The Classical Freedom loving Left vs the Regressive Leftists

[Tahuti]

I haven't kept pace with this thread, but I'm reminded how often people - not people here, necessarily, just people in general - confuse or conflate the terms atheist, agnostic, and secular. iirc, in The God Delusion, Dawkins couldn't quite categorize himself as either atheist or agnostic, but he liked aspects of each, and so described himself as "agnostic-atheist", or something like that. That was 10 years ago, so maybe he's clarified (or confused) his position since then.

There is also the thing of Nontheism, which may be combined with Atheism, Apatheism and even Theism. Simply put, Nontheism is the lack of veneration of god(s) which may or may not be combined with denial of its/their existence.

 

[warpus]

There is no logical contradiction in someone being both an atheist and an agnostic. I am one of those people, AMA.

 

[Hygro]

If this thread proves anything, it's that Rolf Dobelli was right about avoiding news.

Dunno Rolf but yeah, I largely agree. The middle pages of a newspaper are okay.

 

[Flying Pig]

There is no logical contradiction in someone being both an atheist and an agnostic. I am one of those people, AMA.

How does that work? I thought atheism was positive denial of gods, as opposed to lack of belief but accepting the possibility, or considering that it's impossible to know.

 

[Ryika]

How does that work? I thought atheism was positive denial of gods, as opposed to lack of belief but accepting the possibility, or considering that it's impossible to know.

There are multiple definitions of the word Atheism, one being simply not believing in gods because of a lack of evidence.

An agnostic Atheist is simply a person who does not believe in gods but does not claim to know whether gods exist or not.

 

[EgonSpengler]

There are multiple definitions of the word Atheism, one being simply not believing in gods because of a lack of evidence.

An agnostic Atheist is simply a person who does not believe in gods but does not claim to know whether gods exist or not.

Exactly. A Dawkins-ish agnostic-atheist would say that the likelihood that God doesn't exist is greater than the likelihood that He does, purely as a logical thought experiment. I kind of come from that direction myself, with the added weight of all the phenomena that has been shown to be natural and not supernatural over the centuries. Mankind has proven itself unreservedly terrible at interpreting the world around us, except by reason and the scientific method (and heck, that's far from 100% too, but it's better than all the laughable mumbo-jumbo we come up with in its absence). Using our 5 senses and our intuition and creativity, and generalizing from personal experience, we humans are horrible, just utter crap, at reaching a real understanding of the world around us.

 

[Cheetah]

Meh.

The lot of us who are not religious are all agnostic in theory, and atheists in practice.

 

[Cheetah]

But that position is an ideology, and one that is not shared by all atheists. Given this, a label is appropriate as a means to distinguish it from other atheists. New Atheism is the label that commentators have set upon. I don't really see a problem with it as a label. It doesn't seem pejorative or unkind.

If it is a term used exclusively by its detractors, then what do the proponents of the ideology call themselves? It would be cute to call them the Horsemen, but that's a less useful label.

What ideology? Secularism? It's pretty clear that they don't want religion to control society, so just call them secularists then.

Their positions aren't really any different from the one of other atheists, except for the fact that they don't stay silent about their lack of belief.

'New atheism' simply seems to include atheists who talk about being atheists. If you want to bring in politics as well, then call them (and me) 'secular atheists'.

 

[warpus]

How does that work? I thought atheism was positive denial of gods, as opposed to lack of belief but accepting the possibility, or considering that it's impossible to know.

Atheism deals with belief while agnosticism deals with knowledge, two related but different concepts. You are thinking of strong atheism only when you say atheism as well, which is probably where the contradiction/confusion begins.

Every single weak atheist is probably also an agnostic, but I haven't really thought about it too long, so that could be not fully correct. However, I can say with a lot more certainty that no strong atheist can also be an agnostic, as a strong atheist believes that Gods do not exist, which is I believe incompatible with any sort of agnosticism.

 

[Leoreth]

I guess if you are strong on empirical positivism, you could be a strong atheist and agnostic at the same time. As in, there is no evidence for gods so I can assert that they do not exist.

 

[EgonSpengler]

There is also the thing of Nontheism, which may be combined with Atheism, Apatheism and even Theism. Simply put, Nontheism is the lack of veneration of god(s) which may or may not be combined with denial of its/their existence.

I had to look up apatheism. I hadn't heard that one before. According to wikipedia,

Apatheism (/ˌæpəˈθiːɪzəm/ a portmanteau of apathy and theism/atheism), also known as pragmatic atheism or practical atheism, is acting with apathy, disregard, or lack of interest towards belief or disbelief in a deity or deities.

An apatheist is someone who is not interested in accepting or denying any claims that gods exist or do not exist. An apatheist lives as if there are no gods and explains natural phenomena without reference to any deities. The existence of gods is not rejected, but may be designated unnecessary or useless; gods neither provide purpose to life, nor influence everyday life, according to this view.

