The Classical Freedom loving Left vs the Regressive Leftists

[Wolfbeckett]

Deism is a concept that had a purpose at one time. There was a time when human philosophy had extended far enough that the idea of a theist God seemed absurd, but yet, we will still didn't have any other explanation for stuff other than "god did it". How did humanity get here? How was the universe created? Enter Deism, "God did it but then he left and isn't here any more". It's pretty pointless in modern times though because now we have better explanations for how we got here (evolution) and how the universe got here (the big bang). Deism, in short, is the ultimate expression of the "god of the gaps". We don't know how stuff happened, so god did it, but we can also see that he's definitely not around any more. Those gaps have gotten a lot smaller and are shrinking all the time, making Deism a less than satisfactory explanation in a lot of ways now.

 

[Cheetah]

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

Hm ok. Did you miss my first post in this thread, or if you did see it, was there something missing from that answer?

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

Well, exactly.

You do not live your life according to the possibility that there is a god watching you. You do not observe any religious rites on the assumption that a god will be pleased because of it, nor do you consider a god's opinion on your behaviour, your clothes or the way you speak.

Even if you adamantly claim to have no knowledge one the existence or non-existence of a god, you do not give all hypotheses equal weight when running your life. In fact, you seem to only really consider the null hypothesis: there is no god.

A 'practicing' agnostic would necessarily consider all hypotheses, and would try to follow all religious commands as far as they are compatible. If one has no knowledge on which hypothesis that is correct, anyone who cares about ones fate should try to please all the good gods and avoid angering the bad ones, and, of course, make allowance for the ~1/3000 chance that there are no gods...

For all practical intents and purposes, you are an atheist.

 

[warpus]

Ah yes, I did see that, but that seems to be a definition of the initial term, as it was first imagined by the guy who came up with it, and not the meaning of it that it's morphed into since. (which I suppose I assume it has)

In fact, you seem to only really consider the null hypothesis: there is no god.

Not quite, though. I'm a practical guy, and when I look around and make my way through the world and through life, I have no choice but to come to the conclusion that whether God exists, or doesn't, it doesn't impact me in any way. So who knows whether God exists or not, he probably doesn't, but I don't go through my life imagining that he doesn't. I just go through my life doing what I need to get by, God doesn't enter the equation at all. I don't even consider the null hypothesis when making decisions, as it doesn't change the outcome of my decisions or their consequences in any way.

I have an open mind and if one day this God dude did show up, I would be open to the possibility that he/she/it is real. But I mean, for now the question of God has 0 impact on my life and my day to day activities, so it's a non issue, whether God actually exists or not.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I have an open mind and if one day this God dude did show up, I would be open to the possibility that he/she/it is real. But I mean, for now the question of God has 0 impact on my life and my day to day activities, so it's a non issue, whether God actually exists or not.

I envy people who live in countries where this is true. As I said earlier, I'm kind of an atheist, kind of an agnostic, perhaps really an apatheist. Philosophically. Unfortunately I live in a country in which religious freedom and the separation of church and state are under near-constant assault by religious zealots. Questions about God could potentially have a great bearing on my life, so I feel forced to man the barricades of the militant, fist-in-the-air atheist, when in truth I'm pretty indifferent.

 

[Cheetah]

Ah yes, I did see that, but that seems to be a definition of the initial term, as it was first imagined by the guy who came up with it, and not the meaning of it that it's morphed into since. (which I suppose I assume it has)

From what I can tell, it hasn't morphed at all. It's still not that widely used, and the people using it are very specific about how they use it. Which seems reasonable, as the vast majority of people using the term are on the Left themselves, but are working on identifying a part of the Left which seems to have abandoned liberal values in the name of cultural tolerance.

Not quite, though. I'm a practical guy, and when I look around and make my way through the world and through life, I have no choice but to come to the conclusion that whether God exists, or doesn't, it doesn't impact me in any way. So who knows whether God exists or not, he probably doesn't, but I don't go through my life imagining that he doesn't. I just go through my life doing what I need to get by, God doesn't enter the equation at all. I don't even consider the null hypothesis when making decisions, as it doesn't change the outcome of my decisions or their consequences in any way.

