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]

...You have yourself listed as a Christian, and you specifically referred to quantum mechanics as "the Great Quantum Nothing."...

Quantum theory is a scientific theory which has no logically necessary bearing on the debate between theism and non-theism. However, the philosophical claim that Quantum Theory accounts for "everything" effectively elevates a scientfic theory (or a mathematical model) to the status of "Ultimate Reality." This philosophical elevation of the mathematical model is what I have referred to as the non-theist's "Great Quantum Nothing."

...Apparently you have concluded that what you say need not necessarily have any special relationship with what you actually mean...

The vast majority of non-theists here on this forum, yourself included, simply have no understanding of modern-day, philosophically aware theism. Therefore, when you make statements about the positions of theists, you typically misconstrue those positions; and moreover, when we theists make statements about our positions, you misinterpret those statements because they don't fit neatly into your preconceived notions.

It would be nice if this forum could be a place where misunderstandings decrease and mutual understanding could increase. Alas, human nature always seems to rear its ugly head. All too often, we end up simply talking past each other rather than trying to understand each other.

[Pat2]

="bernee51"]

="Pat2"]

="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.

Logic supports the position that there is!

How else does one explain [much less justify] the clamor they make?

Drat Pat...you have seen through us...the Evil Atheist Agenda is exposed...is that the sound of black helicopters over your house?

If indeed there is no God; and they can convience themselves of this, what is the necessity to challange others who hold that there is a God, except for the fact that they themslves have doubts about there position?

Because Pat, it is often the case that those who DO believe wish to have THEIR belifs imposed on those who do not beleive.

Because Pat those who DO believe in a particular god, often hate the bejesus out of those who believe in a differnt god and in so doing make a hell of this abundant paradise.

God belief can cause division, division causes conflict.

A god who demands conversion is a god of violence

In effect they attempt to sell "nothing" while Christians try to sell a lot of somethings.

And therein lies the conflict....

The point of puzzlement for me is how nasty some them are. Way beyond adamant.

Aww diddums...are your poor little catholic sensitivities smarting?

I have gotten past the lack of logic as I find at times,...

Isn't irony amusing....

The difference is we can provide evidence as to why and how we can and do what we do.

And the evidence is ...my grandpappy did it therefore i did it?

Assuming that we are dealing with people who can be logical and open to singular truths, and understand the signifiance of the Bible.

How about being open to a multitude of truths and realising the significance of the bible, and the koran, and the Adi Granth, and the Bhagavad Gita, and the Vedas and all the ancient wisdom texts and their influence on the evolution of community.

So, grandpa used to saY "ya don't want to know, then don't ask."

And why don't you want to know?

God Bless you,
Pat

God has blessed me with his anscence.

May you be happy, wise, loving and peaceful.

I LOVED your responce. Too bad you couldn't add sarcaism

My lil'old catholic feelings are just danddy. THANKS for asking!

You made a few good points. But it's still a question mark for me.

God Bless,
Pat

[Goat]

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

Every time I hear that term, I keep thinking of animal house.

[youtube][/youtube]

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
...You have yourself listed as a Christian, and you specifically referred to quantum mechanics as "the Great Quantum Nothing."...

EduChris wrote:
Quantum theory is a scientific theory which has no logically necessary bearing on the debate between theism and non-theism.

When you make statements like "The goal of atheism is to convince themselves and others that Ultimate Reality does not involve purpose," then quantum mechanics suddenly does have a bearing on the debate between theism and non-theism. Unless you are prepared to claim that the universe itself is intelligent, essentially the mind of God... and you might for all I know, then what we observe is that the universe operates on the principal of positive-negative attraction-repulsion. Which is the basis for quantum mechanics. Which is hardly "the Great Quantum Nothing." It's everything in fact which is NOT nothing.

However, the philosophical claim that Quantum Theory accounts for "everything" effectively elevates a scientific theory (or a mathematical model) to the status of "Ultimate Reality." This philosophical elevation of the mathematical model is what I have referred to as the non-theist's "Great Quantum Nothing."

Quantum mechanics is not a "philosophical claim" at all! It is a dispassionate scientific observation. It's the basis for all of our modern technology in fact. Does that computer you are sitting at actually work, or is it nothing more than a "philosophical claim" made by non-theists?

The vast majority of non-theists here on this forum, yourself included, simply have no understanding of modern-day, philosophically aware theism.

I'm aware of it, I'm just not impressed by it. Instead of endlessly chasing my own tail I prefer to try and understand how the universe ACTUALLY works, based on what we ACTUALLY observe about it. Make believe only has value to those who prefer a universe modeled after their own emotional needs.

Therefore, when you make statements about the positions of theists, you typically misconstrue those positions; and moreover, when we theists make statements about our positions, you misinterpret those statements because they don't fit neatly into your preconceived notions.

