Does atheism "cure" the supposed ills of religion?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Paul of Tarsus
Banned
Banned
Posts: 688
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2020 8:42 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 150 times

Does atheism "cure" the supposed ills of religion?

Post #1

Post by Paul of Tarsus »

We've all heard the horror stories preached by atheists (or at least I've heard them) regarding the presumed ill effects of religious belief. We are told that Christians and other theists tend to be intolerant, narrow-minded, fanatical, often immoral, and irrational. And atheism, if not the cure for these ills, is "the 911 call." It's a step in the right direction toward truth and logic and laying to rest all those religious beliefs that have led to so much injustice and cruelty.

Is it true that atheism cures the supposed ills of religion?

I must admit that at one time I thought it was. However, after many debates with atheists, I'm not so sure anymore. I've seen a LOT of muddled thinking among atheists in those discussions not to mention intolerance for opposing viewpoints. Fanaticism and irrationality apparently are not the unique traits of the religious.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: Does atheism "cure" the supposed ills of religion?

Post #81

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Rather interesting to see that the debate has strayed from whether atheism thinks it can cure the 'supposed ills of religion' or even about whether religion causes ills, but is about the rationale and claims (if any) of atheism and, I note, trying to link the debate to abiogenesis, like if the origins of life from 'primordial ooze' can't be proved, somehow that invalidates atheism.

It doesn't work like that. Even if not only abiogenesis was disproved tomorrow, but evolution -theory, too, that would not do a thing to make the god - claim more logically tenable, let alone any of the religious claims.

The discussion reasonably ought to be a little debate about which is better for society - secularity or religion, rather than trying to debunk atheism. But that is nearly always how these discussions end up.

But just sayin'; argument from incredulity (which is what mocking at 'primordial ooze' is) is no valid argument in itself (it's a logical fallacy), let alone being a way to debunk atheism.

User avatar
Paul of Tarsus
Banned
Banned
Posts: 688
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2020 8:42 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 150 times

Re: Does atheism "cure" the supposed ills of religion?

Post #82

Post by Paul of Tarsus »

brunumb wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 12:45 am
Paul of Tarsus wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 10:49 pm OK, then appoint an atheist to be the "die-hard atheist," and then make him the infallible interpreter of what it means to be an atheist.
Rather nonsensical...
Tell that to the atheists here who are coming up with the nonsense.
...but far more acceptable than having a believer in gods telling atheists what it is their atheism really means.
The fallacy here is your assumption that atheism has some absolute and objective meaning known to atheists and that any theist who has a different view of atheism is necessarily wrong. The truth, of course, is that meaning is subjective, and an atheist can have an understanding of atheism that is every bit as legitimate as any atheist's understanding of atheism. A person need not be a member of a group to understand that group. In fact, people who are not members of a group may understand that group far better than many members of that group do.
A God might exist, but that is a somewhat useless statement compared with telling us that a God actually does exist.


That's beside the point. In the context of this discussion the claim was made that the inability of theists to prove God exists is evidence that God doesn't exist. The possibility of God existing despite theists not proving he exists disproves that claim.

I'd recommend you take care to follow the discussion more closely.
In the absence of evidence, what reason should anyone have for accepting the claim, let alone going along with all the instructions and prohibitions that allegedly stem from said God?
You're assuming there is an absence of evidence. I think there is evidence for God, but that's an issue beyond the scope of this debate.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Does atheism "cure" the supposed ills of religion?

Post #83

Post by JoeyKnothead »

From Post 78:
On the whole, the notion that God might exist is generally accepted by both sides. Hence the debate. The inability of theists to prove that their God exists is not regarded as evidence that God does not exist.
Paul of Tarsus" wrote: Tell Knothead that. It is his idea.
Fer sher. I propose it's more logical to conclude theists' are them just a big ol bunch of liars when they refuse to address challenges to their claims, here on a site made up to do it.

So go ahead, do please ask me how it is, theists' just magically can't tell em when their claims are agetting challenged.

I CAN AND WILL SHOW MULTIPLE INSTANCES OF THEISTS REFUSING TO, OR MAGICALLY NOT REALIZING THEIR CLAIMS HAVE BEEN CHALLENGED.


