Friendly Atheism

[Belacqua]

We're not making a medical diagnosis. Stop changing the goal post. The term phobia existed long before the DSM 5.

The DSM IV was clearer on this:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK51...e/ch3.t11/

Interesting that this book uses the term "unreasonable" and avoids "irrational."

[John 6IX Breezy]

Interesting that this book uses the term "unreasonable" and avoids "irrational."

It also seems to remove the use of "unreasonable" entirely from all criteria when it updated to the 5th. Perhaps due to its subjective nature.

[GrandizerII]

Interesting that this book uses the term "unreasonable" and avoids "irrational."

It also seems to remove the use of "unreasonable" entirely from all criteria when it updated to the 5th. Perhaps due to its subjective nature.

Or to avoid the use of what may be disparaging terms.

But here in this forum, we don't have to be that professional. We can call it what it is.

[Belacqua]

Interesting that this book uses the term "unreasonable" and avoids "irrational."

It also seems to remove the use of "unreasonable" entirely from all criteria when it updated to the 5th. Perhaps due to its subjective nature.

Yeah, it makes sense that they would try to avoid personal judgment calls as much as possible. (I think that's a main purpose of the DSM...?) 

The new language is that a phobia is fear or anxiety that's "out of proportion to" the genuine danger. This still leaves room for the doctor's interpretation, of course. How much fear is the right amount of fear? 

But the new language does seem less accusatory. It sounds dismissive to say "you're unreasonable" but less so to say "your fear is out of proportion." So if anybody had asked me, I'd vote for the new version.

[brewer]

Jesus fucking muhammad. What the hell does this matter to the topic? Stop running off on tangents.

Or is this what you do once you find your original position untenable?

[The Valkyrie]

And I think most people believe vaccines work because the death rates for certain diseases have dropped like a paralyzed falcon since the vaccines became available.  No one needs to do biomedical research to judge whether or not vaccines work, any more than one has to research physics to understand that hammers are heavy.  Your appeal to anti-vaxxers is misplaced.  Most anti-vaxxers take the position they do, not because they believe that vaccines don't work, but because they think vaccines lead to autism.  In the scientific community, this is known as 'being mind-wobblingly stupid'.

Of course, if you're going to appeal to miracles, then the virgin birth is possible.  But belief in miracles IS inherently irrational, so we're back where we started.

Boru

To know that death rates have dropped you need access to those statistics. Once you have those statistics you need to run some kind of correlation to establish that a relationship exists between vaccination rates and death rates; you also need to rule out any confounding variables, such as other medical advances (e.g. the emergence of antibiotics, etc.). And even after you have done all that, you've only established a correlation not a causation for the death rates. So, I disagree that no one needs to do biomedical research to judge whether or not vaccines work; at the very least statistical analysis is required that is above most people's capabilities.

The virgin birth has been attributed to a miracle since its inception. So it seems we agree that virgin births are not inherently impossible or irrational, and now disagree on miracles. But miracles are also not inherently irrational, they are dependant on the existence of God. You would need to go one more step up the latter and say beliefs in God are irrational.

---

---

You just continue to be incorrect:

An extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something.: https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/phobia

a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it.: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/phobia

Hmm I see. I wouldn't use a regular dictionary for discipline-specific terminology; you are bound to get definitions that are descriptive of colloquial usage. The DSM is going to have more authority in this regard.

One simple example: the introduction of the smallpox vaccine and then the drop in smallpox deaths to zero.

Yes, I think belief in gods is irrational, especially if you belueve in it without evidence, pray to it on a daily basis wanting it to intercede in your life in a meaningful way, and give money to its self declared representatives, or accept blindly what they say.

[Objectivist]

William Rowe, the late atheist philosopher, coined the term "friendly atheism". By this he meant an atheist view which holds theism can be rational in some cases. Do you agree or disagree that theism is ever rational? Please state your reasons.

I do disagree.  It can't be rational because reason is only compatible with the primacy of existence principle.  Theism assumes the primacy of consciousness.

