*trigger warning* What if atheism's not all it seems?

[The Grand Nudger]

Second, making note of consequences is one of the foundations of empiricism. The consequences of a purely rational analysis, particularly with respect to questions of value, are often disastrous in practice. Examples include the Cultural Revolution in China, the Reign of Terror in revolutionary France, and Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal". If any rational analysis forces us to abandon basic concepts like human dignity and personal autonomy, we might want to view that analysis with suspicion also.

Meh, my rational analysis doesn't force me to abandon any of that, so NP right?  I think it might be more accurate to reference times in which some analysis caused people to doubt the traditional justifications for those concepts...but, if those traditional justifications were in error the tradition itself shares culpability in setting the sub-ideology up for failure.  For example, if you lived in a society which had, for thousands of years, maintained that human life only had value because the tiki stone said so..and if that civilization had actively destroyed any competing ideology for that same time..it should come as no surprise...when tiki stone is found to be a fraud..that some of the denizens of tikiland begin to think that human life has no value.  

I see a great deal of that, plenty of "that's just stuff the religionists said".  Babies and bathwater.  While historical context is always fun, nowadays, the most active moral meta-ethics is realist, and it's a field predominantly advocated for and studied by atheists using what they call a "super-rational" framework (impossible for us to implement in practice but it serves as a useful elaboration).   The consequences of their rational analysis do not lead where the dogma of the sino-russian communist split led - nor where the reactionary populism of the french revolution led. 

Is there anyone who looks back on either of those incidents and says..."Oh my, what rational actors they all were, doing rational things in rational ways for rational reasons!"...................................?

If we wanted to be accurate, nothing about either of those examples you mentioned derived from some "purely rational analysis" -of anything.  They had their roots in response to conflict and how it manifested itself through powerful individuals (or a powerful mob).  Swifts modest proposal..was a satire of illogical solutions in the first place, so..ignoring that the other two don't really speak to the point of contention..this one seems entirely out of place.

[Amarok]

Agree Neo's commentary is a strike out . None of the stuff he lists has ever had anything to do with religion just because religion was a prominent advocate for it at one time . Religion is a virus it takes the human experience and infects and twists it to it's own purpose .

[Little Rik]

As long as we're meant to be triggered.... why not?

When we die is all over.  

This is not a dogma, it is an observation.
Anecdotal tales of a few very select individuals (one!) who report (indirectly) on the afterlife provides us with no trustworthy reason to think that death is not the end of life.

The consciousness is a product of the brain.  

Again, it is an observation.
Brain dead people are not conscious.
Some forms of brain damage also lead to non-consciousness.
Other forms of brain damage have consciousness altering features.
Brain chemistry alterations lead to alternative mind states.
Brain electromagnetism alterations lead to alternative mind states.

There are so many... so many links between the brain and our awareness, our thinking capabilities, our consciousnesses... that it seems ludicrous to deny that the brain generates our consciousness.

But... if you have an alternate version of the origin of consciousness, feel free to present your findings to the scientific community as a research paper and collect you Nobel Prize.

NDEs are the product of a brain devoid of blood and oxygen.  

Most brains devoid of oxygen just stop working - a fade to black, like a dreamless sleep.
Some either during the oxygen deprivation state, or during the reoxygenation phase, or both phases, produce what have been called NDEs.

Nobody created the universe and it can run without a God.  

Why would the Universe not be able to run without a god?
Again, present your findings in the form of a research paper and collect your Nobel Prize!

And the list of unproven claims taken as full truth goes on and on.  
If this set of dogmas don t follow dogmas that religions carry on then tell me what it is?

Maybe it's just a list of claims that follow from the non-existence of any deity, given (and this is the important bit) that such existence hasn't been shown to be true.

Try to work the right way around these things.

---

1) Observations my foot.
As far as anyone spout a claim that lack evidence then such a claim enter the corral of dogmas.
2) Don t forget the old saying that atheists love to repeat so much time after time which goes............the one who make the claim is the one who must produce evidence.

Atheists make these claims all the time so they are the one who must produce evidence not me.

[Whateverist]

I'm curious, PhilosophicalZebra, if it were shown that believing that 2 + 2 = 5 led to improved mental well-being, would you commit yourself to believing that 2 + 2 = 5?

You seem more concerned with the consequences of believing than you do with whether or not the belief is true.

Interesting example. At the same time it is not unreasonable to note that ideas have consequences. If someone did believe 2+2=5 he would probably have difficulty managing his finances, etc. Similarly many anti-theists on this forum seem to feel (contrary the empirical benefits of belief) that theism results in various personal and social ills. While Appealing to Consequences is technically a logical fallacy there are two very good reasons to take consequences into account.

