My main problem with militant atheism is that I just don't see the world being any better off if everyone became atheists over night. So why bother?
Printable View
My main problem with militant atheism is that I just don't see the world being any better off if everyone became atheists over night. So why bother?
When did Kodos ever say anything about being militant?
Why bother what? Why bother not believing in false promises from religions? Do you really need someone to answer that question?
Militant atheism is a term used, not to describe literal militancy, but aggressive atheist argument and.or misotheism. It was coined by Dawkins, or somebody like that.Quote:
When did Kodos ever say anything about being militant?
No. I was referring to absolutist, aggressive atheism, not atheism in general. It's one thing to disbelieve something, it's another to claim that in the modern world, religion is useless and evil without regard to practical connotations - which I find that Dawkinites & other heavy duty atheists always fail to address. They attack from a theoretical/philosophical perspective; which is made double annoying by the so-called "scientific coating" - dressing ethical arguments up as science and logic.Quote:
Why bother what? Why bother not believing in false promises from religions? Do you really need someone to answer that question?
This is fine when arguing the non-existence of God; the scientific method has many times disproved the classical notion of conventional deities. However, it's not OK to mix science and logic with ethics. Science is not ethics. Not to say that one is "more important" than the other; but when argued in tandem, by atheists: obvious problems arise.
Oh. I see.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sawyer
1): Why not?Quote:
However, it's not OK to mix science and logic with ethics. Science is not ethics.
2): Duh
Rubbish. All ethics are based off logical extrapolation from a series of principles. For example, if your principle is: "Give what you would like to receive." or The Golden Rule, then a logical train of thought re. ethics would be:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sawyer
"FFFF I WANT TO KILL THIS MAN"
"Would I like to be killed by someone I had angered? (Would this follow the Golden Rule?)"
"No it doesn't. In accordance with the fact that I believe the Golden Rule is the best system of ethics, I won't kill this person."
And if your principle is 'make people happy' then modern psychology can help discover what makes people happy, and modern science can observe that there is no objective good or evil - 'good' and 'evil' cannot be detected with any equipment. Those are both ethical questions ("What makes people happy?" and "Are good and evil real?") being solved through the application of science.
In short, you're talking shit.
1) You would not use ethics as a starting point to prove or disprove any physical phenomena. The ethical nature of any given interaction does not effect its logical existence. But that isn't the point I'm making. I'm saying that it is common for the militant atheist to use logic to disprove God, and then blur the whole thing by presenting their own set of equally arbitrary moral beliefs. Moral beliefs that are almost universally parallel to the modern theist's. Sure Christianity has a bad history, and is "evil" from a theoretical standpoint; but saying that Christians are universally evil, misogynistic, whatever, barbarians is clearly untrue.
Bottom line is that there is a certain level of irony when self-professed "rationalists" start straying into ethics to dismiss religion.
2) How rude.
Oh lawd...Quote:
Rubbish. All ethics are based off logical extrapolation from a series of principles.
When did I say otherwise?
Ethical boundaries are not fixed. THEY ARE SUBJECTIVE. The right ethical action in one time and place, is the wrong ethical action in another time and place. Ethics are not based on universal truths, they are based on changing social stimuli. This is what I am saying. I am not saying and have never said that ethics are not based on a correct logical sequence. Only that this sequence changes; and therefore, it's answer changes.
Who says that all Christians are universally evil? You're trying to refue an argument that no one is making. No one uses morals to try to disprove God, you have this ass-about-face. In just about every religious debate ever, at some point in the proceedings, this argument will occur:
Religious person: 'God/Allah/Yahwah etc, is the giver of all morals and ethics. Where would we get our morals and ethics if what you, atheist, say is correct?'
Atheist: 'Humanism. But furthermore, all Judeo-Christian text advocate some or all of the following: Child murder, slavery, homophobia etc'
And the argument takes off from there. No one has said Christians are all evil, but when they start to say that what they believe in is universially good and all-loving, it is the duty of anyone to point out that that is bullshit in its highest order.
It has been both explicitly said and implied in this thread that Christians are evil; multiple times. And I'm not even trying to refute that claim. Not really. It doesn't really need refuting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harvester_Of_Sorrow
If you read my post properly you would see that I explicitly say what I am, and am not arguing. Funnily enough, you've paraphrased something I said myself (see bold) which suggests you aren't reading my posts properly. I make it fairly clear (now in italics) that I am not talking about proving or disproving God with ethics.Quote:
No one uses morals to try to disprove God, you have this ass-about-face.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sawyer
I don't think any Theist in this thread has made that argument, but yes. Again though, you misinterpret what I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harvester_Of_Sorrow
EDIT: Bold and italics don't appear in quotes? But yeah, read me quoting myself. :]
Yes, I am reading your posts.Ofcourse, I'm sivving through all the drival and trying to fish a bit of sense out of them. So lets review:
- You aren't trying to say that militant atheists are trying to disprove God with ethics. I'm glad, cause that would be a retarded statement.
- You then say: I'm saying that it is common for the militant atheist to use logic to disprove God, and then blur the whole thing by presenting their own set of equally arbitrary moral beliefs.
Huh? Any danger of an example here? And you're right that morals are subjective, so when has any 'militant atheist presented their own set of equally arbitrary moral beliefs'?
Now you're probably gonna say I haven't understood your post, which wouldn't be surprising because you haven't really said anything.
Sorry mate, I don't mean to be rude, but vague arguments have always annoyed me.