Atheism

The Tyson video is good, as he usually is. He takes the stance that's going to allow him to do the most good. So regardless of his actual stance, which that may very well be, it's a good PR move to disassociate himself from atheists.

I dislike his golf analogy though. There aren't meetings or movements for non-golfers, but neither is there societal discrimination against non-golfers. The "movement" or "activist label" attributed to atheists is a more a response than a default position. Frankly, in the next twenty years, that movement and its political satellites may be the only thing that keeps the country from entering into a repressive theocracy.

Mistrust of Muslims is already waning (thankfully). Within the decade, atheists will be back to the most mistrusted demographic in the country. And, as a wise, pixelated man once said, "It's dangerous to go alone."

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Even though faith is belief in the absence of evidence, if faith is the rationale for a belief, then faith is being used as evidence.

If A, then B = Because of A, I believe B = By faith, I believe in the existence of a god

This is where you go wrong: faith is explicitly not evidence. Faith cannot be used as evidence.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Theists who claim Agnosticism are not claiming no evidence, they are claiming no material evidence.

That's not correct. The extreme majority of theists believe even though they know there is no evidence. They believe in spite of the lack. If pressed, almost every last one of them would eventually admit that faith is what bridges the gap for them: no evidence.

The truly gnostic theists would be a short list, imo:

Moses, Joseph Smith, Muhammad....I'm at a loss here for people that claim to have actually seen God. But that's a short list of those that can claim to be gnostic theists. There are probably quite a few crazy theists out there that think they have regular conversations with God, too. This is why I arbitrarily set the number to 99%.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If they were truly Agnostic, then they could not properly conclude that a god exists from a denial of evidence.

That's not true.

"I don't know, but I believe" is agnostic theism. It's just the flip side of agnostic atheism which is "I don't know, but I don't believe."

Inbetween that is "I don't know, but I am open to evidence either way" is pure agnosticism.

There are forth and fifth kinds, as well. Some say that "God" needs to be defined before a "belief" can be put forth. Som eof them consider themselves separate from agnostics, theists, and atheists: ignostics.

Then there are apatheists who refuse to associate with either theists are or atheists (some atheists put forth the that 'question' is meaningful and needs to be settled...as well as theists). They do not fall in line with ignostics. Some could say that they are agnostics, but there are some that actually believe in God but think the belief is meaningless, and do not act on that belief in any way.

Just saying....it's not just this two form of "ism" you are using.

Originally posted by Digi
Frankly, in the next twenty years, that movement and its political satellites may be the only thing that keeps the country from entering into a repressive theocracy.

haermm

Oh man. Tin foil hats? Really? The majority of "theistic oppression" is coming from fellow theists, NOT atheists. "No prayer in schools", "remove God from government". That stuff is coming from fellow Christians bickering with each other.

Originally posted by Digi
Mistrust of Muslims is already waning (thankfully). Within the decade, atheists will be back to the most mistrusted demographic in the country. And, as a wise, pixelated man once said, "It's dangerous to go alone."

How can this be with a rise in an atheist demographic over the same period? The greater their numbers, the more people will just have to accept them.

Originally posted by dadudemon

How can this be with a rise in an atheist demographic over the same period? The greater their numbers, the more people will just have to accept them.

Look at Muslims in France; the more of them that come, the more the anti-Muslim Far Right gains ground and support.

I'm struggling to think of a single example of what you're talking about that didn't involve the acceptance being enforced on the populace from on-high, or at the very least a very, very long, very slow, very rocky transition to acceptance.

In America I see atheism being a deal-breaker in mainstream politics and in some other fields for decades to come.

Originally posted by dadudemon
haermm

Oh man. Tin foil hats? Really? The majority of "theistic oppression" is coming from fellow theists, NOT atheists. "No prayer in schools", "remove God from government". That stuff is coming from fellow Christians bickering with each other.

I'm confused. I think this is exactly what I said. The Christians bickering over this are the ones that want Jesus in the schools and White House. That scares the sh*t out of me for numerous reasons. Those that gravitate toward the absolutist statements aren't worth debating though. Like, prayer in schools (i.e. kids praying), fine. Institutionalized school-led prayer in a public school, nope.

And I tend not to jump off the deep end with anything that could resemble "tinfoil hats." I'm not working with a hypothetical dystopic future. A Christian-first approach to these things already exists in many states and schools. Hell, North Carolina last week. It's ****ing frightening, and I don't sugar-coat discrimination with the same words the politicians do. It's a hateful, religious-driven agenda that wrecks families, and the lives/psyches of countless individuals.

