Gods are not anthropomorphic projections of consciousness (Xenophanes, Feuerbach ...) but materials Numens shaped by man in wild beasts own image. Ethology is the new Theology. It is essential to atheist materialism claim that many cultural facts usually related with the spiritualism and idealism  (zodiacal signs, sacrifice) are materialistic events. Is the Spinoza's strategy.

David B. Myers, "Marx and the Problem of Nihilism" in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. 37, No. 2, p. 193 ( http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0031-8205(197612)37%3A2%3C193%3AMATPON%3E2.0.CO%3B2-4 )
Marx had despiritualized Hegel's view of nature and history; his philosophy took shape during the rebellion of the Young Hegelians, against the abstractions of Hegel; Marx along the Young Hegelians began by embracing militant atheism.

Sydney Hook, "Marx and Feuerbach" ( http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/hook/1936/04/feuerbach.htm )
In Marxs eyes, the whole theoretical tradition of Western European philosophy with its apotheosis of Reason, its conception that thought has an underived and independent history, its identification of theoretical activity with divine activity, and when divinity was no longer fashionable, with the highest type of human activityall this represented a religious pattern of behavior. This was the ground for his contention that the Young-Hegelians, despite their world shattering phrases and militant atheism, were religious, and that the battles they fought were sectarian episodes in a common religious tradition which they shared with their opponents.
[my note, this is very similar with Dewey's note that militant atheism shares with supernaturalism an overemphasized focus on man]

Louis Francis Budenz, The Techniques of Communism, 1977 (Google Books)
p 66:
Thus, Lenin in 1922 wrote strongly on behalf of "militant materialism". He declared that the Bolsheviks must be committed to "militant atheism" expressed through "untiring atheist propaganda and an untiring atheistic fight."

Ethan Theodore Colton, Four Patterns of Revolution: Communist U.S.S.R., Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, New Deal America, 1970 (Google Books)
p. 59 (under the section called "Militant Atheism"):
An interview given [...] in 1932 by Yaroslavsky, executive chief of the Society of Militant Godless [...]:
"We were always the foes of religion. We were atheists, revolutionary followers of Marx and Lenin. Our militant  atheism is absolutely related to our revolutionary world-view."

James Thrower, Marxist-Leninist "Scientific Atheism" and the Study of Religion and Atheism in the USSR, 1983 (Google Books)
p. 119:
In an article [...] in 1922, entitled "On the Significance of Militant Atheism", Lenin urged Soviet intellectuals to continue the philosophical struggle with religion by researching deeper into the materialist tradition - particularly the materialist tradition of the European Enlightenment - and by studying the writings of contemporary, but non-Marxist, materialists.
p. 135:
Although some serious work in religious studies was produced prior of the outbreak of war in 1941, it was not until after the war that the study of religion and atheism began in earnest. In the pre-war period the emphasis was on "practical atheism" - the more so as Stalin, the sole arbiter in such matters, had made not a single theoretical pronouncement on religion or the study of religion - and 'practical atheism' meant schools for the propagation of atheism, the administrative elimination of the clergy, atheist museums housed where churches had once stood, and a continuous stream of hate-propaganda designed to terrorise the faithful into submission. This, of course, was in line with Lenin's policy of militant atheism, as was the emphasis on education as means of eliminating religious beliefs and practices - a policy pursued in the early period of Soviet Power by Lenin's widow Krupskaya, as well as by Lunacharsky, Kalinin and Skvortsov-Stepanov.

Nikolaus Lobkowicz, Theory and Practice: History of a Concept from Aristotle to Marx, 1967 (Google Books), p. 364
[...] atheism (the militant atheism of the Left Hegelians as well as of Feuerbach that is) postulates man's dignity by rejecting God [...]

