Atheists as a Majority

Post Reply New Topic

This is a major generalisation. The hostility you see from atheists on this thread isn't because they are like "religious types" as you describe them, but because we get sick and tired of misconception after misconception. Some respond with anger, others just realise that there's nothing that can be done about it and laugh it off.

One of the classic arguments I see from fundamentalist theists is to try and put atheism in the same basket they are in. I can understand why people might have this perception about 'strong' atheists, but I don't believe it's accurate in many respects. I think you'll find that a great number of atheists are prepared to tolerate and even accept theists, so long as they are paid the same courtesy. While I can't speak for all, I know this is true of me.

I don't really understand the difference between atheism and agnosticism. I used to call myself agnostic, but I figure I might as well just call myself atheist. Non-belief is non-belief.

I think “hardcore” American atheists are common on the internet because here in the US non-religious people are a small minority. It isn’t considered polite to criticize someone’s religion in person. So basically the internet is the only haven for us atheists to let off steam.

I was thinking about quoting that too, but I decided that adding it would not really help me much. Definitely an excellent quote!

Atheism is a positive assertion that you do not believe any God exists, or any phenomenon that cannot be proven or shown to exist using science.

Agnosticism is much more nebulous. Agnostics don't reject the existence of God or an afterlife, they just don't feel they have enough evidence to commit to a belief, much less a particular religion. Agnostics feel that NO ONE has enough information to say with certainty that any religion OR atheism is the correct theory. Agnostics rely on logical reasoning to form their beliefs, much like atheists, but don't feel comfortable asserting that God cannot exist.

To sum an agnostic's worldview up in one sentence: "Sounds interesting....but how can I be sure? Tell me more."

No, it's a desire to be a good, compassionate person, at least in my case.

So, you egoistically enjoy being good? I can understand that, but it means nothing morally as egoism is egoism, even if there are altruistic components.

By atheist I simply mean someone who doesnt believe in some kind of god.

It is an instinctive urge (what Hume would of called a "passion") that I cannot explain rationally, and any such explanation would simply be a post-hoc rationalization, just like all other moral systems.

Whatev, you are still acting on your passion, your instinctive urge, or whatever you want to call it. It says nothing about morality or transcendent oughtness as there is no objective reference point by which to judge passions and instinctive urges whether they are altruistic or sociopathic.

I do not believe in a transcendent "ought-ness," nor do I accept the assertion that "is" never justifies "ought."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_p ... Criticisms



IMO "Good" and "bad" are not some transcendent concepts, but are labels given to behaviors based on our instinctive "moral sense" that is based on our evolution and based and our cultural upbringing; and the instinctual moral sense is what morality is about. People consider altruism "good" because mentally healthy people instinctively like altruism (IMO libertarian types that criticize the notion of altruism are basing thier opinion subconsciously on notions of enlightened self-interest that claim selfishness ultimately helps everyone) since altruistic behavior was favored by natural selection.

Odin:

I've already been through this whole argument with AG ad nauseam. It's pointless. By AG's definition of morality we don't believe morality exists. I feel like I agree with you, but in the end it's an argument over definitions and a priori claims.

Well, that is not an insignificant problem. I don't think we should conflate "good" and "right"; the concepts are different

The largest "religious" group in the Czech Republic is non-religious.
"According to the 2001 census, 59% of the country is agnostic, atheist, non-believer or no-organised believer, 26.8% Roman Catholic and 2.5% Protestant."
(Gotten from Wiki)

Haven't heard about any christian burning things going on there....just the skinheads wanting to kill Jews and Gypsies.

Pretty much. My big issue with AG is that I consider assertions of what one ought to do to be dependent on and completely linked to our needs and desires, the notion of some "transcendent ought" independent of human cognition and instinct is meaningless nonsense.

Ok, disprove me. To me, it is a fact that the 2 are different forms of knowledge, and that "is" and "ought" are seen as different in policy analyses. So, even if there is a general essence of man, why should the particular man follow this essence? Finally, we get into issues with defining nature, as naturalism can lead to social darwinism, to conservatism, and to essentially any and every other view from the strongest of communalist fascisms to the most anarchistic natural rights society. Finally, we run into issues with the interplay with culture and moral ideas, which then will lead us to an issue of how morality can be seen as moral if it is just a result of culture then cultural critiques are nonsense, and also with the moral gut, as I believe you have argued, our moral guts lack consistency, but a moral code must be consistent and thus some people will form different consistent constructions based upon that which will contradict. Finally, we have the issue of determining why the individual, who may feel they have a different nature, should submit to what is defined as human nature, which follows from variations in our cultural upbringings and even our different biologically based psychologies. Given that I don't think a response can be formulated to sufficiently deal with every question while still maintaining the integrity of a science, I think that the concept then fails.


I say that good and bad are predefined as transcendent, so therefore what you are doing is redefining a transcendent concept to fit your schema. To not be totally dismissive though, I could accept the logic that you are right on their origin. I tend to disagree with the idea of mental health as an objective construct so much as a cultural one. Ok, not necessarily true at all though. Some libertarians do argue this, however, the man I was quoting was Max Stirner, who took a stance further than those libertarians as he argued explicit egoism on the basis of individualism rather than egoism based upon utilitarianism or anything else and never invoked any concern about other people and even a lack of concern for them. The issue is that I stand with people such as Max Stirner and Nietzsche and ask why rules should bind those who are considered by society to be sociopathic or psychopathic.


It is a matter of definitions to a great extent, however, there are issues with the fact that morality is by its nature a set of rules for mankind. Scientifically we cannot establish that man should follow rules. We might be able to establish that many people do, but how does that mean anything about the ones that don't? It doesn't inherently do so.


And I would argue that such an assertion if taken explicitly should lead to egoism rather than a left-wing, rights based utilitarianism and that the avoidance of egoist terms is thus an inconsistency. I never said that the notion of "transcendent ought" had factual basis, but I am arguing that moral action is done in regards to "transcendent ought" by the traditional manners of defining the construct morality. I mean, I might accept an argument of naturalism if you were explicitly egoist, but then we have a very nihilistic seeming idea of what morality is, and thus the concept is practically dead anyway, so it wouldn't matter.

Fair enough.