• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

I am an atheist but...

nozflubber

DoubleplusUngoodNonperson
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
2,078
MBTI Type
Hype
As a Pragmatist, I would contend that one should not tell others/expose to others this "truth", because it does really no benefit to them. Destroying belief systems can be radically disasterous/unethical unless you have an imrpoved, superior belief system to supplant it...

Bertrand Russell once said that people walk around with a set of propisitons surrounding them at all times, like flies on shit, right? Just let them belief, unless you are really that spiteful. My ESTP friend thinks everything can be boiled down to sex, money and hoes. I let him believe that too, because, well, he kind of has to. Sometimes, there's no point in bothering to correct someone....

The real trick is that judgement call for you, eh ? :) when and when not to ~
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Bertrand Russell once said that people walk around with a set of propisitons surrounding them at all times, like flies on shit, right? Just let them belief, unless you are really that spiteful.

Really, that's it.

They've got to have SOME support structure philosophically, and it pretty much serves no good point to yank out someone's support unless you've got something they can use or you're going to carry their ass until they figure it out... so discretion is advised.
 

antireconciler

it's a nuclear device
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
866
MBTI Type
Intj
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
so
I guess the idea is to not take away what someone else values, and to believe in something is to value it. What is the good of taking away what someone is fond of? It only teaches that the truth is harsh, that what is good for you is bad for you, and since this doesn't make any sense to begin with, it can only confuse the student, teaching them that truth is confusion. So instead, one waits until they lose their value of it, and search for what is better with openness. Then they are ready to learn, and you will be sure to teach correctly, and they will learn correctly.
 

Feops

New member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
829
MBTI Type
INTx
Correct me if I am wrong, your position is that we do not want it. In some cases, like medicine for example, the scientific truth is useful as it has practical applications. In religion, such applications are much less pronounced, therefore they are less desirable.

My position is that people are pragmatic and want what benefits them most.
 

EJCC

The Devil of TypoC
Joined
Aug 29, 2008
Messages
19,129
MBTI Type
ESTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
What I wish to get it is a much deeper concern to us all. Namely, should those of us who do know the truth share it with the ignorant?

In other words, should atheists evangelize? I'm inclined to say no. After all, much of the harm that has been caused by religion has been related to the forcing of religion on others. Might the same thing happen with atheism?

And I take issue with your use of the word "truth". I agree with Elaur that many religious beliefs, e.g. the mere prescence of a higher power, are impossible to prove or disprove. Therefore, you technically don't know if atheism is "true" or not.

There is no conclusive proof about religions, however, some arguments on the subject are better than others. Those proposed by the scientists and the philosophers do not guarantee us the knowledge of the truth, though they give us much more clear indicators of what the truth is than those that are almost completely unfounded.

In one sentence, no argument about religion or many popular myth has all the evidence on its side, yet some arguments have more evidence than others. A rational person will believe in the one that is more supported by evidence.

A flaw here: Religion and science are not always mutually exclusive. For instance, deism.
 

murkrow

Branded with Satan
Joined
Jul 19, 2008
Messages
1,635
MBTI Type
INTJ
Why do we value to happiness of future humans so much lower than that of present humans?

Also, I am not trying to push atheism on anyone (I wouldn't call myself an atheist even). It's more a matter of attacking their beliefs than replacing them with my own.
 

Owl

desert pelican
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
717
MBTI Type
INTP
How are you defining meaning? The most typical notion of meaning as significance something holds to a person. In other words, it is how important something is to someone. I do not see why something needs to be a true beleive to be important to a person. Imagine an ordinary non-educated person of 900. He finds meaning in the proposition that the Earth is flat because it makes him feel genuinely knowledgeable, and it is important for him to be knowledgeable.

How is the person in question robbed of meaning by a belief in falsehoods. Yes, certainly interested in continuing the formal debate.

I'm not using "meaning" as above. Meaning, in this context, is the most basic object of cognition; it's intimately related to the formation of concepts, judgments, and arguments; it makes thought and dialouge possible.

Not all false beliefs rob one of meaning. It is only in those cases where the person in question's belief is clearly false that he is without meaning. Take, for example, an analytic apriori proposition; the only way a person could reject the veracity of such a proposition is if he doesn't understand what that proposition means.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
I'm not using "meaning" as above. Meaning, in this context, is the most basic object of cognition; it's intimately related to the formation of concepts, judgments, and arguments; it makes thought and dialouge possible.

Not all false beliefs rob one of meaning. It is only in those cases where the person in question's belief is clearly false that he is without meaning. Take, for example, an analytic apriori proposition; the only way a person could reject the veracity of such a proposition is if he doesn't understand what that proposition means.


