Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 7:24 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
[Serious] Atheist Dogma
#11
RE: Atheist Dogma
(April 11, 2020 at 9:06 pm)Belacqua Wrote: Therefore, adults who hear and reject claims made by religious people are atheists for reasons. They are not atheists in the way that babies are atheists. And adult atheists have very good reasons to be atheists. They hear claims and evaluate them, and are therefore thinking adult atheists. If they heard the claims and accepted them, they would not be atheists any more. 
That is rejection of subsequent (faction/religion) doctrine. Adult atheists are not disbelieving because of unexplainable physiological aspects; which is what atheists think atheism is - a non-belief thingy.

(April 11, 2020 at 9:06 pm)Belacqua Wrote: I don't think it's proper, in most cases, to call the set of standards by which atheists evaluate claims "dogma." Dogma involves something that isn't questioned, and we hope, anyway, that atheist standards of evaluation are derived from better sources.
I think you are misunderstanding my title. I meant to describe the definitions of the words significant to atheists discussions as being used incorrectly, and that that forms atheist dogma.

(April 11, 2020 at 9:06 pm)Belacqua Wrote: Strangely, I have had atheists deny the above claim. They are positive that their minds are exactly like the minds of infants. 
Atheists are somewhat in a state of confusion, because of the semantic errors that I am trying to correct.

(April 11, 2020 at 9:06 pm)Belacqua Wrote:
Quote:A child is born secular - not atheist.
I think that using "secular" identically to "non-religious" is a bad idea because it takes away its special meaning and impoverishes our vocabulary.
That is not what I am doing. I am suggesting that it is identically to "unbiased." The popular description that atheists use suggests that it is identically to "non-religious."

(April 11, 2020 at 9:09 pm)brewer Wrote:
(April 11, 2020 at 9:06 pm)Prof.Lunaphiles Wrote: I can guarantee you that I am right.

Nope, you're not what you believe yourself to be.

I believe that I am the most important person in the world. I am delivering the formula for standardizing knowledge classification: A derivative of the formula aids in the organization of corporate charters - government. The three-part theory is improperly deployed, basically, because the government should be divided into six parts in alignment with the six main partitions of civil law. The founders and subsequent generations just didn't have all of the information for organizing a better, more accurate, system.

And your belief that the founders got it right is dogma.

Moderator Notice
Links removed. Please familiarise yourself with the rules, specifically the 30/30 rule regarding posting links.
Reply
#12
RE: Atheist Dogma
I have nothing to say here except that I loved the way belacqua explained things in her post, very clear and thorough. Smile
The word bed actually looks like a bed. 
Reply
#13
RE: Atheist Dogma
(April 11, 2020 at 8:26 pm)no one Wrote: When I am king, you will be first against the wall.

Thank you very much.

Have a nice day.

(April 11, 2020 at 9:28 pm)Prof.Lunaphiles Wrote:
(April 11, 2020 at 9:06 pm)Belacqua Wrote: Therefore, adults who hear and reject claims made by religious people are atheists for reasons. They are not atheists in the way that babies are atheists. And adult atheists have very good reasons to be atheists. They hear claims and evaluate them, and are therefore thinking adult atheists. If they heard the claims and accepted them, they would not be atheists any more. 
That is rejection of subsequent (faction/religion) doctrine. Adult atheists are not disbelieving because of unexplainable physiological aspects.

(April 11, 2020 at 9:06 pm)Belacqua Wrote: I don't think it's proper, in most cases, to call the set of standards by which atheists evaluate claims "dogma." Dogma involves something that isn't questioned, and we hope, anyway, that atheist standards of evaluation are derived from better sources.
I think you are misunderstanding my title. I meant to describe the definitions of the words significant to atheists discussions as being used incorrectly, and that that forms atheist dogma.

(April 11, 2020 at 9:06 pm)Belacqua Wrote: Strangely, I have had atheists deny the above claim. They are positive that their minds are exactly like the minds of infants. 
Atheists are somewhat in a state of confusion, because of the semantic errors that I am trying to correct.

(April 11, 2020 at 9:06 pm)Belacqua Wrote: I think that using "secular" identically to "non-religious" is a bad idea because it takes away its special meaning and impoverishes our vocabulary.
That is not what I am doing. I am suggesting that it is identically to "unbiased." The popular description that atheists use suggests that it is identically to "non-religious."

(April 11, 2020 at 9:09 pm)brewer Wrote: Nope, you're not what you believe yourself to be.

I believe that I am the most important person in the world. I am delivering the formula for standardizing knowledge classification:  A derivative of the formula aids in the organization of corporate charters - government. The three-part theory is improperly deployed, basically, because the government should be divided into six parts in alignment with the six main partitions of civil law. The founders and subsequent generations just didn't have all of the information for organizing a better, more accurate, system.

And your belief that the founders got it right is dogma.