The liar lies, and the preacher preaches!


That's what they do. They lie, and they preach, and they dance around any challenges to their goofy claims.

"But, but, atheists..." Doesn't excuse the god claimant from responsibility to show they speak truth
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: Does atheism "cure" the supposed ills of religion?

Post #84

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Paul of Tarsus wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 12:48 pm
brunumb wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 12:45 am
Paul of Tarsus wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 10:49 pm OK, then appoint an atheist to be the "die-hard atheist," and then make him the infallible interpreter of what it means to be an atheist.
Rather nonsensical...
Tell that to the atheists here who are coming up with the nonsense.
...but far more acceptable than having a believer in gods telling atheists what it is their atheism really means.
The fallacy here is your assumption that atheism has some absolute and objective meaning known to atheists and that any theist who has a different view of atheism is necessarily wrong. The truth, of course, is that meaning is subjective, and an atheist can have an understanding of atheism that is every bit as legitimate as any atheist's understanding of atheism. A person need not be a member of a group to understand that group. In fact, people who are not members of a group may understand that group far better than many members of that group do.
A God might exist, but that is a somewhat useless statement compared with telling us that a God actually does exist.


That's beside the point. In the context of this discussion the claim was made that the inability of theists to prove God exists is evidence that God doesn't exist. The possibility of God existing despite theists not proving he exists disproves that claim.

I'd recommend you take care to follow the discussion more closely.
In the absence of evidence, what reason should anyone have for accepting the claim, let alone going along with all the instructions and prohibitions that allegedly stem from said God?
You're assuming there is an absence of evidence. I think there is evidence for God, but that's an issue beyond the scope of this debate.
Atheism has a number of 'meanings' assigned to it. Notably by theists. In fact atheists generally deny the god -claim. That's what it is, and what else could it be? It is futile to argue about who gets to decide what it is.

The validity of that rejection of the god -claim is subject to evidence and logic, because the atheist (who does not do faith -claims) has nothing else but evidence and logic ri use to come to conclusions. The claim that 'No gods exist' is logically untenable as there is no way of knowing, for sure. So even if atheists think like that, the rationale of atheism is agnosticism 'We don't know whether any gods exist'. And that logically mandates non -belief, until we do know. Agnosticism is not the 'possible' validation of a god, and never has been.

And the burden of proof then falls on the one making to God -claim to show us that a god really exists. That is the logical basis and rationale of atheism and it can't really be anything else, even if some atheists might say something else. Quite apart from theists trying to force on atheism a definite claim that a god does not exist, thereby making it look as though atheism has the burden of proof. It doesn't.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: Does atheism "cure" the supposed ills of religion?

Post #85

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Paul of Tarsus wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 10:49 pm
brunumb wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 8:55 pm
Paul of Tarsus wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 11:08 am My point is that the inability on the part of some people to prove God exists is very weak evidence that God does not exist. God might well exist even though some theists cannot prove he exists.
On the whole, the notion that God might exist is generally accepted by both sides. Hence the debate. The inability of theists to prove that their God exists is not regarded as evidence that God does not exist.
Tell Knothead that. It is his idea.
It is, however, a compelling reason to not accept the claim that God does in fact exist. You appear to be misrepresenting the way atheists regard the lack of evidence for God.
I'm just responding to what an atheist just got done posting. Your comment here reminds me of Christians who believe in an invisible man-god in the sky but deny it whenever somebody points out how absurd that idea is. It goes like this:

Say something dumb.
When somebody points out that what you said is dumb, deny you said it.
brunumb wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 8:57 pm
Paul of Tarsus wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 8:35 pm So who made you the pope of atheism being the infallible interpreter of what it means to be an atheist?
A die-hard theist is hardly in a better position to assert what it means to be an atheist.
OK, then appoint an atheist to be the "die-hard atheist," and then make him the infallible interpreter of what it means to be an atheist. If anybody sees atheism differently, then proclaim their ideas to be false and heretical. After all, the die-hard atheist has the Truth (uppercase T), and all those who oppose him utter falsehoods.

Atheism is then seen to be no cure for mindless allegiance to authority.
;) Oh no you don't. We are not going to find some atheist Authority and make him tle Law -giver of atheism.