Meaning is defined as a formation of a concept? All of one's beliefs then have meaning, whether true or false. Essentially as they are all statements thst mean something or entail a conceptual notion about the world. How then, do clearly false beliefs rob a person of meaning? The only way one can have meaninglessness with regard to any proposition is by being completely ignorant of it. What is the relevance of apriori analytic principles?
 
Last edited:

murkrow

Branded with Satan
Joined
Jul 19, 2008
Messages
1,635
MBTI Type
INTJ
Aleksey, are you going to tell me why you value the happiness of present humans higher than that of future humans?
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Aleksey, are you going to tell me why you value the happiness of present humans higher than that of future humans?

It is a fact of our psychology that our values are egocentric. Reasons.

Bentham's Axiom of human nature: We first and foremost strive to maximize pleasure and minimize pain.

Valuing: An act of bestowing positive emotion upon an entity, or simply feeling good about it.

Betham's axiom shows that our drives are first and foremost about what makes us feel good. A direct experience of pleasure always intensifies our emotions more than an indirect. In other words, we are made happier by eating chocolate ourselves rather than by hearing about somebody else eating chocolate.The same principle applies to all other pleasures. Altogether we tend to value our own happiness more than that of others.

Hence, as a result, it is very natural for us to value our own happiness more than that of our descendants.
 

ThinkingAboutIt

New member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
264
MBTI Type
INTP
You are not an atheist, you are a humanist

There is a big difference, and you should tell people the truth. Humanism is a religion, though the Humanist Manifesto and enlightenment creed died long ago.
 

murkrow

Branded with Satan
Joined
Jul 19, 2008
Messages
1,635
MBTI Type
INTJ
It is a fact of our psychology that our values are egocentric. Reasons.

Bentham's Axiom of human nature: We first and foremost strive to maximize pleasure and minimize pain.

Valuing: An act of bestowing positive emotion upon an entity, or simply feeling good about it.

Betham's axiom shows that our drives are first and foremost about what makes us feel good. A direct experience of pleasure always intensifies our emotions more than an indirect. In other words, we are made happier by eating chocolate ourselves rather than by hearing about somebody else eating chocolate.The same principle applies to all other pleasures. Altogether we tend to value our own happiness more than that of others.

Hence, as a result, it is very natural for us to value our own happiness more than that of our descendants.

Should I also value the happiness of you more than the happiness of your descendants?
 

Southern Kross

Away with the fairies
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
2,910
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
The big problem here is that while atheists think that they are the enlightened ones and that they know better, there are many more Christians that think the same about themselves. Take a look around. People who think they know better than others about one thing or another are pretty ubiquitous. What makes atheists think that their possessing 'knowledge of the truth' is new or even significant? :rolli:

You know how annoying those evangelist street preachers are, right? The ones that stand outside pubs at 1am on a Friday night telling us 'the truth' we need to know about Jesus. Imagine what it would feel like for Christians if you stood outside a church after Sunday service and gave them your special message of 'truth'. Because that's essentially what is being advocated here by Dennett.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
The big problem here is that while atheists think that they are the enlightened ones and that they know better, there are many more Christians that think the same about themselves. Take a look around. People who think they know better than others about one thing or another are pretty ubiquitous. What makes atheists think that their possessing 'knowledge of the truth' is a new or even significant? :rolli:

You know how annoying those evangelist street preachers are, right? The ones that stand outside pubs at 1am on a Friday night telling us 'the truth' we need to know about Jesus. Imagine what it would feel like for Christians if you stood outside a church after Sunday service and gave them your special message of 'truth'. Because that's essentially what is being advocated here by Dennett.

Dennett advocates writing about the truth to the masses. He insists on persuading them by reason. He does not advocate on forcing his views on others by being intrusive. There is a big difference between following somebody around and yelling your message out to them, or shoving your documents in their face and simply writing a book about what you have to say.

If you are doing one, it is much easier for a person who does not want to hear about your views to ignore you. If you are doing the other, doing so is substantially more difficult. In summary, Dennett does advocate revealing what what he thinks the truth is to others, however there are important differences between him and the evangelists. He supports his views with arguments and scientific discoveries. The evangelists do not. He is also much less intrusive.

That is off point however. My question is as follows; is Dennett still too intrusive? Is it a good idea to mess with people's lives, even if we have every reason to believe that we have the truth. In other words, is Dennett's work really doing more good than harm?
------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary:Your suggestion, as I understand it is that it does harm by being intrusive, as he is being intrusive in the similar sense as Evangelists are. My retort to this is that he is much less intrusive than they are, therefore less hamrful in this regard. Secondly he is less harmful than the evangelists because there are more good reasons to believe that his message is true than that of the evangelists is.
 

Southern Kross

Away with the fairies
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
2,910
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
Dennett advocates writing about the truth to the masses. He insists on persuading them by reason. He does not advocate on forcing his views on others by being intrusive. There is a big difference between following somebody around and yelling your message out to them, or shoving your documents in their face and simply writing a book about what you have to say.