Aren't all these sources speaking about militant atheism? Are these authors theists adressing pejoratively atheism (am I a theist? - I am using this term, too)? Is "militant atheism" term a non-existing one? (what are these people talking about then?) Is "militant atheism" synonymous with "militant atheists" (cf. your definition "militant atheism is militant atheists")? Let's try a substition to check this out: Bolsheviks must be committed to "militant atheists" expressed through "untiring atheist propaganda and an untiring atheistic fight." - it doesn't make any sense to me, so no, the terms are not synonymous, your definition is not operative.
I don't understand the need for an explicite and documented definition. Have you found dictionary/encyclopaedia definitions for "yellow Sun", "round Earth", "green grass" or do you confess lack of understanding in all these cases? Do you deny the existence of "positive atheism", "strong atheism", "weak atheism", similar syntagms working in parallel with "positive atheists", "strong atheists", "weak atheists"? In none of the latter cases the -ism is not equal with the sum of the -ists, because obviously, the -ists are those who believe, while the -ism is the belief (or system of beliefs). And that in the case of militant atheism the system of beliefs is actually a doctrine has been proved all over this thread (organizations, propaganda, campaigns, etc.)

If you consider the term inapropriate this thing may say more of you than of the term. But instead of saying things you may find insulting, I will prove how a typical militant atheist discourse is nothing but empty propaganda, same message with different key-words. I will pick for my little demonstration that manifesto of a militant atheist you have linked in this thread ( http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/bash.html ) and I've earlier concluded it obviously has a doctrine, an ideology of militant atheism serving as a cause. Let me show you how this doctrine looks like and how it relates with other known doctrines. The substitions are just examples, several substitions can apply and provide various nuances, but the background idea remains the same: doctrine and propaganda.

1) Militant atheist discourse:

Helping today's university students become indignant over the absurdities of religious dogma is an essential part of persuading them to consider a secular alternative. If we don't start, very soon, to replenish our ranks with young people, out future will be dim.

There is definitely a time and place to make religion look as ridiculous as it actually is. There is also a time and place to emphasize the opportunities awaiting a person who lives a life free of superstition. Overall, however, one cannot be done without the other. We cannot just approach college students and members of the general public by preaching the virtues of a life free from supernaturalism without giving examples of how and why religious beliefs are absurd and divisive.

2) Communist discourse (substitutions: religious/religion = capitalist/capitalism, secular = Communist, superstition = oppression, supernaturalism = material inequality, beliefs = ideas)

Helping today's university students become indignant over the absurdities of capitalist dogma is an essential part of persuading them to consider a Communist alternative. If we don't start, very soon, to replenish our ranks with young people, out future will be dim.

There is definitely a time and place to make capitalism look as ridiculous as it actually is. There is also a time and place to emphasize the opportunities awaiting a person who lives a life free of oppression. Overall, however, one cannot be done without the other. We cannot just approach college students and members of the general public by preaching the virtues of a life free from material inequality without giving examples of how and why capitalist ideas are absurd and divisive.

3) Fundamentalist Christian discourse (substitutions: religious/religion = secular/secularism, secular = religious, superstition = nihilism, supernaturalism = godlessness, beleifs = ideas)

Helping today's university students become indignant over the absurdities of secular dogma is an essential part of persuading them to consider a religious alternative. If we don't start, very soon, to replenish our ranks with young people, out future will be dim.

There is definitely a time and place to make secularism look as ridiculous as it actually is. There is also a time and place to emphasize the opportunities awaiting a person who lives a life free of nihilism. Overall, however, one cannot be done without the other. We cannot just approach college students and members of the general public by preaching the virtues of a life free from godlessness without giving examples of how and why secular ideas are absurd and divisive.

The list of examples could continue as well with Nazism, Nationalism and many other doctrines. Militant atheism just takes its well-deserved place, as these similarities show.

 



Edited by Chilbudios - 23-Jan-2008 at 12:54
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08-May-2005
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 1941
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jan-2008 at 14:34
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

[quote]The atheistic belief is doomed to be a non-empirical one (since the lack of gods cannot be perceived in any way, nor can we browse exhaustively the universe / universes? in the search for one). Many empiricists are actually agnostics (e.g. Huxley) because empiricism drives people to draw conclusions upon the things they have experimented, not upon the things they haven't.
 