Maybe you are...in your sad little world.
  
“If you are the smartest person in the room, then you are in the wrong room.” — Confucius
                                      
Reply
#14
RE: Atheist Dogma
(April 11, 2020 at 9:28 pm)Prof.Lunaphiles Wrote: That is rejection of subsequent (faction/religion) doctrine. Adult atheists are not disbelieving because of unexplainable physiological aspects; which is what atheists think atheism is - a non-belief thingy.

I confess I don't understand you here....

It's true that atheists (to remain atheists) reject various things. And I guess you could call these "subsequent" in that they are heard later, after our main ideas are formed. 

But I'm unclear on "unexplainable physiological aspects." Like brain structure? Or do you mean "psychological" instead of "physiological"? 

But I agree with you that for thinking adults, atheism is more than simple non-belief. Because we have standards of judgment we use to reject religious claims, and these form the structure of what we hold to be true about the world. So if we use the word "belief" in its most basic sense -- "that which I hold to be true" -- then atheists' rejection of religion is based on beliefs. 

(I'm aware that some people use "belief" to mean "things which people hold to be true based on little or no evidence," but the most basic definition is just "what I think is true.") 

Quote:I meant to describe the definitions of the words significant to atheists discussions as being used incorrectly, and that that forms atheist dogma.

It's true that any group is capable of group-think, or unexamined assumptions. And this may well be true of the kind of atheist that frequents sites like this one. What you say may be true, but I'm not understanding the details of your claim yet.

Quote:Atheists are somewhat in a state of confusion, because of the semantic errors that I am trying to correct.

This is probably true of all humans, and clearing up semantic errors is a large part of philosophy! Go for it!

Quote:That is not what I am doing. I am suggesting that it is identically to "unbiased." The popular description that atheists use suggests that it is identically to "non-religious."

OK, maybe. If by "unbiased" you mean that a school or a hospital (for example) operates free of religious tenets. That would be "unbiased" in a certain way. 

Though secular institutions could be biased in other ways. For example, a secular economic think tank could be biased toward a certain kind of economic policy -- Keynesian as opposed to something else. So I wouldn't want to say that "secular" always means only "unbiased." 

Maybe "secular" means "uninfluenced by religious principles." Which is pretty close to what I'm saying. 

Am I understanding you better now?
Reply
#15
RE: Atheist Dogma
(April 11, 2020 at 9:54 pm)Belacqua Wrote:
(April 11, 2020 at 9:28 pm)Prof.Lunaphiles Wrote: That is rejection of subsequent (faction/religion) doctrine. Adult atheists are not disbelieving because of unexplainable physiological aspects; which is what atheists think atheism is - a non-belief thingy.

I confess I don't understand you here....

It's true that atheists (to remain atheists) reject various things. And I guess you could call these "subsequent" in that they are heard later, after our main ideas are formed. 

But I'm unclear on "unexplainable physiological aspects." Like brain structure? Or do you mean "psychological" instead of "physiological"?
"Psychological," would have probably been a better descriptor. Your example of atheists claiming to think like an infant on all things is kind of wht I am trying to describe.

Most atheist will argue something to the effect that they do not believe, because their brain function does not compute the evidence that theists argue; and theists will argue something to the effect that they believe because their brain directs them to believe. Neither side is accepting that it is all based on doctrine - ideas that are passed on to others.

(April 11, 2020 at 9:54 pm)Belacqua Wrote:
Quote:I meant to describe the definitions of the words significant to atheists discussions as being used incorrectly, and that that forms atheist dogma.

It's true that any group is capable of group-think, or unexamined assumptions. And this may well be true of the kind of atheist that frequents sites like this one. What you say may be true, but I'm not understanding the details of your claim yet.

(April 11, 2020 at 9:54 pm)Belacqua Wrote:
Quote:Atheists are somewhat in a state of confusion, because of the semantic errors that I am trying to correct.
This is probably true of all humans, and clearing up semantic errors is a large part of philosophy! Go for it!
Well, it is what is left in Metaphysics when science answers the theories - we need to list all of the things in an order - it is called Ontology, or knowledge classification. It is very similar to library classification - the Dewey Decimal System for organizing the subjects of knowledge for organizing the books on the shelves.

(April 11, 2020 at 9:54 pm)Belacqua Wrote:
Quote:That is not what I am doing. I am suggesting that it is identically to "unbiased." The popular description that atheists use suggests that it is identically to "non-religious."

OK, maybe. If by "unbiased" you mean that a school or a hospital (for example) operates free of religious tenets. That would be "unbiased" in a certain way. 

Though secular institutions could be biased in other ways. For example, a secular economic think tank could be biased toward a certain kind of economic policy -- Keynesian as opposed to something else. So I wouldn't want to say that "secular" always means only "unbiased." 
Then the think tank is not secular it is in pursuit of advancing a specific doctrine.

