The non-believer needs to understand this more than anyone, but I doubt they do in general.

The paradigm must CHANGE

I cannot support the current attitude of the non-believer regarding the faithful. Rather than persuade and engage the atheist reasons and argues.

Of course, we each have the right to do whatever we like to some extent. Sometimes however I feel that the discourse arises from a need to prove their intellectual superiority or a genuine desire to show the believer just how wrong they are. I understand the frustration that gives rise to this; the evidence is just so missing in support of the claim for god and the claims so fantastic in support that surely anyone could see the reason here?

Reason is the first atheistic fallacy. You cannot reason the majority of the faithful out of their faith; very little anecdotal evidence supports this notion and absolutely no theoretical basis exists for it.

God is the second atheistic fallacy. It is unnecessary to disprove god. Religion not god is the problem. It is the tenets, practitioners, followers and the acts they do in the name of religion that presents the issue for all of us.

I appeal to each and every atheist to consider their position and what they do on a daily basis. Act now or this age of rationality and enlightenment will be a fleeting transient stage in history.

Views: 113

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Huh?

What is an "atheistic fallacy"?

By atheistic fallacy I mean a mistaken belief held by atheists.

Which atheists hold these mistaken beliefs? Is there a sub category of atheists that acts in some collective way?

All atheists do is reject the claims that gods exist.

Theists make the claims that THEIR gods exist, and OTHER people's gods do not.

Are you saying that all theists must stop believing that THEIR gods are the only ones that exist, and that ALL gods that are claimed to exist, exist?

Is that the paradigm that must change to have peace?

:D 

Reason is the first atheistic fallacy.

Then how do you account for the mass apostasy?

Act now or this age of rationality and enlightenment will be a fleeting transient stage in history.

Why?

"yes I am talking about you"

(in my best Joe Pesci voice) "You talking ta' me?"

@David Boots :

"Reason is the first atheistic fallacy. "

Reason is NOT an atheistic idea.  It is a logical methodology available to all rational people.

"God is the second atheistic fallacy."

doG is a fallacy unto itself.  A Theistic fallacy at that.

"I cannot support the current attitude of the non-believer regarding the faithful. "

And this should concern me WHY?

"Act now or this age of rationality and enlightenment will be a fleeting transient stage in history."

Did you derived this insight from your Crystal Ball?

Reason is NOT an atheistic idea. 

Correct.

It is a logical methodology available to all rational people.

Available - yes. At least theoretically.

doG is a fallacy unto itself.  A Theistic fallacy at that.

Absolutely.

And this should concern me WHY? 

Civilisation can advance and regress. I suggest that if you would like to retain this stunning civilisation we live in... then it can only be protected by taking action.

Did you derived this insight from your Crystal Ball?

No. This is my view. It could be wrong. Until persuaded otherwise I hold it and claim the right to advance it.

I understand what your're saying, and used to have similar thoughts. As for all atheists, paradigms vary, and I like your confidence in atheism in the face of theism. I agree that atheists who wish to disprove God's existence will never make headway, because it's not a viably scientific strategy to disprove anything that cannot be disproven... e.g. Russel's Teapot.

It took me a while here at TA to accept that my paradigm wasn't the only valid paradigm. I used to really dislike Dawkins' and Hitchens' in-your-face style. But I now feel that they have brilliant arguments, even if I'll never have or want to have an in-your-face style of confrontation. Just as atheists can have different styles/paradigms, so too can theists respond differently to each atheist's approach.

I disagree with you about the usefulness of using reason in theist/atheist discourse, and in fact my desire is to broaden such discourse beyond just God or religion to teaching rational decision making as a basic skill just as essential to modern civilization as reading, writing, math, liberal arts...

I agree that trying to reason with most adults will fail. But 1) young people can still learn such things if properly taught and 2) we still need to *try* to push back against intolerant paradigms such as alt-right dogma, or any other kind of dogmatic righteousness.

I disagree with you about the usefulness of using reason in theist/atheist discourse - sadly I have to say the empirical results do not by and large support this notion. If i am wrong on this let me know.