In other words, an apatheist is someone who considers the question of the existence of gods as neither meaningful nor relevant to their life. Some apatheists hold that if it were possible to prove that God does or does not exist, their behavior would not change.

This seems to align easily with agnosticism, secularism, and the "spiritual but not religious" people, at least when it comes to things like law and public policy, where the debates around religion tend to get heated. To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens, I would be happy to 'live and let live', but there are religions and churches within religions who simply will not allow that, who do not believe in a separation of church and state or in a basic freedom of religion.

-

Thinking more about the "spiritual but not religious" people, there are also many of their opposites here in the US, people who are culturally religious, but not especially spiritual. These are folks whose attachment to religion is social or a family heritage, almost like an ethnicity. They may be agnostics or atheists or anything else. The biggest groups of those I'm personally familiar with are the 'ethnically-Catholic' and 'ethnically-Jewish.'

There are Catholics who were baptized and maybe went to Sunday school when they were kids, but haven't gone to mass or confession as adults, or even really believe in God. They enjoy celebrating Christmas and visiting Boston's North End or New York's Little Italy for the festivals of Saint X, Y & Z (they might say they just go for the food). They may go to Rome to see St. Peter's Basilica and the Sistine Chapel. For weddings and funerals and traumatic events like a disaster or a child's illness they might find themselves in a church or a cathedral.

Similarly, Judaism is important culturally for many American Jews who aren't religious, who could be utterly agnostic or atheist. They may not have been to temple in years, but they know a few words of Hebrew or Yiddish and celebrate Hannukah with their families. They incorporate some Jewish traditions into weddings and funerals, and think it's important to teach their children about The Holocaust. They may or may not be Zionist, but they have some affection or empathy or conflicted feelings for Israel, and are sensitive to antisemitism.

I imagine there are culturally-Buddhist, culturally-Hindu, and culturally-Muslim Americans too.

 

[warpus]

I guess I might be an apatheist then, but I am of the opinion that I would change my mind, if God actually showed up in some capacity and was all "Hey, I'm here, believe in me, here look at this magic trick", so maybe that disqualifies me.

 

[Cheetah]

You're an atheist in practice. Whatever philosophical distinction you want to add in addition doesn't really change that part.

Btw, did you get a satisfactory answer to what the 'regressive left' is referring to?

 

[EgonSpengler]

I guess I might be an apatheist then, but I am of the opinion that I would change my mind, if God actually showed up in some capacity and was all "Hey, I'm here, believe in me, here look at this magic trick", so maybe that disqualifies me.

Do you mean if you had a 'religious experience', a vision or a near-death experience or something? Or do you mean if God showed up, and we could somehow empirically verify that He was who He said He was, that you would accept the evidence and change your mind?

 

[warpus]

You're an atheist in practice. Whatever philosophical distinction you want to add in addition doesn't really change that part.

Btw, did you get a satisfactory answer to what the 'regressive left' is referring to?

I'm not sure if I did, but I don't think so.

As for being an atheist in practice, what do you mean by that exactly? Being an atheist doesn't really affect my life any.

Do you mean if you had a 'religious experience', a vision or a near-death experience or something? Or do you mean if God showed up, and we could somehow empirically verify that He was who He said He was, that you would accept the evidence and change your mind?

Nah not the first, those can be triggered by in non-paranormal ways, so I wouldn't trust them.

I would change my mind if the deity that showed up corresponded to one that was written about in whichever holy text. So if Ahura Mazda showed up, I would look through Zoroaster holy texts, see what's written about Ahura Mazda, what he's supposed to look like, what sorts of magical feats he's capable of, and I would compare it to the deity that showed up.

In the case of Catholicism I would see if the deity that claims to be the Christian/Catholic God matches up with what is written about it in the Bible, mainly the old testament I guess.

I don't think there's any empirical way of doublechecking that a super powerful deity is actually the same person that was written about thousands of years ago.. I mean, we're talking about a bunch of apes performing experiments on a star child, or beyond, or whatever.

But that's the best that can be done - does this deity match up to what was written about him/her/it in holy texts? Can it perform the same or similar feats? Does it speak in similar ways? etc. If it matches up enough, I'd have to concede that the Zoroasterian God exists.. or the Catholic God.. or whoever.

I wouldn't necessarily accept that this deity is actually the creator, though, it could just be some powerful entity that wants us to think that - but didn't actually create the universe. It could also be an impostor, and that's possible, but the apple I'm holding in my hand could be fake too, even if it tastes like an apple. So.. some amount of "yeah alright I'll give you the benefit of the doubt" is required.

The distinction is that I am not convinced that any religious texts are actually describing the creator of the Universe, so I wouldn't have to "double check" that this is in fact true when a supposed deity from a religious text shows and starts making claims of Godship. The best I can do is match up the actions of this entity and see if it's reasonable that it's the same one.