Which is why I am agnostic and not atheist. I am simply saying that the case of the atheists is stronger than that of the deists, as the burden of evidence lies with the latter.
Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum,
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 1211
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jan-2008 at 15:40
Chilbudios
Irefutable proof has more meanings so take the apropriate one. I know there is no absolute or ultimate proof yet irefutable proof is a term commonly used to describe the kind of evidence everybody accepts. For example one of the requirements of my job is to provide irefutable proof for the statements I make in report. Mathematics and logic do not provide irefutable proofs just irefutable theoremes, demonstrations or statements.
I guess we're irreconciliable about militant atheism. I still don't think of it as an appropriaote term since it doesn't come defines doctrine and is only atheism associated with militant ideas/doctrines. Nevertheless, what I think or/and wish is not imperative to other persons. So let's eachother stick to our opinions. I'll make sure to use "militant atheism" in eventual future discussions with you so that we have no incoveniences in understanding our posts.
Back to Top
Brian J Checco View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
Eli Manning

Joined: 30-Jan-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 926
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Brian J Checco Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jan-2008 at 20:21
Right now the paradigm commonly accepted makes room in it for a belief in God. That's just how it is. Most people, the majority of the world's population, believe in some sort of divinity. I don't see any problem with that. I may not subscribe to the belief myself, but if people want to believe in something, it's the duty of every world citizen to respect that belief. Which is where the problems of the "militant atheist" movement becomes evident. There is a sort of "messianic atheist" movement (whereby people try to whittle down the faith of believers) as seen in the writings of Richard Dawkins and Chris Hitchens, which may be enough evidence to convince some believers of a "militant" movement. This is bungo, of course, but people see what they want to, hear what they want to, and believe what they want to. No amount of scientific evidence on way or the other will change this seminal human tendency. 
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1899
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jan-2008 at 11:11

Reginmund you're right only if you regard the things from the perspective of a certain type of knowledge, the empirical one (the one that makes you an agnostic). But many theists (if not most of them) justify their fundamental beliefs in a non-empirical way, invoking their own experience of transcedence (or perhaps they have other justifications, but I guess personal experience is always emphasized as a good reason for belief). So far it was impossible to prove them all wrong (maybe one was hallucinating, maybe one had schizophrenia, but most of them were not in such cases), which leads to what Brian is saying - currently there's room for god-beliefs. As a decent non-religious person (and truly a free thinker) one should respect that, otherwise he will become a mirror of the fanatism he apparently abhors.

Cezar, the word irrefutable does not carry the connotations you imply, though you may have had them in mind. There's no evidence accepted by everyone, otherwise we'll have only atheists or theists or liberals or socialists or ... or .... There are today people believing the Earth is flat or various things we find dubious if not entirely dumb! Mathematics and logics actually provide irrefutable proofs (like it is the recent proof of the Great Theorem of Fermat) and any theorem or statement can be refuted by denying its underlying axiomatic foundation (e.g. many Euclidian geometry theorems and principles are refuted in non-Euclidian geometries, however that it doesn't mean the proofs as formulated within the context of Euclidian geometry are no longer valid).
You can have any opinion you want - it doesn't mean you have justification for it or, better said, that you can justify it to someone else in order to persuade him, as similarly, others cannot persuade you to believe in their gods. I think I offered many enough sources (you have offered none, but few sites on atheism which rather missed the point of our debate) and arguments to show that militant atheism (you can choose another name for it, if it's only the name you find inapropriate) is a legitimate concept and it has an underlying doctrine (you can review my last parallel between militant atheism, Communism and religious fundamentalism).