, and in fact my desire is to broaden such discourse beyond just God or religion to teaching rational decision making as a basic skill just as essential to modern civilization as reading, writing, math, liberal arts...

- I cannot agree more and express how much I admire this.

I agree that trying to reason with most adults will fail.

- Thank you

But 1) young people can still learn such things if properly taught

- This is an excellent point.

and 2) we still need to *try* to push back against intolerant paradigms such as alt-right dogma, or any other kind of dogmatic righteousness.

- absolutely. My takeaway would be that it is the way this is done that is the key to success.

The ‘Age of Enlightenment’ also known as the “Age of Reason’ occurred between the 17th and 18th century. If it could be described as a movement, then its’ fundamental objective was to emphasize the use of reason and evidence and science in the world.

It hoped to encourage society to look beyond religious beliefs and superstitious prejudices into a new world - an evolved world - where reason was the basis of all knowledge and authority derived its mandate from reason.

I ask you two questions. Firstly, did Donald Trump derive his mandate from reason? Secondly, are the 60 million plus voters who gave him that mandate basing their decisions on knowledge?

Atheism is simply a non-belief in a supernatural deity. But if an atheistic movement could be said to have an objective then I suggest it should be to ensure the security and survival of reason from the threat of non-reason.

Across the planet reason is under threat. Where democratic means exist; the people who provide that mandate can be persuaded to base their decision on rationality. It is possible but not where the technique is one of rational debate per se. This is not to say that some theists cannot be reasoned with - it is simply that this approach is not effective.

In simple terms, atheists must embrace an effective methodology and this methodology cannot successfully be based on reason and god alone.

An atheist is someone who lacks beleif in God...not someone who feels the need to criticise religion and attack or critique the religious. You've basically defined the sum total of the worlds atheists...by the very narrow limited group of atheists you've ever had contact with or read about. Not believing in God does not make you an activist with an agenda. You are assuming atheists world wide give a sh*t about religion and even think about religion. Most Asian atheists don't even encounter the word "God" during most of their lives...let alone criticise God or try to deconvert the religious. 


First of all, there are more atheists in China than in the rest of the world combined. Only about 20% of atheists live in developed countries...the rest are mostly in countries where they eat with chopsticks. Let's call the 20%: non-chopstick-using-atheists. You'll note that a lot of Europeans don't face any notable problems with religion in their lives (especially in Iceland or in the Czech republic) as their societies are highly secular and God believers are the laughed at minority. There's simply little need to complain or attack theists.

So just sticking with the developed worlds English speaking countries...that's only 30% which means atheists in English speaking developed countries represent only 13% of the worlds total. You're colouring the whole of atheism with a tiny tiny brush. Of the remaining atheists, only fourty percent of them live in countries which are not highly secularised (New Zealand for example). So now our total is down to only 6%. Let's be extremely generous and say that half of all atheists who live in a developed country where they speak English where they are not highly-secularised countries...give a shit about the religious and talk about them and try to stop them from applying their destructive religious practices on the rest of the population...and we are now down to only 3% of the worlds atheists. If I told my atheist friends here in Spain that we must change our paradigm...they'd be clueless and ask me WFT I was talking about.

You talk about an atheist fallacy as though atheists commonly make this fallacy. That's wrong in two important ways. You've discounted the fact that atheists may have no agenda (the agenda you have defined). Lacking belief in something doesn't say anything else about you, your life, your world view etc. That's utterly wrong. Secondly...what you call a fallacy...is not...in fact...a fallacy at all. A fallacy is not a "sarcastic acidic mean tone of argument" or a "misguided way to change people's minds" but is a bad inductive or deductive argument that follows a certain formula. Your atheist fallacy isn't a fallacy. And even if it were a fallacy...you cannot name a fallacy after a group of people who frequently make that fallacy...as that would exclude people outside of that group unable to make that fallacy.

Advice:

Expose yourself to the rest of the atheist world.

Stop assuming Anglo Saxon atheists with an agenda represent atheists and atheism.

Brush up on your fallacies.

RSS

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service