It is something that emerges naturally from looking at the god -claims and saying: 'I don't buy it'. That is all it takes to be an atheist and all it needs. As I said, the 'No god exists' atheist would soon find themselves unable to maintain such a positive 'negative' claim and would have to drop positive denial in favour of a logically tenable non -belief stance, pending convincing evidence for a god. The logical basis of atheism would develop itself, without any Rule -make (other than the rules of logic) having to promulgate any edicts about it.

If you or anyone else wants to question or debate the logical basis of agnostic -atheism, feel free. It's why I'm here.

User avatar
Paul of Tarsus
Banned
Banned
Posts: 688
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2020 8:42 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 150 times

Re: Does atheism "cure" the supposed ills of religion?

Post #86

Post by Paul of Tarsus »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 9:44 amAtheism has a number of 'meanings' assigned to it. Notably by theists. In fact atheists generally deny the god -claim. That's what it is, and what else could it be? It is futile to argue about who gets to decide what it is.
As you may have noticed, some atheists insist that the true meaning of atheism is lack of belief in gods. One problem with this view is that it dogmatically excludes other meanings from consideration. It is also different from the "traditional" meaning of atheism being the denial of God's existence. Finally, if atheism is understood as lack of belief in gods, then those who see no reason to believe in God yet still have the smallest doubt that God does not exist would be labeled as theists!
The validity of that rejection of the god -claim is subject to evidence and logic, because the atheist (who does not do faith -claims) has nothing else but evidence and logic ri use to come to conclusions.
And that evidence and logic against God's existence should be scrutinized every bit as thoroughly as the evidence and logic offered for God's existence. Atheists seem to hate it when their claims are scrutinized.
The claim that 'No gods exist' is logically untenable as there is no way of knowing, for sure. So even if atheists think like that, the rationale of atheism is agnosticism 'We don't know whether any gods exist'. And that logically mandates non -belief, until we do know. Agnosticism is not the 'possible' validation of a god, and never has been.
The claim that no gods exist isn't really illogical. It's more of a claim that is difficult or impossible to prove and a claim that might be wrong. So it's OK to believe that no gods exist but wise to keep in mind that that belief can be in error.
And the burden of proof then falls on the one making to God -claim to show us that a god really exists. That is the logical basis and rationale of atheism and it can't really be anything else, even if some atheists might say something else. Quite apart from theists trying to force on atheism a definite claim that a god does not exist, thereby making it look as though atheism has the burden of proof. It doesn't.
I agree that the person(s) making claims have the burden of proof, and in the debate over God's existence neither atheists nor theists seem to want that burden.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: Does atheism "cure" the supposed ills of religion?

Post #87

Post by Bust Nak »

Paul of Tarsus wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 5:56 pm It is also different from the "traditional" meaning of atheism being the denial of God's existence.
Do you see a difference between "denial of God's existence" and "affirmation of God's non-existence?" I ask because lack of belief in gods re: "I don't believe in God existence" sounds like a denial to me.
Finally, if atheism is understood as lack of belief in gods, then those who see no reason to believe in God yet still have the smallest doubt that God does not exist would be labeled as theists!
Why? Someone who has doubt that God does not exist, can still lack belief in gods, can't they? I think I fit that bill.
Atheists seem to hate it when their claims are scrutinized.
A bit of a generalisation.
I agree that the person(s) making claims have the burden of proof, and in the debate over God's existence neither atheists nor theists seem to want that burden.
So who is making the claims in the debate over God's existence?

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: Does atheism "cure" the supposed ills of religion?