[EgoDeath]

I'm sure that plenty of theists hold rational beliefs; whether or not those beliefs are related to their religion is another story. Surely, some ideas held by theists, related to their religion, can be considered rational. How about, "love thy neighbor?" That sounds reasonable enough. I wouldn't consider this viewpoint friendly atheism so much as sympathetic atheism or compassionate atheism.

Surely I'm not going to dismiss the vast majority of the world has holding only irrational beliefs in their minds. However, when it comes to assuming the existence of a divine creator, that is always irrational and in no way shape or form follows anything we could consider logic.

My whole point is, we all need to get along. That's how the world keeps going. But can't I be as vocal about my atheism as one is about their theism? Why is it rude to announce you're an atheist but considered normal to mumble over your food before dinner? I say this because surely we should all be "friendly atheists" at times, but some things are simply untrue and we shouldn't be expected to ignore scientific fact in the pursuit of politeness.

So, are theists wholly irrational? No. In the same way that atheists are not wholly rational. Humans are flawed being with dynamic views of the world.

"Friendly atheism," in the way I understand it to be defined in this thread, seems to just be common sense.

[mcc1789]

William Rowe, the late atheist philosopher, coined the term "friendly atheism". By this he meant an atheist view which holds theism can be rational in some cases. Do you agree or disagree that theism is ever rational? Please state your reasons.

I do disagree.  It can't be rational because reason is only compatible with the primacy of existence principle.  Theism assumes the primacy of consciousness.

Can you explain why? I'm not very familiar with Objectivism. Others here likely aren't either.

[Objectivist]

I do disagree.  It can't be rational because reason is only compatible with the primacy of existence principle.  Theism assumes the primacy of consciousness.

Can you explain why? I'm not very familiar with Objectivism. Others here likely aren't either.

Hi,

If an idea contradicts a fact of reality, then that idea is false because contradictions cannot exist.  If it's false then to believe it is irrational.  The primacy of existence principle identifies a fundamental truth, that of the relationship between consciousness and it's objects.  This relationship is the most basic issue in philosophy and it is both knowable by direct perception and it is rationally undeniable.  This relationship is also contextually fixed, in that the subject and object cannot change places.  One would have to accept it's truth in order to try and deny it.  In denying its truth, one would be tacitly relying on its truth. That's because anyone who makes any statement of fact is implicitly saying that the state of affairs, in reality, is this, independent of anyone's ideas to the contrary.   To deny it would be to contradict one's self; The primacy of existence is false independent of anyone's ideas to the contrary.  You see?

This principle lies at the root of all knowledge, whether one identifies it explicitly, as Objectivism does, or if it remains only implicit.  It is a primary and inescapable fact of reality.  It's also known as the principle of objectivity.  It's the root of the concept objectivity.  

Now, what does it say?:  The objects of consciousness exist and are what they are and do what they do independent of anyone's conscious activity.  Objects are the things we are aware of and the subject is any conscientiousness that is aware of them.  That's a fancy way of saying that wishing doesn't make things so, i.e.,  Consciousness is metaphysically passive.

Now reason, being a kind of conscious activity, identifies the facts, it doesn't create them or alter them.  The five dollar bill in your wallet with remain a five dollar bill no matter how much you scrunch your eyes tight and believe that it will turn into a hundred dollar bill.  Facts are absolutes that don't care about your feelings. therefore reason presupposes the primacy of existence and is incompatible with the primacy of consciousness. Those who hold that the subject of consciousness holds primacy over its objects, such as every version of theism I've ever heard about, reverse this relationship. They hold that consciousness has primacy over existence, the subject holds primacy over its objects. Therefore they hold that in essence, wishing does make it so, e.g., "If ye have the faith (a type of conscious activity) of a mustard seed, ye can say to the mountain (an object) move from there to over there and the mountain will move and nothing will be impossible to you."  Matthew 17:20.

Well, that's the bare bones, I hope it helps.  For a further explanation do a google search for David Kelley primacy of existence.