By "preconceived notions," would that not apply directly to notions of irrefutable truths placed into one's head by others since the time of one's earliest memories? One person's "preconceived notions" are another person's hard line indoctrination it seems to me. My "preconceived notions" of Christians come from having been raised one as a child, having known many Christians over the years, and having read the NT. If you do not personally believe that the corpse of Jesus returned to life and then flew away, you cannot possibly be a Christian. You might consider YOURSELF to be a Christian, but I am afraid the weight of public opinion would be against you on that score.

It would be nice if this forum could be a place where misunderstandings decrease and mutual understanding could increase. Alas, human nature always seems to rear its ugly head. All too often, we end up simply talking past each other rather than trying to understand each other.

Misunderstandings decrease with dialog, which is what we are having. Admittedly, clearing the air does not necessarily lower the level of mutual disdain for the other person's position. It does tend to throw a terrific spotlight on weak arguments and unsubstantiated claims however. If truth is really the goal then recognizing weak arguments and unsubstantiated claims for what they are should be of value to all concerned. Unfortunately for theists, emotional investment invariably trumps undeniable fact.

[EduChris]

...quantum mechanics suddenly does have a bearing on the debate between theism and non-theism...the universe operates on the principal of positive-negative attraction-repulsion...It's everything...

Quantum theory is our attempt to model how our universe operates. As such, it is a scientific theory of great utility. However, the sudden switch from a useful theory to a supra-universal claim is a philosophical move, not a scientific one.

The vast majority of non-theists here on this forum, yourself included, simply have no understanding of modern-day, philosophically aware theism.

I'm aware of it, I'm just not impressed by it...If you do not personally believe that the corpse of Jesus returned to life and then flew away, you cannot possibly be a Christian...

And virtually every modern Christian theologian would disagree with you here, and this is precisely why I claim you have no understanding of modern Christian theology. What you were exposed to is a popular, street-level sort of theology which modern-day Christian scholars at respected Christian seminaries and universities endeavor to counteract.

...emotional investment invariably trumps undeniable fact.

Yes, that is our common human condition (with the caveat that we have precious few "facts" which are "undeniable").

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Quantum theory is our attempt to model how our universe operates. As such, it is a scientific theory of great utility. However, the sudden switch from a useful theory to a supra-universal claim is a philosophical move, not a scientific one.

Does our modern technology actually work, or when we use it is that merely a "philosophical move, not a scientific one" on our part? Are we really so deluded?

And virtually every modern Christian theologian would disagree with you here, and this is precisely why I claim you have no understanding of modern Christian theology. What you were exposed to is a popular, street-level sort of theology which modern-day Christian scholars at respected Christian seminaries and universities endeavor to counteract.

Virtually every modern Christian theologian? This is rather a bold statement and one which requires at least a reasonable measure of evidence on your part. The entire basis for Christianity is founded on the truth of the resurrection. If Jesus was not resurrected from the dead, then clearly Christianity is OF MAN and not of God. And on this point you and I would find ourselves in total agreement. So by all means, show me that "Virtually every modern Christian theologian" denies the truth of the resurrection. If you can do so, I will happily concede this point.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
...emotional investment invariably trumps undeniable fact.

EduChris wrote:
Yes, that is our common human condition (with the caveat that we have precious few "facts" which are "undeniable").

NONSENSE! Many facts are undeniable. For example, it is impossible for a person to throw a baseball entirely off of planet Earth. Try as hard as you wish. Get as many people helping you as you can find. None of you will ever throw a baseball off of planet Earth using as many attempts as you want. And in fact we know scientifically through experimentation just how much speed it takes to reach escape velocity. It's a little over 11 km/s. No human in the history of humans has ever possessed the ability to throw an object 11 kilometers a second. The conclusion that a person cannot throw a baseball entirely off of planet Earth is undeniable and will remain undeniable until such time as a person DOES throw a baseball entirely off of planet Earth. But I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

While I will grant you that it impossible for fallible humans to know things to an absolute degree of certainty, it is certainly possible to know things to an "undeniable" degree of certainty. One could scarcely make it through a single day alive were this not true. Of course it is always possible to ARGUE that up is really down, that black is really white, and that reindeer and corpses are capable of flight. But again, that reflects directly on a person's credibility, doesn't it!

[Flail]

Quantum theory is our attempt to model how our universe operates. As such, it is a scientific theory of great utility. However, the sudden switch from a useful theory to a supra-universal claim is a philosophical move, not a scientific one.

Does our modern technology actually work, or when we use it is that merely a "philosophical move, not a scientific one" on our part? Are we really so deluded?

And virtually every modern Christian theologian would disagree with you here, and this is precisely why I claim you have no understanding of modern Christian theology. What you were exposed to is a popular, street-level sort of theology which modern-day Christian scholars at respected Christian seminaries and universities endeavor to counteract.

Virtually every modern Christian theologian? This is rather a bold statement and one which requires at least a reasonable measure of evidence on your part. The entire basis for Christianity is founded on the truth of the resurrection. If Jesus was not resurrected from the dead, then clearly Christianity is OF MAN and not of God. And on this point you and I would find ourselves in total agreement. So by all means, show me that "Virtually every modern Christian theologian" denies the truth of the resurrection. If you can do so, I will happily concede this point.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
...emotional investment invariably trumps undeniable fact.

