Is there an atheist agenda?

[David 2.0]

Authors note: I would like to thank McCulloch for his time and input into the phrasing of this question. Credit is due. Thankyou!

Questions for debate.

1. Is there an atheist agenda?

2.What is the end result of atheism? Is there an end game? A goal? Can it be satisfied, if so how?

3.Should atheism promote religious evolution? Or is it all or nothing? How does atheism fit in the spectrum of religious toleration?

4.Do world views have a hidden or unintended agenda? Must they propagate to survive?

Feel free to answer one or all.

[EduChris]

...Could you expand on this point? I am unaware of the ties between atheism and this proposition...

Theism is the position that Ultimate Reality more likely than not does involve purpose. Atheism or non-theism, in rejecting theism, logically assumes that Ultimate Reality most likely involves nothing other than some admixture of chance & necessity. Theism and non-theism are mutually exclusive positions (one of which must be true) and each view necessarily involves an unprovable assumption about Ultimate Reality.

...As far as I'm aware atheism is only the lack of belief in a deity...

"A deity" is not a helpful term, since it masks the underlying issue of whether Ultimate Reality--which we all surmise "exists" in some sense, though we cannot explain it--involves purpose rather than (or in addition to) some admixture of chance & necessity only. If a non-theist were to drop the position that Ultimate Reality involves nothing more than some admixture of chance & necessity, that non-theist would instantly become a theist.

...Where do you get the notion of minority v. majority from? Your experiences on a forum and watching debates and such? You do realize that the atheists you see on here, the atheists you see debating and most people that happily tell the public are outspoken and generally when discussing atheism it is in opposition to other religions. So the people you don't see discussing it are largely the ones that aren't openly criticizing or opposing religion. You might not even know that they are atheists but that doesn't mean they are not...

I am referring to the atheists I know of, most of whom are intolerant, some are semi-tolerant, and a very few have been genuinely tolerant. But I agree that there could well be a "silent majority" of atheists who live and let live. I object when atheists on this forum lump all religious believers in the same camp with obstreporous fundamentalists, so I shouldn't assume that all atheists are as obstreporous as the majority on this forum (and other similar forums).

...Care to support the above claims?

See here

[Tired of the Nonsense]

The goal of atheism is to convince themselves and others that Ultimate Reality does not involve purpose. This is their grand, overarching assumption--and insofar as they are human, they seek to justify their grand assumption and to draw others into their way of thinking.

What exactly is your definition of "purpose?" Everything which occurs does so for an exact set of reasons. Lightning for example will follow an apparently random zig-zag course through the sky to strike an apparently unpredictable spot on the earth. The course it takes though is entirely purposeful and relates to the conditions that exist at that precise moment in time. The purpose is to achieve balance by equalizing the amount of electrons in the clouds with the earth. There is no intelligence behind any of this however. It occurs because there are particles which have positive charges, and particles which have negative charges. Particles with like charges repel each other, while particles with opposite charges are attracted to each other. This ongoing attraction-repulsion phenomenon is what drives the universe. It's called QUANTUM MECHANICS, and IT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERYTHING THAT OCCURS. It's not necessarily intelligently purposeful however, except perhaps in the ultimate reality of your mind.

[100%atheist]

...What is the end result of atheism? Is there an end game? A goal? Can it be satisfied, if so how?...

The goal of atheism is to convince themselves and others that Ultimate Reality does not involve purpose. This is their grand, overarching assumption--and insofar as they are human, they seek to justify their grand assumption and to draw others into their way of thinking.

...how does atheism fit in the spectrum of religious toleration?...

Atheists, since they are human, fall along a spectrum of tolerance--some attack all opposing viewpoints with great zeal and passion; some attack only the opposing viewpoint(s) which they find particularly extreme; and a minority do manage to remain tolerant and respectful of most other views.

...Must they propagate to survive?...

Humans are wired to believe in purposeful Ultimate Reality, so atheists must expend significant energy combatting the deep archetypes of the human psyche. This energy most often exhibits itself in atheistic prosletyzing--they have to keep themselves convinced by their own continual efforts to convince others that they are right.

