Should we (atheist apologists) spend more time advocating...

Argue for and against religions and philosophies which are not Christian

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Ooberman
Banned
Banned
Posts: 4262
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 6:02 pm
Location: Philadelphia

Should we (atheist apologists) spend more time advocating...

Post #1

Post by Ooberman »

Should we (atheist apologists) spend more time advocating Science, rather than attacking superstitious beliefs?

I feel we are advocates, often, but do we "evangelize" enough?
Thinking about God's opinions and thinking about your own opinions uses an identical thought process. - Tomas Rees

User avatar
Ooberman
Banned
Banned
Posts: 4262
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 6:02 pm
Location: Philadelphia

Post #11

Post by Ooberman »

Goat wrote:
Ooberman wrote: Atheism is, like theism, the position one holds on one question: "Is there a God?"

That, philosophically, is the proper way of talking about it.

However, as we know theists (and atheists) have different views about what the answer to that questions means.

Here, informally, we know that a majority of atheists are science-oriented, if atheist apologists are going advocate their "no god" position, they might attach it to a "pro science" message, rather than "there is no god and you know it".

Likewise, as you know some theists might advocate for Jesus, but others may advocate for Buddha.

So, yes, atheism only means "no god", but we use the term loosely when speaking informally.

If, however, you are in a philosophical debate (where terms are more precise), then you have to consider atheism means "no god" and nothing else.


Informally, science and atheism go well together, and many atheists find their lack of belief in gods strongly tied to the supporting evidence provided by science. Something theists struggle with doing for their beliefs.
I somewhat disagree. Science makes atheism intellectually rewarding. However, the atheist will use science, not so much to disprove God, but to show that other claims that go along with the claim there is a God is factually incorrect. For example, the claim 'the earth was created in 6 days', or 'there was a world wide flood', or 'noahs ark is on such and such a peak'. Those are claims about the real world that religion claims, that can be addressed and shown to be incorrect.
I can agree with that. I'm sure we would find more agreement than less on this issue. And, the places we disagree may not be that important to the larger issue.

My goal was to make it clear that in some cases we use the term "atheist" rather informally and can include people who are 'apologists'. For example, theism isn't a religion - nor is atheism - however, so many atheists are science-respectful that it's easier to lump them as "atheists" rather than create a new term like "science-ists".

And, the larger goal of the OP was to talk about how we atheists (science-respectful or not) might provide positive advocacy for the position, rather than not.


However, since atheism can only exist if there is first a God Claim, I don't know how one can truly be an atheist advocate. It would be like advocating for no Big foot - surely a dreary and unrewarding task...

Hence, if we focus on some benefits that can only come if there is no God, it could be more rewarding.
Thinking about God's opinions and thinking about your own opinions uses an identical thought process. - Tomas Rees

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9133
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Post #12

Post by bluethread »

Ooberman wrote: Atheism is, like theism, the position one holds on one question: "Is there a God?"

That, philosophically, is the proper way of talking about it.

However, as we know theists (and atheists) have different views about what the answer to that questions means.
Yes, therefore, one should not use the term loosely, any more than a theist should use the term theist to refer to Christianity or Islam just because one sees one or the other as the dominant view among theists.

Your exchange with Goat is to the point. One can not advocate against something, that is being a contrarian. One can not just be a contrarian, one must acknowledge something. It is that which one acknowledges that one can advocate for.

User avatar
Ooberman
Banned
Banned
Posts: 4262
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 6:02 pm
Location: Philadelphia

Post #13

Post by Ooberman »

bluethread wrote: Yes, therefore, one should not use the term loosely, any more than a theist should use the term theist to refer to Christianity or Islam just because one sees one or the other as the dominant view among theists.

Your exchange with Goat is to the point. One can not advocate against something, that is being a contrarian. One can not just be a contrarian, one must acknowledge something. It is that which one acknowledges that one can advocate for.
That's fine. I think you are right in a rigorous sense that "one ought to use terms precisely if one wants to be precise", but, of course, there is no "OUGHT" that we need to adhere to - to wit, people will continue to use the term loosely, and the hearer may need to adjust to the informal situation.

I will try to be more precise, I'll say "atheist" when I mean it in the rigorous sense and "Atheist" when in the informal.

So, an Atheist Apologist might have a few Pro- positions:

1. Advocate removal of Theistic ideas in Public (politics, gov't, schools)
2. Advocate education to disabuse people of theistic beliefs.
3. Advocate the rejection of theistic claims. For example, fighting against claims made in religious texts that allegedly come from gods.


Certainly, atheists and Atheists are not in a vacuum. Theist claims are made everywhere. "In God We Trust" for example.
Thinking about God's opinions and thinking about your own opinions uses an identical thought process. - Tomas Rees

paarsurrey1
Sage
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:19 pm

Re: Should we (atheist apologists) spend more time advocatin

Post #14

Post by paarsurrey1 »

[Replying to post 3 by Divine Insight]
No science is required to dismiss the Hebrew Bible.
And no science is required to dismiss Atheism, either. Right, please?
Regards

Post Reply