Edited by Chilbudios - 25-Jan-2008 at 11:13
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08-May-2005
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 1941
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jan-2008 at 11:47
Originally posted by Chilbudious Chilbudious wrote:

But many theists (if not most of them) justify their fundamental beliefs in a non-empirical way, invoking their own experience of transcedence (or perhaps they have other justifications, but I guess personal experience is always emphasized as a good reason for belief). So far it was impossible to prove them all wrong (maybe one was hallucinating, maybe one had schizophrenia, but most of them were not in such cases), which leads to what Brian is saying - currently there's room for god-beliefs.
 
You can't prove them wrong, but that's not necessary as there is nothing to suggest they are correct in the first place. To invoke Dawkins here; I assure you I just now saw a flying spaghetti monster outside my window, eating leprechauns, then it disappeared. I claim it as my own personal experience of transcendence and you cannot disprove me. The idea that this absurd fantasy should be recognised by my peers simply because they're unable to test it is preposterous. So far leprechauns and spaghetti monsters haven't been proven to exist, whereas hallucinations and all kinds of mental maladies certainly have, and hence it is more reasonable to conclude I was suffering from the latter rather than experiencing the former. However, if my delusional spaghetti monster has told me he can provide eternal life and absolute justice in the universe, what I want to believe might prove stronger than what it is reasonable to believe, especially if my peers believe it too, and thus religion is born.
 
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

As a decent non-religious person (and truly a free thinker) one should respect that, otherwise he will become a mirror of the fanatism he apparently abhors.
 
Depends on what you mean by "respect". People should of course be free to believe in flying spaghetti monsters, unicorns, gods, santa claus and whatnot, without having their heads cut off, but that does not mean I won't question and criticise, for I too am free to remain adamant in my convictions and voice them openly regardless of how they conflict with other belief systems.
Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum,
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1899
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jan-2008 at 12:20
Quote You can't prove them wrong, but that's not necessary as there is nothing to suggest they are correct in the first place. To invoke Dawkins here; I assure you I just now saw a flying spaghetti monster outside my window, eating leprechauns, then it disappeared. I claim it as my own personal experience of transcendence and you cannot disprove me. The idea that this absurd fantasy should be recognised by my peers simply because they're unable to test it is preposterous. So far leprechauns and spaghetti monsters haven't been proven to exist, whereas hallucinations and all kinds of mental maladies certainly have, and hence it is more reasonable to conclude I was suffering from the latter rather than experiencing the former. However, if my delusional spaghetti monster has told me he can provide eternal life and absolute justice in the universe, what I want to believe might prove stronger than what it is reasonable to believe, especially if my peers believe it too, and thus religion is born.
You cannot prove you saw a blooming flower yesterday, having no witnesses and photo camera with you. Even if you'll show me the flower today you can't prove you saw it yesterday. Your own experience justifies you to believe you actually saw a blooming flower yesterday but for everybody else in the world the only available evidence is to believe you. I'm sure there can be as well hallucinations making people to see blooming flowers, yet I cannot dismiss your testimony based on this single fact. On the contrary, I will remember that I once saw a blooming flower myself and thus, though you bring no evidence but your own sayings, I will consider your testimony rather reliable, based on what I have experienced myself once. Similarly, if several people have the same or similar religious experience, they will trust even more their own experience as well the experience shared by other people. The principle of justification works exactly the same.
 
Quote
Depends on what you mean by "respect". People should of course be free to believe in flying spaghetti monsters, unicorns, gods, santa claus and whatnot, without having their heads cut off, but that does not mean I won't question and criticise, for I too am free to remain adamant in my convictions and voice them openly regardless of how they conflict with other belief systems.
Yes if you mean to believe what you want and to have a discussion - hopefully with arguments - when both parties willingly engage in it. To promote "religion is bad/irrational/etc; choose atheism for a better life" campaigns is a wholly different thing.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jan-2008 at 16:02
That Christopher Hitchens is an atheist is enough to make me want to believe in anything handy.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2096
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jan-2008 at 16:13
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

That Christopher Hitchens is an atheist is enough to make me want to believe in anything handy.
 