EduCris,

Please read and listen to others. This will help you understand that not everything coming from your computer is necessarily true just because it was you who did the typing. Many many times you was given explanations of what atheism is, what atheists believe and not believe, what does it take to be become and be an atheist, and so on.... For some magic reason you failed to absorb the first-hand information. And here you go again stating as a "fact" that atheists must combat something deep in their psyche... No, sir, I am pretty sure that most atheists don't need to combat anything in their psyche as a result of their atheism. I understand that you made your statement based on the assertion that "Humans are wired to believe in purposeful Ultimate Reality", but as I posted in another thread I tend to think that your definition of "Ultimate Reality" is an old unrealistic assumption, and thus your assertions about humans and then about atheists are false.

100%

[McCulloch]

What is the end result of atheism?

Without imagining that there is a god that reveals truth to humanity, we can finally be free to find the solutions to the world's problems through a continuing process of observation, evaluation and revision. To that end, the various claims of the existence of gods of the revealed religions must be discredited.

[EduChris]

...QUANTUM MECHANICS...IS RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERYTHING THAT OCCURS...

That's an excellent example of one of the more common ways that non-theists on this forum tend to articulate their grand assumption. I have elsewhere referred to this as "the Great Quantum Nothing" in accordance with Ragna's posts.

[Filthy Tugboat]

...Could you expand on this point? I am unaware of the ties between atheism and this proposition...

Theism is the position that Ultimate Reality more likely than not does involve purpose.

Some forms of theism, yes. But first, could you clarify what you mean by "ultimate reality"? How does it differ from "reality"?

Atheism or non-theism, in rejecting theism, logically assumes that Ultimate Reality most likely involves nothing other than some admixture of chance & necessity.

This is logically false actually. Atheism may reject theism and theism may promote the notion that "ultimate reality" has an objective purpose, but can you show that atheism subsequently rejects the notion that "ultimate reality" has an objective purpose? I do mean literally just from the notion of rejecting theism. I bring this up because rejecting a philosophy or proposition does not mean that everything within that philosophy or proposition is rejected, it's conclusion can be rejected without rejecting it's premises, etc...

Theism and non-theism are mutually exclusive positions (one of which must be true) and each view necessarily involves an unprovable assumption about Ultimate Reality.

I don't think so, or at least not concerning the nature of purpose.

...As far as I'm aware atheism is only the lack of belief in a deity...

"A deity" is not a helpful term,

Why not?

since it masks the underlying issue of whether Ultimate Reality

How so?

--which we all surmise "exists" in some sense, though we cannot explain it--

I don't really know what you mean by ultimate reality so I can't really respond until that is cleared up.

involves purpose rather than (or in addition to) some admixture of chance & necessity only.

Can't say I see the relevance between the discussion of objective purpose and this thread.?

If a non-theist were to drop the position that Ultimate Reality involves nothing more than some admixture of chance & necessity, that non-theist would instantly become a theist.

Care to support that assertion?

...Where do you get the notion of minority v. majority from? Your experiences on a forum and watching debates and such? You do realize that the atheists you see on here, the atheists you see debating and most people that happily tell the public are outspoken and generally when discussing atheism it is in opposition to other religions. So the people you don't see discussing it are largely the ones that aren't openly criticizing or opposing religion. You might not even know that they are atheists but that doesn't mean they are not...

I am referring to the atheists I know of, most of whom are intolerant, some are semi-tolerant, and a very few have been genuinely tolerant. But I agree that there could well be a "silent majority" of atheists who live and let live. I object when atheists on this forum lump all religious believers in the same camp with obstreporous fundamentalists, so I shouldn't assume that all atheists are as obstreporous as the majority on this forum (and other similar forums).

I find it is hard to grasp the majority when the religious position has no identifying traits unless spoken about. The ones that speak about it are often the militant ones you notice.

...Care to support the above claims?

See here

Linking me to a thread in which you discuss the issue is not really the support I was asking for. Perhaps I missed something on the page and you would care to point it out more specifically.

Unless this is what you wanted me to see? But I doubt it as it doesn't really reinforce your point.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
...QUANTUM MECHANICS...IS RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERYTHING THAT OCCURS...

EduChris wrote:
That's an excellent example of one of the more common ways that non-theists on this forum tend to articulate their grand assumption. I have elsewhere referred to this as "the Great Quantum Nothing" in accordance with Ragna's posts.

Does this accurately reflect your position then: Jesus died but later came back to life and flew away up into the sky, and quantum mechanics is nothing but a "grand assumption" devised by non-theists to articulate their godless atheism?