I have an open mind and if one day this God dude did show up, I would be open to the possibility that he/she/it is real. But I mean, for now the question of God has 0 impact on my life and my day to day activities, so it's a non issue, whether God actually exists or not.

The fact that any god doesn't enter the equation is precisely the point. In your day-to-day life, god mights just as well not exist.

And if proof appeared that a god existed, then everyone would necessarily change into a believer. An atheist isn't an atheist because he 'refuses' to believe in a god, an atheist is an atheist because there are no reasons to believe in the existence of any god.

Again, I would say that in practice, you are an atheist. However, you seem to have some definition of atheism which is far stronger in its position than what I think is a reasonable stance. Both Harris, Dawkins, Hawking or myself would be willing to abandon our atheism if proof of a god appeared, and we can even entertain the idea that an entity does exist which could be a god, but we say we are atheists simply because there is no reason to not be.

This is a lot of text to basically say that I think we are in agreement, we're just using different terms while going about it - and that I'd argue that your definition of atheism is unreasonably strong!

 

[Cheetah]

I envy people who live in countries where this is true. As I said earlier, I'm kind of an atheist, kind of an agnostic, perhaps really an apatheist. Philosophically. Unfortunately I live in a country in which religious freedom and the separation of church and state are under near-constant assault by religious zealots. Questions about God could potentially have a great bearing on my life, so I feel forced to man the barricades of the militant, fist-in-the-air atheist, when in truth I'm pretty indifferent.

If there were no one forcing their gods on people, more or less all atheists would be quite indifferent to the subject, IMO.

 

[Ryika]

If there were no one forcing their gods on people, more or less all atheists would be quite indifferent to the subject, IMO.

I think the issue is a bit more complicated than that. Religious beliefs have a lot of influence, even if not "officially". The person who "truly believes" that this life is merely a test and that the afterlife is where things get real, is very likely to have rather... unhelpful positions on many issues. See the people who for example oppose abortions, homosexual relationships and similar things purely on religious ground. Or people who dismiss the topic of active euthanasia because "suicide is forbidden in book x".

Of course most religious people in the west aren't really following their "original" religion anymore, but those who do will always clash with those who derive their values from a non-religious background.

 

[Cheetah]

Aren't the examples you're giving exactly people 'forcing their gods on people'?

 

[Ryika]

Indirectly certainly, yes, but I personally separate "We must have the law this way because God said so." from "I believe in God and God says X, so that's what forms my opinion on the issue". It's a small distinction, but I think it's an important one, as the latter has no ill-intend.

If you put them into the same category, then feel free to disregard my comment!

 

[warpus]

envy people who live in countries where this is true. As I said earlier, I'm kind of an atheist, kind of an agnostic, perhaps really an apatheist. Philosophically. Unfortunately I live in a country in which religious freedom and the separation of church and state are under near-constant assault by religious zealots. Questions about God could potentially have a great bearing on my life, so I feel forced to man the barricades of the militant, fist-in-the-air atheist, when in truth I'm pretty indifferent.

I was brought up in a fairly religious society, so I can relate. My family is still fairly tied to the church, to some degree, my sister has baptised her kids (why?!?? - my reaction), my parents go to church, etc.

Took me a long time to get through to my family that this sort of life is just not for me, that I just don't believe, etc. Now they get it but it was a bit of a battle.

The fact that any god doesn't enter the equation is precisely the point. In your day-to-day life, god mights just as well not exist.

Not quite though, the "might as well" could be instead "God might as well exist but not interfere in the affairs of puny humans" or something similar.

I have no idea which it is. Maybe he doesn't exist? Maybe he exists but doesn't care about us? Maybe it's something else?

Instead of balancing these potential hypotheticals in my mind, I just don't consider any of them, because for all practical purposes, it does not influence me in any way.

 

[Cheetah]

Indirectly certainly, yes, but I personally separate "We must have the law this way because God said so." from "I believe in God and God says X, so that's what forms my opinion on the issue". It's a small distinction, but I think it's an important one, as the latter has no ill-intend.

If you put them into the same category, then feel free to disregard my comment!

Yeah, I don't really think there is any difference between those two statements. Neither do I see any implicit ill intent in either of them, though in practice religiously backed arguments are almost always reactionary and bad.