Post #88

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Paul of Tarsus wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 5:56 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 9:44 amAtheism has a number of 'meanings' assigned to it. Notably by theists. In fact atheists generally deny the god -claim. That's what it is, and what else could it be? It is futile to argue about who gets to decide what it is.
As you may have noticed, some atheists insist that the true meaning of atheism is lack of belief in gods. One problem with this view is that it dogmatically excludes other meanings from consideration. It is also different from the "traditional" meaning of atheism being the denial of God's existence. Finally, if atheism is understood as lack of belief in gods, then those who see no reason to believe in God yet still have the smallest doubt that God does not exist would be labeled as theists!
The validity of that rejection of the god -claim is subject to evidence and logic, because the atheist (who does not do faith -claims) has nothing else but evidence and logic ri use to come to conclusions.
And that evidence and logic against God's existence should be scrutinized every bit as thoroughly as the evidence and logic offered for God's existence. Atheists seem to hate it when their claims are scrutinized.
The claim that 'No gods exist' is logically untenable as there is no way of knowing, for sure. So even if atheists think like that, the rationale of atheism is agnosticism 'We don't know whether any gods exist'. And that logically mandates non -belief, until we do know. Agnosticism is not the 'possible' validation of a god, and never has been.
The claim that no gods exist isn't really illogical. It's more of a claim that is difficult or impossible to prove and a claim that might be wrong. So it's OK to believe that no gods exist but wise to keep in mind that that belief can be in error.
And the burden of proof then falls on the one making to God -claim to show us that a god really exists. That is the logical basis and rationale of atheism and it can't really be anything else, even if some atheists might say something else. Quite apart from theists trying to force on atheism a definite claim that a god does not exist, thereby making it look as though atheism has the burden of proof. It doesn't.
I agree that the person(s) making claims have the burden of proof, and in the debate over God's existence neither atheists nor theists seem to want that burden.
Yes, that's all pretty sound. The meaning or definition is lack of belief in gods. The 'traditional' meaning of denial is of course from the theist view where they commit the logical fallacy of assuming a god as a given without presenting any evidence for it.

We know why - anything that is there, some huge Somebody must have put it there. Anything that can't be explained - a god did it. It is science, presenting explanations that don't require a god, that has made the doubt of a god - explanation valid. 'God' has been pushed back into the few 'unexplainedes' ('gaps for God') which are consciousness, Life and cosmic origins.

You are correct - there are other meanings of 'God'. The way it works (or ought to) is that the believer tells us (goddless) what they mean by 'God', and it would help is they said which god, too, for all they say 'it's all the same God' and then damn each other for worshipping the wrong one. The burden of proof is then on the god -claimant to present evidence for their god and all the non -believer has to do is consider the evidence and see whether it is convincing.

It isn't (as some god -apologists have tried) the job of the atheist to define 'God', though the traditional Abrahamic god is usually the one and that means a creative impalpable cosmic mind that creates. Creation is probably the one thing where God lost ground. I often say (usually before coffee) that before Darwin, you had Deists, afterwards, you had atheists. There's also the belief in this god intervening, knowing our thoughts, able to do anything and having it all planned from the start.

That's where the Problem of Evil comes in. Why, if so, is the world looking like a rat's nest? I often say (usually after coffee) that the world looks exactly like it world would if there was no god there. In fact Christian apologetics largely deals with excuses. Blaming Men, (women are never to blame ;) ) Satan or God being hogtied by free will. We atheists don't buy it and it is remarkably often the Problem of Evil that is mentioned in deconversion stories. It makes more sense..indeed it makes perfect sense...if there was no God there, and we were on our own.

What more did you say?.... The claim that no gods exist Is illogical but not unreasonable, which is probably what you meant. It is not logical to claim as though known (no gods exist) what cannot be known for sure, but it is quite reasonable to say 'No gods exist as far as we know and the way evidence looks. A sort of starting hypothesis that the believers have to disprove. That is, provide good reason to propose the existence of a god.

Which is why the furious attempts to p[rove a creator are rather amusing, as that doesn't tell us which one. In fact the Creationists (after kitzmiller v. Dover debunked ID as science) tries to detach ID from religion by talking of 'scientific evidence for a creator' without reference to religion, (though they said they believed it was Biblegod).

But that's where the problem happens of taking a divine creator and doing the 'leap of Faith' to a particular religion. In fact atheism doesn't care about a possible creator - one could call that Intelligent evolution. It is the gods of Holy Books and of organised religion that is the problem.

Which finally brings us back to topic. The debates about the good or bad or religion vs. secularism are about organised religion and its' grip on society. Atheism sees secularism (humanism in society) as always for the better, quite apart from being (on evidence) true. That's why it may be seen as 'curing ills'.

Post Reply