[EduChris]

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
...QUANTUM MECHANICS...IS RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERYTHING THAT OCCURS...

EduChris wrote:
That's an excellent example of one of the more common ways that non-theists on this forum tend to articulate their grand assumption. I have elsewhere referred to this as "the Great Quantum Nothing" in accordance with Ragna's posts.

Does this accurately reflect your position then: Jesus died but later came back to life and flew away up into the sky, and quantum mechanics is nothing but a "grand assumption" devised by non-theists to articulate their godless atheism?

Nope. You're way off in just about every way possible. But in that regard, you are typical of most non-theists on this forum.

[EduChris]

...first, could you clarify what you mean by "ultimate reality"? How does it differ from "reality"?...

I provided a link in my earlier post. Anyway, here again is that link

...you show that atheism subsequently rejects the notion that "ultimate reality" has an objective purpose?...bring this up because rejecting a philosophy or proposition does not mean that everything within that philosophy or proposition is rejected, it's conclusion can be rejected without rejecting it's premises, etc...

The essence of theism is that Ultimate Reality involves purpose, rather than merely some admixture of chance & necessesity. If you accept the essence of theism, then you are a theist. If you reject the essence of theim, then you are a non-theist. Or can you point to some specific counterexample to my claim?

Theism and non-theism are mutually exclusive positions (one of which must be true) and each view necessarily involves an unprovable assumption about Ultimate Reality.

I don't think so, or at least not concerning the nature of purpose...

Again, if you can point to some theism which denies that Ultimate Reality involves purpose, or some non-theism which allows for purposeful Ultimate Reality, that would help to clarify your point.

...As far as I'm aware atheism is only the lack of belief in a deity...

"A deity" is not a helpful term

Why not?

Because the non-theist is not merely rejecting the specific trappings of this or that proposed "deity," but rather the non-theist rejects the entire notion of theism in general--and the common element within all forms of theism is a purposeful Ultimate Reality.

since it masks the underlying issue of whether Ultimate Reality

How so?

Non-theists expend an enormous amount of energy here on this forum, and their primary intent is to claim that they start with fewer assumptions than the theist. However, when the essence of the debate between (general) theism vs. (general) non-theism is brought to light, we clearly see that both sides are really making mutually exclusive assumptions (one of which must logically be true) about Ultimate Reality--and these assumptions in principle are not amenable to evidence.

...I don't really know what you mean by ultimate reality so I can't really respond until that is cleared up...

Again, refer to the link in my earlier post, or the same link I providede at the start of this post.

involves purpose rather than (or in addition to) some admixture of chance & necessity only.

...Can't say I see the relevance between the discussion of objective purpose and this thread.?...

That's probably because you missed the link I provided...And perhaps also because you seem to be adding an extraneous concept of "objective purpose" to the discussion, rather than fully grasping the distinction between purposeful vs. non-purposeful Ultimate Reality.

If a non-theist were to drop the position that Ultimate Reality involves nothing more than some admixture of chance & necessity, that non-theist would instantly become a theist.

Care to support that assertion?...

My support stems partially from the fact that you have been unable to provide a specific counterexample to my claim. My claim would fall apart if you could provide even one specific counterexample.

...Linking me to a thread in which you discuss the issue is not really the support I was asking for. Perhaps I missed something on the page and you would care to point it out more specifically.

Unless this is what you wanted me to see? But I doubt it as it doesn't really reinforce your point.

Please be more specific (and notice also that your link doesn't work).

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
...QUANTUM MECHANICS...IS RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERYTHING THAT OCCURS...

EduChris wrote:
That's an excellent example of one of the more common ways that non-theists on this forum tend to articulate their grand assumption. I have elsewhere referred to this as "the Great Quantum Nothing" in accordance with Ragna's posts.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Does this accurately reflect your position then: Jesus died but later came back to life and flew away up into the sky, and quantum mechanics is nothing but a "grand assumption" devised by non-theists to articulate their godless atheism?

EduChris wrote:
Nope. You're way off in just about every way possible. But in that regard, you are typical of most non-theists on this forum.

You might understand my confusion then. You have yourself listed as a Christian, and you specifically referred to quantum mechanics as "the Great Quantum Nothing." Apparently you have concluded that what you say need not necessarily have any special relationship with what you actually mean, a situation which does expose you to something of a credibility problem I am afraid.