Have I agreed with you twice in one day, now? I'd better be careful; don't want to establish a precedent, or anything like that. Wink
 
Aye, Hitchens, while bright, is a bit too condescending for my taste. I once watched him debate a Christian on... hmm... was it PBS? Anyway, the stuff this guy was positing made me want to jump in and defend the skeptical/agnostic perspective. Instead of picking apart his easy prey, however, Hitchens was content to sit there and scoff. Didn't do much for the dialogue.
 
-Akolouthos
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 1211
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jan-2008 at 11:31
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

Cezar, the word irrefutable does not carry the connotations you imply, though you may have had them in mind. There's no evidence accepted by everyone, otherwise we'll have only atheists or theists or liberals or socialists or ... or .... There are today people believing the Earth is flat or various things we find dubious if not entirely dumb! Mathematics and logics actually provide irrefutable proofs (like it is the recent proof of the Great Theorem of Fermat) and any theorem or statement can be refuted by denying its underlying axiomatic foundation (e.g. many Euclidian geometry theorems and principles are refuted in non-Euclidian geometries, however that it doesn't mean the proofs as formulated within the context of Euclidian geometry are no longer valid).
Would you like undeniable proof better? Unquestionable? Unequivocal? Unambigous? No, drop the last one, it's unapropriate.
Irrefutable is the kind of evidence everyone accepts because is hard or impossible to negate/dispute. There are evidences accepted on this basis by everyone so a proof can be considered irrefutable as long as nothing/nobody comes up to show the opposite.
Faith is considered by some an irrefutable proof of God. Atheists do not take faith as proof, they are bringing arguments against it. Their arguments are not irrefutable though. Since their belief is focused on material proof it's obviously that this is the kind of evidence they espect for God's existence.
So, you think militant atheism is harmful? I think that as long as it doesn't urge people to get violent its OK.
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1899
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jan-2008 at 11:56
Quote
Would you like undeniable proof better? Unquestionable? Unequivocal? Unambigous? No, drop the last one, it's unapropriate.
Irrefutable is the kind of evidence everyone accepts because is hard or impossible to negate/dispute. There are evidences accepted on this basis by everyone so a proof can be considered irrefutable as long as nothing/nobody comes up to show the opposite.
Faith is considered by some an irrefutable proof of God. Atheists do not take faith as proof, they are bringing arguments against it. Their arguments are not irrefutable though. Since their belief is focused on material proof it's obviously that this is the kind of evidence they espect for God's existence.
 I answered to this once. Electromagnetism is not irrefutably (undeniably, unquestionably, etc.) proven. No scientific theory is (and that is somehow by definition, a theory is scientific if and only if is refutable, questionable, deniable, etc.). Since electromagnetism is widely accepted without an irrefutable proof, asking irrefutable proof for a god is rather a sign of ill-will than of reason (and this analogy works beyond the realm of science, most, if not all of the things we hold about the world around us are not undeniably proven - see Brain-in-a-vat or Matrix scenarios which hold that everything we know is an illusion, while we are the prisoners, if not even toys, in a game transcending any imaginable possibility, since our imagination is also a product of this game).
 
Quote
So, you think militant atheism is harmful? I think that as long as it doesn't urge people to get violent its OK.
Do you think Marx saw the Stalinism coming?
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 1211
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jan-2008 at 12:46
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