EduChris wrote:
Yes, that is our common human condition (with the caveat that we have precious few "facts" which are "undeniable").

NONSENSE! Many facts are undeniable. For example, it is impossible for a person to throw a baseball entirely off of planet Earth. Try as hard as you wish. Get as many people helping you as you can find. None of you will ever throw a baseball off of planet Earth using as many attempts as you want. And in fact we know scientifically through experimentation just how much speed it takes to reach escape velocity. It's a little over 11 km/s. No human in the history of humans has ever possessed the ability to throw an object 11 kilometers a second. The conclusion that a person cannot throw a baseball entirely off of planet Earth is undeniable and will remain undeniable until such time as a person DOES throw a baseball entirely off of planet Earth. But I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

While I will grant you that it impossible for fallible humans to know things to an absolute degree of certainty, it is certainly possible to know things to an "undeniable" degree of certainty. One could scarcely make it through a single day alive were this not true. Of course it is always possible to ARGUE that up is really down, that black is really white, and that reindeer and corpses are capable of flight. But again, that reflects directly on a person's credibility, doesn't it!

I agree with you here. Skepticism is one thing and something to which I subscribe; but denying the obvious in order to justify some form of superstition just won't cut it in the real world.

[Flail]

EduChris wrote:

And virtually every modern Christian theologian would disagree with you here, and this is precisely why I claim you have no understanding of modern Christian theology. What you were exposed to is a popular, street-level sort of theology which modern-day Christian scholars at respected Christian seminaries and universities endeavor to counteract.

This claim has become common here although, living in Texas, I have never observed it in the real world. Frankly I like the idea of a modernist, 'agnostic', metaphorical approach to all things Christian. But my question is this: to what or to whom do you worship in church specifically, and toward what end? Do you engage in ritual practices and if so, for whose benefit? Is someone watching or listening? Do you expect supernatural beings to answer your prayers?

[Filthy Tugboat]

...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

Sorry that I missed it in the first post. After giving it a read through are you saying that "ultimate reality" is either an infinite regression or a "first cause" regarding the universe and it's origin's? And it's relevance here is the primary assumptions of whether there is purpose inherent within this ultimate reality. Couldn't the discussion of purpose apply to standard reality or do you think this discussion should remain tied to the belief's regarding the universe's origins.

...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.

Can you show that this is true?

If you accept the essence of theism, then you are a theist.

Can you show that this is true? Again, by rejecting theism you do not necessarily reject everything within theism, you could maintain the moral system within some theism's, or various rituals, etc...

If you reject the essence of theim, then you are a non-theist. Or can you point to some specific counterexample to my claim?

I don't have to, I'm not saying that not all theists believe that purpose is inherent within the universe, I'm questioning your notion that non-theism necessarily rejects the notion of universal purpose. Or if you prefer, a purposeful ultimate reality.

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.

I don't know every non-theist, so I could not claim that no non-theist believes in a purposeful ultimate reality. You seem to think that non-theism must necessarily reject the notion of a purposeful ultimate reality, I want you to show me the truth behind statements proposing this.

...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.

Can you show that a non-theist must necessarily reject the entire notion of theism in general. Can you show that a non-theist must necessarily reject the notion of purposeful ultimate reality along with whatever deity they would care to acknowledge?

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.

First you have to show that non-theism necessarily rejects the notion of purposeful ultimate reality. If you can't then your above post isn't necessarily true.

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.

This thread is discussion the possibility and the presence of an "atheist agenda". How is the discussion of a purposeful(or non-purposeful) ultimate reality relevant?

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.

I don't need to provide a counter example, you have not supported your claim, only made it.

...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).

You want me to be more specific when I ask you for more specific directions to what you were trying to link me? What?

Here is that link:
http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/artic ... leID=99454
I'm not sure if this is what you were trying to link me to originally, I'm asking you.

[Janx]

Hi get right to it....

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

I am wondering if the nature of conflict and ideas has any effect on these questions. In a way those concepts could animate the direction of atheism. Ideas spread. Especially good ones.

So perhaps by default the "unintended" end game is for atheism to grow to capacity. Like any good idea?

Outside of that possibility I would say that atheism just sits around and does nothing. No goals, no end game, doesn't care if its satisfied. Just an idea. Kinda a slacker really.

Hi David,

I think the answer to this question lies not with atheists but whatever philosophy and worldview will replace iron age monotheistic traditions.

I believe the rise of atheism in the world comes not from some agenda to topple religion but from the fact that religion is beginning to show it's age in this modern world. Strict atheism is a result of lack in options rather than spirituality.

Atheism is not a destination but rather just one prerequisite on the road to adopting new worldviews and philosophies. People are still drawn to spiritualism and continue to search for answers to life's big questions. Shamanism, pantheism, monotheism, I don't know what the next big step in our spiritual journey will be.