Thanks for creating a forum with real debate!

[downbeatplumb]

You're conflating secularism and communism (political movements with specific agendas) with atheism (an apolitical position on a non-political subject). I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you're simply labouring under a misapprehension rather than being deliberately intellectually dishonest but you are misrepresenting a very clear and well understood definition.

No I'm not. You are intentionally defining a term to obscure the fact that those two movements come out of the same people, with the same funding,

There's funding!

Wheres my money?

[Angrboda]

No I'm not. You are intentionally defining a term to obscure the fact that those two movements come out of the same people, with the same funding,

There's funding!

Wheres my money?

Beats me, dude. Apparently, according to theists on this forum, there's both funding and training available! I feel cheated.

[jstrodel]

No I'm not. You are intentionally defining a term to obscure the fact that those two movements come out of the same people, with the same funding,

There's funding!

Wheres my money?

Look at groups like the National Academy for Science, The university funding priorities, various humanist and liberal groups that overlap with atheism. Not all these are explicitly atheist, but the vision that they all share is secular.

Look at the public education system (highschool and college) to some degree, which is controlled by liberals (not all atheists though the goals substantially overlap in many cases).


Universities get billions a year to teach from a perspective that while falling short of atheism advocacy (though it does get into that sometimes) does advocate a secular way of thinking that greatly strengthens the atheist movement. Atheism as a movement owes its strength to this money to a large degree.

Atheists feel like they are persecuted. Hah. If you want to see serious persecution, goto a public university. See how bad the atheists making $100,000 grand a year are being persecuted.

[downbeatplumb]

How can atheism's critique of religion proceed out of the information contained in this? Atheism could be defined as an absence of theistic belief, but that definition does not actually defend the belief in atheism.

I don't believe IN atheism, I DO NOT have no believe in god.

This is very basic but I dont think your little brain can understand it can it.

Practically, atheism requires not only a rejection of theism, but all of the tools and methods required to defend this rejection, which encompasses hundreds of years of history and many, many different ideologies and movements working together towards the goal of eliminating religion.

Well actually atheism only requires the non-belief in god.
I have never been a believer so if I hadn't come here I would not have been exposed to the sillier beliefs of theists. If I hadn't encountered the arguments I would not have formed any opinions of them but I still would have been an atheist as that is my default position.

For an atheist critique of religion to be successful, it is necessary not only to demonstrate that atheistic beliefs critiques of Christian morality are true, but that the atheist morality that underlies these critiques is an authoritative understanding of morality.

No it doesn't.

All atheism needs is a lack of belief in god.

That theistic morals are based on falsehoods and are only properly adhered to by the Taliban is by the by.

As a side note, the Christian life consists in the believer in some ways imitating God but it is not required that there be a direct correspondents between the ethics that God follows and the ethics of Christianity. Christianity does not teach this, so for Christianity to be contradictory, it must be shown that this is required in some other way.

Most christian's I have known do not try to imitate god, they just believe he exists and leave it at that.

Saying that I don't actually know many christian's, my mum was a christian and so was my gran....possibly my wifes best friend other than that they are thin on the ground.

My wife used to be an evangelical christian but is a spiritualist now.

---

Universities get billions a year to teach from a perspective that while falling short of atheism advocacy (though it does get into that sometimes) does advocate a secular way of thinking that greatly strengthens the atheist movement. Atheism as a movement owes its strength to this money to a large degree.

Atheists feel like they are persecuted. Hah. If you want to see serious persecution, goto a public university. See how bad the atheists making $100,000 grand a year are being persecuted.

So education is atheistic.

I suppose that means a lack of education is theistic.

and as to persecution.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/09...68681.html

Atheists and other religious skeptics suffer persecution or discrimination in many parts of the world and in at least seven nations can be executed if their beliefs become known, according to a report issued on Monday.

The study, from the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), showed that "unbelievers" in Islamic countries face the most severe - sometimes brutal - treatment at the hands of the state and adherents of the official religion.

But it also points to policies in some European countries and the United States which favor the religious and their organizations and treat atheists and humanists as outsiders.

Using new national survey data, it shows
atheists are less likely to be accepted, publicly and privately, than any others from a long
list of ethnic, religious, and other minority groups. This distrust of atheists is driven by
religious predictors, social location, and broader value orientations. It is rooted in moral
and symbolic, rather than ethnic or material, grounds

http://www.soc.umn.edu/~hartmann/files/a...0other.pdf

[jstrodel]

Well actually atheism only requires the non-belief in god.
I have never been a believer so if I hadn't come here I would not have been exposed to the sillier beliefs of theists. If I hadn't encountered the arguments I would not have formed any opinions of them but I still would have been an atheist as that is my default position.

In order to defend your default position, you need to rely on some sort of external ideology.

Atheism as a default position is really more of an argument from authority.

You need to know a great deal about the world to believe that there is nothing responsible for the creation of the world.

---

So education is atheistic.
I suppose that means a lack of education is theistic.

No, there is a history of Christian education and the original Ivy League and Oxford and most of the famous universities of the world have been either Christian, Muslim or Jewish.

It just so happens that in the US right now, higher education happens to be dominated and controlled by liberals. This is not a reflection of anti-intellectualism, it is fact, just as tyZe Roman Empire was once in control of much of the world, now liberals happen to be in control of the education system, and use it is a means of advancing their humanist politics and philosophy.

persecution

Christian also suffer persecution throughout the world. It is a shame and I wish that the earth could be a peaceful place.

[Jackalope]

Is this an example of a reasoned argument that you're presenting?

In order to defend your default position, you need to rely on some sort of external ideology.

Naked assertion.

Atheism as a default position is really more of an argument from authority.

Naked assertion.