(April 11, 2020 at 9:54 pm)Belacqua Wrote: Maybe "secular" means "uninfluenced by religious principles." Which is pretty close to what I'm saying. 

Am I understanding you better now?
I think a secular organization means that it is organized in such a manner that it gathers as much diversity as possible and aggregates its agenda accordingly, usually solutions to problems.
Reply
#16
RE: Atheist Dogma
(April 11, 2020 at 9:28 pm)Prof.Lunaphiles Wrote:
(April 11, 2020 at 9:09 pm)brewer Wrote: Nope, you're not what you believe yourself to be.

I believe that I am the most important person in the world. I am delivering the formula for standardizing knowledge classification:  A derivative of the formula aids in the organization of corporate charters - government. The three-part theory is improperly deployed, basically, because the government should be divided into six parts in alignment with the six main partitions of civil law. The founders and subsequent generations just didn't have all of the information for organizing a better, more accurate, system.

And your belief that the founders got it right is dogma.

Well, you didn't come close to getting it right. But you did display more of your telling behavior, including not being able to read the AF rules. GENIUS!

I never expressed a belief in founders or dogma. Are you hearing voices also?
I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem.
Reply
#17
RE: Atheist Dogma
(April 11, 2020 at 10:27 pm)Prof.Lunaphiles Wrote: Most atheist will argue something to the effect that they do not believe, because their brain function does not compute the evidence that theists argue; and theists will argue something to the effect that they believe because their brain directs them to believe. Neither side is accepting that it is all based on doctrine - ideas that are passed on to others.
 
Hmm...

I don't think I've heard anyone make that particular argument. "My brain won't let me believe it," or something like that.

Obviously atheists think that our thinking happens in the brain. But does anybody really deny that the content of what we think (the concepts, ideas, etc.) are passed on to us? I mean, it seems clear that a lot of what we know about the world has been passed on to us through other people. 

I'm also skeptical that anything that's passed on to us deserves to be called "doctrine." Google tells me that "doctrine" means

Quote:a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.

Some things, or systems, would be doctrine. And atheists probably hold to some (non-religious) doctrines, if they are part of a political party or something. Maybe you could argue that the scientific method as a means to evaluate evidence is something like a "doctrine," though it sounds a bit off to me. 

But I agree with you that what atheists hold to be true about the world -- and the standards they use to evaluate all kinds of claims -- are very largely received from other people. So if the point you're making is that atheists are using a set of standards or beliefs that they have largely learned from others, and that they aren't purely free-thinking and original, then I'd agree with that.

Quote:Then the think tank is not secular it is in pursuit of advancing a specific doctrine.

[...]

I think a secular organization means that it is organized in such a manner that it gathers as much diversity as possible and aggregates its agenda accordingly, usually solutions to problems.

OK, you're using the word "secular" in a way that I'm not familiar with. I doubt that many people would agree with you on this. It tends to be very much used in relation to the religious world. So saying that a think tank which supports Keynesian economic doctrine (and no religious beliefs at all) is not secular would be non-standard. 

Or for example, you could have a graduate school of literature that was famous for using a particular interpretive technique -- say New Criticism along the lines used by John Crowe Ransom or I. A. Richards. It would not be diverse, but by not having a religious slant it would usually be called secular. 

The Latin root of the word "secular" means something like a generation or an age. It was used to translate the Greek Aion, which, as used by Homer, means a person's lifespan. It was therefore related to the passing of time -- things that change. Augustine was the first to use it as a contrast to the religious world, which he took to deal with eternal things. Secular issues, for him, dealt with things that change, while religion is about the eternal truth. 

So using "secular" merely to mean any kind of unbiasedness would be non-standard -- perhaps unique to you.
Reply
#18
RE: Atheist Dogma
Yay. A self-righteous atheist who can fix what we've all been doing wrong for so long. We're saved.

He'd have better luck herding cats with hand grenades.
Reply
#19
RE: Atheist Dogma
I don't care what the OP says, I simply don't believe that any gods exist, call it atheism, call it secular, call it cheese, I still don't believe in gods.
The meek shall inherit the Earth, the rest of us will fly to the stars.

Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups

Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in mud ..... after a while you realise that the pig likes it!

Reply
#20
RE: Atheist Dogma
Atheism is nothing more than the absence of god beliefs. I was born without any beliefs in gods or the supernatural. That makes me, by definition, an atheist.  Read
"The world is my country; all of humanity are my brethren; and to do good deeds is my religion." (Thomas Paine)
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  One more dogma to add to the rest. Little Rik 102 22020 August 30, 2017 at 9:45 pm
Last Post: mordant
  Atheistic Dogma- Scientific Fundamentalism sswhateverlove 315 44156 September 20, 2014 at 3:49 pm
Last Post: Whateverist



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)