 I answered to this once. Electromagnetism is not irrefutably (undeniably, unquestionably, etc.) proven. No scientific theory is (and that is somehow by definition, a theory is scientific if and only if is refutable, questionable, deniable, etc.). Since electromagnetism is widely accepted without an irrefutable proof, asking irrefutable proof for a god is rather a sign of ill-will than of reason (and this analogy works beyond the realm of science, most, if not all of the things we hold about the world around us are not undeniably proven - see Brain-in-a-vat or Matrix scenarios which hold that everything we know is an illusion, while we are the prisoners, if not even toys, in a game transcending any imaginable possibility, since our imagination is also a product of this game).
I must disagree with you Chilbudios. Electromagnetism is unqestionably proven. Actually I think you might say that a theory is to be proven irrefutably to be accepted. Any (new) theory is indeed questionable therefore is not accepted/adopted unless proven. The "level of irrefutability" of the proofs is what makes a scientific theory practical/useful. From an atheist point of view, at least, asking for an irrefutable proof of God is natural/consistent.
Most of your replies actually stated that militant atheists are irrefutable proof of militant atheism.
I prefer Herbert W. Franke. Matrix isn't a quite solid construction. If you compare a lame SF idea with a scientific theory...
Quote
Quote
So, you think militant atheism is harmful? I think that as long as it doesn't urge people to get violent its OK.
Do you think Marx saw the Stalinism coming?
What's that supposed to mean? That there's no chance for atheism but eventually leading to genocide? You must realize that Marx ideas are still embraced by a lot of people. Are they all future mass-murderers?  
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1899
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jan-2008 at 13:26
Quote must disagree with you Chilbudios. Electromagnetism is unqestionably proven. Actually I think you might say that a theory is to be proven irrefutably to be accepted. Any (new) theory is indeed questionable therefore is not accepted/adopted unless proven. The "level of irrefutability" of the proofs is what makes a scientific theory practical/useful. From an atheist point of view, at least, asking for an irrefutable proof of God is natural/consistent.
You disagreed in many with me, the debate however is focused on arguments. There's no unquestionable proof of electromagnetism or any scientific theory for that matter just because you say it is (please show me that unquestionable proof, if it is as you say it is, obviously I won't be able to question it, which I doubt it LOL). A certain level of acceptance does not mean it's not questionable.
 
Quote
Most of your replies actually stated that militant atheists are irrefutable proof of militant atheism.
No, they didn't. I suggest you to read again my replies if you have not understood what my point is.
 
Quote I prefer Herbert W. Franke. Matrix isn't a quite solid construction. If you compare a lame SF idea with a scientific theory...
I'm not talking about Matrix the movie, but about the idea behind it which is not just a SF idea, but a philosophical concept. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/brain-vat/
 
Quote
What's that supposed to mean? That there's no chance for atheism but eventually leading to genocide? You must realize that Marx ideas are still embraced by a lot of people. Are they all future mass-murderers?  
The same straw man you have attacked all along. We're talking about militant atheism, not atheism. Let me rephrase: do you have example of a modern and (i.e. not primitive) succesful Communist society? Is not violence characteristic - more or less, or perhaps only in some stages - for most attempts to create one? Haven't I proven that the militant atheist doctrine and propaganda shares the same aggression against the Other, like several other extremist doctrines we know of? It's easier to prevent, than to fix.
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 1211
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jan-2008 at 14:09

You claimed that electromagnetism is questionable. Well, what are the arguments?

A philosophical concept? Is that supposed to be the same with a scientific theory? Is atheism or theism a scientific theory?
Can you at least attempt a straight answer? Are you definitely convinced that militant atheism is dangerous? Or only some militant atheists? Is Richard Dawking as bad as Stalin, that's what you say?
How about the other side. It's easier to prevent you say. So, if you're not an Inquisition fan maybe religion should be banned/bashed as hard as militant atheism. Just for prevention. But who will do the job? Agnostics? A form of militant agosticism is required. Does something like that exist?
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1899
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jan-2008 at 14:47

Quote You claimed that electromagnetism is questionable. Well, what are the arguments?
Huh? Let's try the classical criticism against incomplete induction. There were performed a number of experiments (let's say 82,516,254,561) which confirmed the current theories on electromagnetism. However, this does not prove at all the current theoretical framework is true, only that it succesfuly predicted 82,516,254,561 cases (in case you're familiar with mathematical conjectures, like Euler's sum of powers, you understand that no number of confirmed cases, no matter how large, cannot replace the complete induction). That's why electromagnetism doesn't have the same degree of certainty like 2+2=4 (under the classical axioms of arithmetics, of course).