Not quite though, the "might as well" could be instead "God might as well exist but not interfere in the affairs of puny humans" or something similar.

I have no idea which it is. Maybe he doesn't exist? Maybe he exists but doesn't care about us? Maybe it's something else?

Instead of balancing these potential hypotheticals in my mind, I just don't consider any of them, because for all practical purposes, it does not influence me in any way.

Which I would say makes you an atheist.

Or, to end this diversion on a friendly accord: In all practical terms, you hold the same policies and positions as me or any other atheist I know of. So you can at least pass as a atheist-in-practice in my head.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

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.

An alien with god-like powers isn't a god. It's just an alien, and there's no need to worship it.

I envy people who live in countries where this is true. As I said earlier, I'm kind of an atheist, kind of an agnostic, perhaps really an apatheist. Philosophically. Unfortunately I live in a country in which religious freedom and the separation of church and state are under near-constant assault by religious zealots. Questions about God could potentially have a great bearing on my life, so I feel forced to man the barricades of the militant, fist-in-the-air atheist, when in truth I'm pretty indifferent.

There's an MP who is currently trying to get the lyrics for "O Canada" changed so they're gender-neutral. I'm actually bothered less by "in all thy sons command" than I am by "God keep our land."

I'm tired of that line. It's as though we're not capable of looking after our country ourselves, don't have confidence in ourselves, and need some supernatural entity to do it.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

I envy people who live in countries where this is true. As I said earlier, I'm kind of an atheist, kind of an agnostic, perhaps really an apatheist. Philosophically. Unfortunately I live in a country in which religious freedom and the separation of church and state are under near-constant assault by religious zealots. Questions about God could potentially have a great bearing on my life, so I feel forced to man the barricades of the militant, fist-in-the-air atheist, when in truth I'm pretty indifferent.

A fellow American, I presume .

I'd love to just live my life and not care about this stuff at all, but unfortunately I live in a country where people are trying to use religion as their justification to ban gay marriage, to justify the ban on marijuana, to justify a blanket ban on abortion and stem cell research. Where religious people continually attack the education system trying to force the schools to teach creationism in science classrooms under the guise of "intelligent design". Can't really ignore it all under those circumstances.

If people stopped using religion to justify bad behavior and denial of scientific evidence I'd happily shut the hell up about it.

 

[BvBPL]

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

Except that they are not merely secularists. Secularism is the political philosophy that the state should be divorced from religion. It says little about the value of religion outside of its engagement with the state. However, Dawkins in particular believes that religion is a social malady. He thinks religion should be stamped out from society, not merely divorced from governance. While he may be a secularist, secularism alone does not describe his views.

 

[Cheetah]

Except that they are not merely secularists. Secularism is the political philosophy that the state should be divorced from religion. It says little about the value of religion outside of its engagement with the state. However, Dawkins in particular believes that religion is a social malady. He thinks religion should be stamped out from society, not merely divorced from governance. While he may be a secularist, secularism alone does not describe his views.

Unless you can substantiate the bolded part, I'll continue to argue that secularism covers Dawkin's position well enough.

 

[MilitantSecular]

There are also people of Logic and Rationalists, Dr. Warner being an example. Bill Warner a man who studied history and religion but he's also man of math, he holds a PhD in physics.

http://www.politicalislam.com/


Link to video.


Link to video.

the numbers, not sure how accurate these statistics are

Link to video.
What a Billion Muslims Truly Think

 

[illram]

the numbers, not sure how accurate these statistics are

but I'll post this youtube video anyway!

 

[Funky]

but I'll post this youtube video anyway!

The numbers are accurate, and can be looked up in the studies of every major research center. We have been posting the results of these studies for years. Perhaps you should pull your head out of the sand and start addressing the issue as the massive civilisational problem it is. Here is an overview of just a few problematic beliefs that Muslims hold, based on Pew research.

 

[Flying Pig]

Somebody polled 1.62 billion people?

 

[Farm Boy]

Probably just another example of somebody trying to ram their faith down our throats with skeezy information. Secularists will do it just as well as religious people despite that they may rail against the indignity of the terminology. It's part of the curse of deciding to quack and swim with the ducks.