Atheists should shut up!

[d0rkyd00d]

@Faust

I’m not sure if this shouldn’t go in the Religion forum, but I think it belongs here. Maybe in the half-baked post forum. Help me out here, Humean.

I am an atheist. Very atheist. You can’t really get more atheist than me. Completely atheist. What puzzles me is why, absent a purely political agenda, any atheist cares to argue for atheism. I have argued a bit when asked, but only about my own atheism. Not “atheism” in general. You know, stuff like, “There is no god because…”. That’s just foolish.

Now, it’s entirely appropriate to argue over inconsistencies within the theologies of, say, Abrahamic religions. They are rife. But arguing about the existence of the Christian god - all you can really do is argue that its followers must have some of their details wrong.

Good atheist philosophy has as an assumption that there is not god. If you’re still arguing about it, you’re not an atheist philosopher.

So, what are you?

In my younger years, I argued for atheism. When the idea was new and exciting, after escaping a childhood of Kingdom Halls and knocking door-to-door in a cult. I think I argued for it then as a way of testing it, proving it to myself, seeing what holes could be poked in it. In a way, it is what made me fall in love with Philosophy.

After I got over it, there wasn’t much meat on that bone left for sucklin’. It really is not a robust position, for me it was more of an on/off switch with profound implications that could only be understood in time.

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

@d0rkyd00d

@Faust

I’m not sure if this shouldn’t go in the Religion forum, but I think it belongs here. Maybe in the half-baked post forum. Help me out here, Humean.

I am an atheist. Very atheist. You can’t really get more atheist than me. Completely atheist. What puzzles me is why, absent a purely political agenda, any atheist cares to argue for atheism. I have argued a bit when asked, but only about my own atheism. Not “atheism” in general. You know, stuff like, “There is no god because…”. That’s just foolish.

Now, it’s entirely appropriate to argue over inconsistencies within the theologies of, say, Abrahamic religions. They are rife. But arguing about the existence of the Christian god - all you can really do is argue that its followers must have some of their details wrong.

Good atheist philosophy has as an assumption that there is not god. If you’re still arguing about it, you’re not an atheist philosopher.

So, what are you?

In my younger years, I argued for atheism. When the idea was new and exciting, after escaping a childhood of Kingdom Halls and knocking door-to-door in a cult. I think I argued for it then as a way of testing it, proving it to myself, seeing what holes could be poked in it. In a way, it is what made me fall in love with Philosophy.

After I got over it, there wasn’t much meat on that bone left for sucklin’. It really is not a robust position, for me it was more of an on/off switch with profound implications that could only be understood in time.

Kingdom Halls?
You were jehovah’s witness?
I also was.
At the time, i felt like i had all the answers.
Later I realized I didn’t.
But for a few unusual and blissful years, i felt i had all the answers.

[d0rkyd00d]

@Dan~

@d0rkyd00d

Kingdom Halls?
You were jehovah’s witness?
I also was.
At the time, i felt like i had all the answers.
Later I realized I didn’t.
But for a few unusual and blissful years, i felt i had all the answers.

Yes, I was. Perhaps the religion isn’t as useless as I thought, it apparently directs some people to an interest in philosophy. Not sure I would have been so interested in knowing “The TRUTH” if it had not been drilled into my brain.

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

@d0rkyd00d

Perhaps the religion isn’t as useless as I thought,

If you had to choose between utility/useful affect, or truth and a neutral stance, which would you prefer?

Atheism is supposed to be neutrality about things we can’t know or don’t have enough evidence of.
But the nature of truth is usually neutral as well.
It’s there, but it has no opinion or should/aught.
Should/aught is something that arises from life itself.

[d0rkyd00d]

@Dan~

@d0rkyd00d

Perhaps the religion isn’t as useless as I thought,

If you had to choose between utility/useful affect, or truth and a neutral stance, which would you prefer?

I value truth over utility, if that’s what you’re asking?

@Dan~

Atheism is supposed to be neutrality about things we can’t know or don’t have enough evidence of.
But the nature of truth is usually neutral as well.
It’s there, but it has no opinion or should/aught.
Should/aught is something that arises from life itself.

Agreed.

[omar]

Hello Faust

@Faust

I’m not sure if this shouldn’t go in the Religion forum, but I think it belongs here. Maybe in the half-baked post forum. Help me out here, Humean.

I am an atheist. Very atheist. You can’t really get more atheist than me. Completely atheist. What puzzles me is why, absent a purely political agenda, any atheist cares to argue for atheism. I have argued a bit when asked, but only about my own atheism. Not “atheism” in general. You know, stuff like, “There is no god because…”. That’s just foolish.

Now, it’s entirely appropriate to argue over inconsistencies within the theologies of, say, Abrahamic religions. They are rife. But arguing about the existence of the Christian god - all you can really do is argue that its followers must have some of their details wrong.

Good atheist philosophy has as an assumption that there is not god. If you’re still arguing about it, you’re not an atheist philosopher.

So, what are you?

I think that some argue for atheism because they are not too sure about their own decision to be an atheist. They’re working things out loud in a way. But in America there is a political/religious aspect that has been lost in most of Europe, so, defending atheism and attacking theism is no mere mental masturbation.
Of course, as far as defending atheism in this forum, I agree.
I’m a pretty liberal guy. You want to believe in metaphysical X, Y or Z, you should be free to do so, provide you harm no one else. A beneficial argument could only be had if we at least agreed on some basic assumptions, and where these are wholly lacking, then arguing is just a waste of time. Just smile and let them be on their way.

[omar]

@Dan~

@d0rkyd00d

Perhaps the religion isn’t as useless as I thought,

If you had to choose between utility/useful affect, or truth and a neutral stance, which would you prefer?

Atheism is supposed to be neutrality about things we can’t know or don’t have enough evidence of.
But the nature of truth is usually neutral as well.
It’s there, but it has no opinion or should/aught.
Should/aught is something that arises from life itself.

Hmmm
Truth is not something we “discover” indifferently, guided by what is ONLY before us. We cannot derive what always is from what we have always observed and yet we do, science does because of the explanatory power we gain in the process. No necessity that the speed of light is a universal constant (held as true/is, rather than an ought) but is is held as such due to the utility one gains in trying to organize other observations.