If you are doing one, it is much easier for a person who does not want to hear about your views to ignore you. If you are doing the other, doing so is substantially more difficult. In summary, Dennett does advocate revealing what what he thinks the truth is to others, however there are important differences between him and the evangelists. He supports his views with arguments and scientific discoveries. The evangelists do not. He is also much less intrusive.

That is off point however. My question is as follows; is Dennett still too intrusive? Is it a good idea to mess with people's lives, even if we have every reason to believe that we have the truth. In other words, is Dennett's work really doing more good than harm?
------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary:Your suggestion, as I understand it is that it does harm by being intrusive, as he is being intrusive in the similar sense as Evangelists are. My retort to this is that he is much less intrusive than they are, therefore less hamrful in this regard. Secondly he is less harmful than the evangelists because there are more good reasons to believe that his message is true than that of the evangelists is.
Fair enough. I don't know enough about his views I only meant to caution by use of example.

My point was that, its not important what you base your views on because they are both sides see theirs' as fundamental truths. The religious may base their views on a profound and inherent faith. Dennett bases his on rational fact. Each will say their truth is undeniable and we are left with a stalemate. You cannot weigh faith against reason - its apples and oranges. Or in philosophical terms, fighting (what is viewed as) a priori knowledge with an a posteriori argument. Reason has little place in religion. Its pointless to use it to persuade the religious. Its like trying to convince pacificists to go to war by beating them up.

I think there is nothing wrong with attempting to persuade others but it must be done with respect and with their consent. It certainly may be of assistance to people who are struggling with their beliefs and seek advice. And I also think the evangelists should be able to if they also keep to the same standards. But what troubles me are people that make their anti-religious views a campaign, such as Bill Maher (not that I've seen Religulous). I hate when it becomes, "lets all laugh at the foolish religious people and their ignorant backward beliefs". Religion discussion is a minefield that should not be attempted without respect.

I ultimately thing that when it comes to religion views we must emphasize that they are beliefs not fundamental truths. People are entitled to express their religious beliefs but publically attacking and undermining those of others (if those beliefs are not harmful or discriminatory) is wrong to me.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
There is a big difference, and you should tell people the truth. Humanism is a religion, though the Humanist Manifesto and enlightenment creed died long ago.

Scientology, for instance, is registered in many parts of the world as a religion, but as far as I know, humanism is registered nowhere in the world as a religion.

Think about it.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
That is off point however. My question is as follows; is Dennett still too intrusive? Is it a good idea to mess with people's lives, even if we have every reason to believe that we have the truth. In other words, is Dennett's work really doing more good than harm?

I personally was not put off by Dennett, I am put off by Harris. The demeanor is entirely different; and in regards to the street preacher thing vs Dennett, it's pretty clear that shouting in someone's face whether or not they've "agreed" to listen is different than writing a book that the reader has to agree (i.e., move into a partnership with the author) to open and read, the reader has control over the exchange.

While Harris is also a writer, I think demeanor is more important there. I often get a sense of disdain from him that seems to drive his work, where Dennett is more about making the supported argument rather than a personal repudiation.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
I personally was not put off by Dennett, I am put off by Harris. The demeanor is entirely different; and in regards to the street preacher thing vs Dennett, it's pretty clear that shouting in someone's face whether or not they've "agreed" to listen is different than writing a book that the reader has to agree (i.e., move into a partnership with the author) to open and read, the reader has control over the exchange.

While Harris is also a writer, I think demeanor is more important there. I often get a sense of disdain from him that seems to drive his work, where Dennett is more about making the supported argument rather than a personal repudiation.

Sam Harris strikes me as the sanest of the atheists.

He is well informed and he understands the mystical tradition from the inside.

And he is effortlessly intelligent and speaks the language of the day.

If I saw atheists as my enemy, I would most fear Sam Harris.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Sam Harris strikes me as the sanest of the atheists.
He is well informed and he understands the mystical tradition from the inside.
And he is effortlessly intelligent and speaks the language of the day.
If I saw atheists as my enemy, I would most fear Sam Harris.

Actually, not in the least.
He's not dangerous at all because he has made himself ineffective.

Since he takes such an extreme tack, he only wins over people who already agree with him and will never make headway against those who oppose him. He gives them more than enough fodder to just dismiss him outright. And that is exactly what they've done -- they branded him a hard-core atheist who hates God, and pretty much all the religious conservatives ignore him.

I would be FAR more scared of someone who could get his enemies to listen to him.

(and frankly, it's nothing to be "scared" about... this is about what's true, right? Not about what people want to be true? People are only scared because they're more worried about protecting what they have rather than making sure what they have is correct.)
 
Top