Quote A philosophical concept? Is that supposed to be the same with a scientific theory? Is atheism or theism a scientific theory?
 Yes. No. No. 
 
Quote
Can you at least attempt a straight answer? Are you definitely convinced that militant atheism is dangerous? Or only some militant atheists?
I answered already several times in the thread, under various forms (e.g. one of my replies from Jan. 21: "The parallels you draw between militant atheism and militant religious organizations only show how dangerous the former is. "). Yes, it is dangerous.
 
Quote Is Richard Dawking as bad as Stalin, that's what you say?
No, I haven't said that.
 
Quote
How about the other side. It's easier to prevent you say. So, if you're not an Inquisition fan maybe religion should be banned/bashed as hard as militant atheism. Just for prevention. But who will do the job? Agnostics? A form of militant agosticism is required. Does something like that exist?
Your analogy doesn't hold. Not all religions are crusading for new converts. Even Christianity on the whole doesn't.
However, on the reverse, if you suggest religion should be bashed for Inquisition, you're basically suggesting atheism should be bashed for Scientific Atheism. LOL 
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 1211
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jan-2008 at 08:02
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

Quote You claimed that electromagnetism is questionable. Well, what are the arguments?
Huh? Let's try the classical criticism against incomplete induction. There were performed a number of experiments (let's say 82,516,254,561) which confirmed the current theories on electromagnetism. However, this does not prove at all the current theoretical framework is true, only that it succesfuly predicted 82,516,254,561 cases (in case you're familiar with mathematical conjectures, like Euler's sum of powers, you understand that no number of confirmed cases, no matter how large, cannot replace the complete induction). That's why electromagnetism doesn't have the same degree of certainty like 2+2=4 (under the classical axioms of arithmetics, of course).
Heisenberg would suffice to question the level of certainty of any theory. That doesn't make electromagnetism questionable unless you really want it to describe the world with infinite accuracy. Which is impossible. However, irrefutable proofs are sufficiently accurate. You only need Newton's mechanics to safely travel in space. His theoremes are irrefutably proven so are his principles so unless you need a larger perspective than Newton's envelope there's noo need for Einstein.
Quote

Quote A philosophical concept? Is that supposed to be the same with a scientific theory? Is atheism or theism a scientific theory?
 Yes. No. No. 
So a PHC needs a different approach than a scientific theory. You speak of arguments. Are these similar with irrefutable/unquestionable proofs?[/quote]
Quote
Can you at least attempt a straight answer? Are you definitely convinced that militant atheism is dangerous? Or only some militant atheists?
I answered already several times in the thread, under various forms (e.g. one of my replies from Jan. 21: "The parallels you draw between militant atheism and militant religious organizations only show how dangerous the former is. "). Yes, it is dangerous.[/quote] I took that as a comment of one of my statements. I wasn't sure if you are convinced that MA is dangerous.
Quote  
Quote Is Richard Dawking as bad as Stalin, that's what you say?
No, I haven't said that.
Yet you drawn a parallel between them. To paraphrase you: "The parallels you draw between Richard Dawkins and Stalin only show how dangerous the former is".
Quote
Quote
How about the other side. It's easier to prevent you say. So, if you're not an Inquisition fan maybe religion should be banned/bashed as hard as militant atheism. Just for prevention. But who will do the job? Agnostics? A form of militant agosticism is required. Does something like that exist?
Your analogy doesn't hold. Not all religions are crusading for new converts. Even Christianity on the whole doesn't.
However, on the reverse, if you suggest religion should be bashed for Inquisition, you're basically suggesting atheism should be bashed for Scientific Atheism. LOL 
[/quote] That's not the point. You stated that prevention is better. Since history shows what tragedies happened in the name of religion the obvious conclusion is that in order to prevent such things from happening again religion should be history. So should be atheism. What's left?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 45678>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.191 seconds.