It would convince me enough, cause I mean.. If a burning bush shows up, nukes a couple of our cities, makes it so that the day lasts 812 hours rather than 24 (or whatever), sends a plague of locusts down on ISIS, brings people back from the dead, and seems to be able to do everything that the God in the Bible did.. Then I'd assume it's probably the same entity, even if it is not necessarily God - aka the creator - hey, maybe the Bible got it wrong too, if that makes sense.

But even if I wouldn't be convinced that this entity is the creator, I could no longer call myself an atheist, as I would see a God in front of me right there. Or an alien with God-like powers. Either way, that's Godly enough for me.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Say, has anybody mentioned "Deism" yet? As I understand it, it's the idea that God exists, that He created the Earth and man and everything else, and then kind of left. He's our Creator but He's "hands off" and doesn't have any say in what happens here on Earth. Science and reason are mankind's method of understanding His creation, and He created everything so perfectly that it all fits together like a cosmic Swiss watch. Everything we discover through empirical research and experimentation, He put there for us to find. Some of today's anthropogenic climate change deniers kind of take this approach, like Jim Inhofe, who said (I'm paraphrasing) that we can't be causing climate change because God's creation wouldn't be so fragile and subject to our meddling.

I've heard that some of our Founding Fathers were Deists. This would track with some of their ideas - separation of church & state, because God doesn't dictate how mankind lives, we have to decide that for ourselves; Manifest Destiny, similarly, because while He wants us to reach our potential and whatnot, it's up to use to actually do it, or not. I've also heard that Deism enabled, during the Enlightenment, a kind of "don't ask, don't tell" for atheists and agnostics, although maybe "apatheism" would be a better term. Kind of like saying, "Okay, fine, God exists, but that doesn't really matter because we have to get on with things."

 

[EgonSpengler]

I would change my mind if the deity that showed up corresponded to one that was written about in whichever holy text. So if Ahura Mazda showed up, I would look through Zoroaster holy texts, see what's written about Ahura Mazda, what he's supposed to look like, what sorts of magical feats he's capable of, and I would compare it to the deity that showed up.

In the case of Catholicism I would see if the deity that claims to be the Christian/Catholic God matches up with what is written about it in the Bible, mainly the old testament I guess.

I don't think there's any empirical way of doublechecking that a super powerful deity is actually the same person that was written about thousands of years ago.. I mean, we're talking about a bunch of apes performing experiments on a star child, or beyond, or whatever.

But that's the best that can be done - does this deity match up to what was written about him/her/it in holy texts? Can it perform the same or similar feats? Does it speak in similar ways? etc. If it matches up enough, I'd have to concede that the Zoroasterian God exists.. or the Catholic God.. or whoever.

I wouldn't necessarily accept that this deity is actually the creator, though, it could just be some powerful entity that wants us to think that - but didn't actually create the universe. It could also be an impostor, and that's possible, but the apple I'm holding in my hand could be fake too, even if it tastes like an apple. So.. some amount of "yeah alright I'll give you the benefit of the doubt" is required.

The distinction is that I am not convinced that any religious texts are actually describing the creator of the Universe, so I wouldn't have to "double check" that this is in fact true when a supposed deity from a religious text shows and starts making claims of Godship. The best I can do is match up the actions of this entity and see if it's reasonable that it's the same one.

It would convince me enough, cause I mean.. If a burning bush shows up, nukes a couple of our cities, makes it so that the day lasts 812 hours rather than 24 (or whatever), sends a plague of locusts down on ISIS, brings people back from the dead, and seems to be able to do everything that the God in the Bible did.. Then I'd assume it's probably the same entity, even if it is not necessarily God - aka the creator - hey, maybe the Bible got it wrong too, if that makes sense.

But even if I wouldn't be convinced that this entity is the creator, I could no longer call myself an atheist, as I would see a God in front of me right there. Or an alien with God-like powers. Either way, that's Godly enough for me.

Ever seen John Carpenter's Prince of Darkness?

 

[warpus]

Deism to me sounds infinitely more plausible than Christianity or any other religion I've ever encountered.

If a God exists, he probably doesn't give a crap about us, we're nothing to him, the same way we don't really care about snails. I mean, have you ever tried communicating with a snail? There's far better things to do, like playing video games, or reading a book, or whatever. If God exists, it's probably the same thing on a much larger scale. I think it's conceited to think that any sort of creator of this universe would place us in any sort of pedestal. We're a super tiny part of an amazingly large universe, there's probably all sorts of life in it, why would we be special? We're not and I think it's absurd to think that we might be.

Ever seen John Carpenter's Prince of Darkness?

I have not. Something about someone finding scientific proof for satan?

 

[Ryika]

Deism is a useless concept in my opinion. It's basically the "Yeah, we know the world doesn't seem like there's someone watching over us, but I'm telling you there is still someone watching over us!"-cop-out. At best it's a weak attempt at trying to find an explanation for how the universe started, more realistically it's an intellectually dishonest approach at trying to allow religion and atheism to share some common ground where there really is none.

 

[warpus]

Sounds a lot more feasible than "God died for our sins as his son and watches over us and stuff"