First, at least half of the brain processes information with intuition. I don't think this should be discounted. Intuition is a useful check on the logical side of our brain that just as often errs by rationalizing some desire rather than providing a truly objective analysis. Personally, I think it is wise to view strongly counter-intuitive conclusions with suspicion. Examples of these would be notions like solipsism and eliminative materialism.

Second, making note of consequences is one of the foundations of empiricism. The consequences of a purely rational analysis, particularly with respect to questions of value, are often disastrous in practice. Examples include the Cultural Revolution in China, the Reign of Terror in revolutionary France, and Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal". If any rational analysis forces us to abandon basic concepts like human dignity and personal autonomy, we might want to view that analysis with suspicion also.

My personal opinions about the relationship between atheism and nihilism are well-known and need no elaboration; however, I would suggest that people treat the Argument from Consequences the same way we should Occam's razor, not as a definitive rule, but rather as a cautionary guide.

I think you generalize too broadly from your own idiocentric experience (my bolded).  Just because you felt that way doesn't mean anyone else would.

[Angrboda]

1) Observations my foot.  
As far as anyone spout a claim that lack evidence then such a claim enter the corral of dogmas.  
2)  Don t forget the old saying that atheists love to repeat so much time after time which goes............the one who make the claim is the one who must produce evidence.  

Atheists make these claims all the time so they are the one who must produce evidence not me.

I've provided the evidence multiple times. That you simply deny the clear import of the evidence because of your stupid yogic dogmas is something nobody but you cares about. There will always be irrational twats like you who choose to believe the ridiculous and irrational for your own reasons. Nobody cares about your denials. They are as irrational as the rest of your crackpot ideas.

[Amarok]

1) Observations my foot.  
As far as anyone spout a claim that lack evidence then such a claim enter the corral of dogmas.  
2)  Don t forget the old saying that atheists love to repeat so much time after time which goes............the one who make the claim is the one who must produce evidence.  

Atheists make these claims all the time so they are the one who must produce evidence not me.

1. Yup observation and it was backed in very comment your responding to . Evidence was already provided so it's not a dogma . 

2. It's not an atheist saying it's a Epistemological saying and it's been met 

3. Atheists don't claim this rational people do . 

4. Even if any of these idea's were dogma's it would not make them wrong .Nor make their contrary right

5. Even if these were wrong atheism only requires there to be no real evidence of god . So an atheist could be wrong about X atheism remains justified till gone is shown to exist .

So your full of shit rik

[Little Rik]

1) Observations my foot.  
As far as anyone spout a claim that lack evidence then such a claim enter the corral of dogmas.  
2)  Don t forget the old saying that atheists love to repeat so much time after time which goes............the one who make the claim is the one who must produce evidence.  

Atheists make these claims all the time so they are the one who must produce evidence not me.

I've provided the evidence multiple times. That you simply deny the clear import of the evidence because of your stupid yogic dogmas is something nobody but you cares about. There will always be irrational twats like you who choose to believe the ridiculous and irrational for your own reasons. Nobody cares about your denials. They are as irrational as the rest of your crackpot ideas.

---

Oh, my God yog...........you provided evidence and I miss that out.......oh, my God that is terrible.......absolutely terrible.
I feel so so embarrassed.
Will you ever excuse me?
Please yog help me and explain once again how the consciousness is a product of the brain or how the physical death is also the consciousness death.
Please yog help LR to understand.
Please......

[Fake Messiah]

Yeah another atheist dogma: Elvis is dead. When there are so many witnesses that saw him alive (and mind you credible witnesses like doctors!!) and youtube videos and on the news on TV made by credible journalists people on Fox news





And yet despite all the evidence atheists believe Elvis is dead!!     Why? Because it's part of their dogma.

Or another atheist dogma: Santa Claus does not exist. I mean this is really just bonkers when Santa has more sightings than all UFO, NDE, Bigfoot, Virgin Mary and Loch Ness monster sightings combined!!! I mean I just laugh at you atheists how pathetic you are that despite all the evidence you don't believe those witnesses and despite no proof that they are suffering from any mental derangement you insist they're delusional and lying, because you blindly cling to Richard Dawkins and his atheist Bible!!

[pocaracas]

1) Observations my foot.  
As far as anyone spout a claim that lack evidence then such a claim enter the corral of dogmas.  
2)  Don t forget the old saying that atheists love to repeat so much time after time which goes............the one who make the claim is the one who must produce evidence.  

Atheists make these claims all the time so they are the one who must produce evidence not me.

Show me a report of the afterlife by a dead person.
Not an NDE... an actual dead person.
Near death is not death, you know?

To the best of my knowledge, there is no such report. Given that, why would we assume an afterlife to exist, beyond wishful thinking?

You're making the claim that the afterlife exists. You produce evidence for it.
I'm saying I don't believe your claim. Why should I believe it?

[Cyberman]

Not accepting a claim is not the same as making the counterclaim, unless specifically stated. But of course I'm an idiot with a username that some people can't get right.