You need to know a great deal about the world to believe that there is nothing responsible for the creation of the world.

Oh, here's another one.

Shall we do this with all of your posts, or are you ready to acknowledge that the above are merely your opinion, and not rational arguments?

[Cyberman]

You need to know a great deal about the world to believe that there is nothing responsible for the creation of the world.

Anyone here believe there was nothing that 'created' the world? I certainly don't. I just don't believe that anything with a face did it; and if anyone does I'd like to know what they think justifies that belief. That's pretty much all there is to it.

[jstrodel]

Is this an example of a reasoned argument that you're presenting?



Naked assertion.

Atheism as a default position is really more of an argument from authority.

Naked assertion.

You need to know a great deal about the world to believe that there is nothing responsible for the creation of the world.

Oh, here's another one.

Shall we do this with all of your posts, or are you ready to acknowledge that the above are merely your opinion, and not rational arguments?

Actually, you missed the argument that I made, so I will put it in another form. You are over simplifying, reading my words literalistically, and ignoring other posts which establish my arguments and responding with one sentence answers.

1. K = J T B ( Knowledge = justified true belief ) - an accepted model of epistemology
2. Negative claims that something are not so are knowledge claims (to know that something is not, is not epistemologically different from knowing what is) - (self evident)
3. Negative knowledge claims are based on Knowledge equals justified true belief or something similar (Knowledge is defined as justified true belief) - N = negative truth claims - if N = K then N = KTB
4. Atheist knowledge claims are negative knowledge claims (self evident)
5. N = KTB so atheist negative knowledge claims require justified truth belief

I would figure this all so far would be completely self evident.

In order to defend your default position, you need to rely on some sort of external ideology.

6. K=JTB requires an external ideology for its sense of justification, of truth, and nature of belief, as well as knowledge, and in the context of modernity, ideologies and science to support all the requisite labs, books, social freedom, everything that is required for K=JTB to exist in (self evident)
7. N=K=JTB and atheism is is N, so to know atheism is true you must have 6.

I would have thought that is all self evident (whatever you think of K = JTB) ...


The only default position that people can have is ignorance, does not follow the form of K = JTB, is not knowledge. How is this an argument from authority? Because the certainty of justification is not based on rational considerations, such as knowledge = justified true belief or something similar, but it is based on invoking the authority of atheism as it has been transmitted from some other source or as it exists in the mind from non-rational sources. In this sense it is similar to religious belief, as good as the authority that it relies on.

[Jackalope]

Is this an example of a reasoned argument that you're presenting?



Naked assertion.


Naked assertion.


Oh, here's another one.

Shall we do this with all of your posts, or are you ready to acknowledge that the above are merely your opinion, and not rational arguments?

Actually, you missed the argument that I made, so I will put it in another form. You are over simplifying, reading my words literalistically, and ignoring other posts which establish my arguments and responding with one sentence answers.

1. K = J T B ( Knowledge = justified true belief ) - an accepted model of epistemology
2. Negative claims that something are not so are knowledge claims (to know that something is not, is not epistemologically different from knowing what is) - (self evident)
3. Negative knowledge claims are based on Knowledge equals justified true belief or something similar (Knowledge is defined as justified true belief) - N = negative truth claims - if N = K then N = KTB
4. Atheist knowledge claims are negative knowledge claims (self evident)
5. N = KTB so atheist negative knowledge claims require justified truth belief

I would figure this all so far would be completely self evident.

In order to defend your default position, you need to rely on some sort of external ideology.

6. K=JTB requires an external ideology for its sense of justification, of truth, and nature of belief, as well as knowledge, and in the context of modernity, ideologies and science to support all the requisite labs, books, social freedom, everything that is required for K=JTB to exist in (self evident)
7. N=K=JTB and atheism is is N, so to know atheism is true you must have 6.

I would have thought that is all self evident...

6. is word salad. Can you clarify?

I will grant you that "God exists" and "no gods exist" are truth claims that both require justification, and that some atheists make the claim that "no gods exist".

You are, however, ignoring an alternate atheist position, which is "I do not believe any gods exist". That position is not a knowledge claim.

[Angrboda]

Is this an example of a reasoned argument that you're presenting?

In order to defend your default position, you need to rely on some sort of external ideology.

Naked assertion.

.....

---

Atheism as a default position is really more of an argument from authority.

Naked assertion.

You need to know a great deal about the world to believe that there is nothing responsible for the creation of the world.

Oh, here's another one.

Shall we do this with all of your posts, or are you ready to acknowledge that the above are merely your opinion, and not rational arguments?

---

Actually, you missed the argument that I made, so I will put it in another form. You are over simplifying, reading my words literalistically, and ignoring other posts which establish my arguments and responding with one sentence answers.

1. K = J T B ( Knowledge = justified true belief ) - an accepted model of epistemology
2. Negative claims that something are not so are knowledge claims (to know that something is not, is not epistemologically different from knowing what is) - (self evident)
3. Negative knowledge claims are based on Knowledge equals justified true belief or something similar (Knowledge is defined as justified true belief) - N = negative truth claims - if N = K then N = KTB
4. Atheist knowledge claims are negative knowledge claims (self evident)
5. N = KTB so atheist negative knowledge claims require justified truth belief

....

---

I would figure this all so far would be completely self evident.

In order to defend your default position, you need to rely on some sort of external ideology.

6. K=JTB requires an external ideology for its sense of justification, of truth, and nature of belief, as well as knowledge, and in the context of modernity, ideologies and science to support all the requisite labs, books, social freedom, everything that is required for K=JTB to exist in (self evident)
7. N=K=JTB and atheism is is N, so to know atheism is true you must have 6.

I would have thought that is all self evident...

---

You're back on the sauce again, aren't you?



More proof, in case it was needed, that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.