So yes, I dislike any movement toward a theocracy. Our momentum as a society has generally been forward in terms of acceptance of races and creeds, so I don't think this will happen, but my point was that without the non-religious groups in the country, it could (and history is not without examples of regression of this sort).

Originally posted by dadudemon
How can this be with a rise in an atheist demographic over the same period? The greater their numbers, the more people will just have to accept them.

Eventually, sure. But the elevation in atheist totals is still a small, small margin. Right now you're talking about, at best, 3% of the population, and less according to most census data I've seen.

It also has nothing to do with a "rise" in atheist mistrust. The mistrust is ingrained. Their rise back to #1 will simply be due to a decline in Muslim distrust, which is attached to an event. Atheists were at #1 for decades, with occasional blips like Muslims and the Tea Party overtaking them due to world events or political climate.

Also, numbers have little to do with levels of mistrust and discrimination. Look at the Civil Rights Movement. The idea of "higher percentages = less discrimination" does not necessarily hold true.

Anyway, my central point was that there isn't a need for a non-golfer movement or support system, but there certainly is for atheists because hate does exist against them. Do you refute that?

Originally posted by dadudemon
How can this be with a rise in an atheist demographic over the same period? The greater their numbers, the more people will just have to accept them.

In recent history the reactions seems more to be fear of the group's increasing relevance than gradual acceptance. Muslims in Europe and Latinos in America are probably the best examples.

We're living in the era of internet echo chamber for the first time in history. When you hate atheists but you're the only one you know that feeling might get crushed by them acting like normal people. But these days you can log into JesusLovesAmerica.com (I don't know if that's real) and read every story about every bad thing every atheist has ever done.

Originally posted by Digi
I'm confused. I think this is exactly what I said. The Christians bickering over this are the ones that want Jesus in the schools and White House. That scares the sh*t out of me for numerous reasons. Those that gravitate toward the absolutist statements aren't worth debating though. Like, prayer in schools (i.e. kids praying), fine. Institutionalized school-led prayer in a public school, nope.

No, we said the opposite. Christians are the ones taking god out of the government and schools: not atheists. They bicker among themselves over so many things that they want it out of everything: "LIKE HELL MY SON WILL PRAY WITH SOME MORMONS AND CATHOLICS!"

It was a protestant mother that made it "illegal" to pray at football games in Oklahoma.* It's like the Montagues and the Capulets.

*They still pray before games at rural schools where no one would protest. 🙂

Originally posted by Digi
Eventually, sure. But the elevation in atheist totals is still a small, small margin. Right now you're talking about, at best, 3% of the population, and less according to most census data I've seen.

Mormons used to be very hated. They still are. However, we are experiencing the most acceptance we have had, ever, right now.

Between 2% and 3% of Americans are Mormons. There are just enough atheists, now, that I think we will see a fall in "abrasiveness" and "hate" towards atheists. I have seen it in Oklahoma, already. Ten years ago, atheists were greatly hated. Now, not so much.

Originally posted by Digi
Also, numbers have little to do with levels of mistrust and discrimination. Look at the Civil Rights Movement. The idea of "higher percentages = less discrimination" does not necessarily hold true.

There's something quite ambiguous about what you're talking about, here. I really don't know what you are referring to.

But, now, if you asked most people if they should allow black people to use the same facilities as most people, the extreme majority would say, "yes". So I don't know what your point is.

Originally posted by Digi
Anyway, my central point was that there isn't a need for a non-golfer movement or support system, but there certainly is for atheists because hate does exist against them. Do you refute that?

Yes. You have twisted his original point into an atheistic victim statement: that's not even tangential to his point.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
We're living in the era of internet echo chamber for the first time in history. When you hate atheists but you're the only one you know that feeling might get crushed by them acting like normal people. But these days you can log into JesusLovesAmerica.com (I don't know if that's real) and read every story about every bad thing every atheist has ever done.

I seriously have no idea what your point is.

But, from what I gather, the opposite is true. It seems there's a large Web 2.0 movement of pro-atheism and anti-theism. It's like, everywhere I go, there is something anti-theistic on every major entertainment site. The last time I saw something anti-atheistic, anywhere, on the web, was 4chan and it was a troll-thread designed to piss off the asperger-possessing atheists to rage post.

Originally posted by dadudemon

There's something quite ambiguous about what you're talking about, here. I really don't know what you are referring to.

But, now, if you asked most people if they should allow black people to use the same facilities as most people, the extreme majority would say, "yes". So I don't know what your point is.

Edit: Also, on your note on Mormons, I think (with some exceptions) people are more comfortable with theists of any kind than atheists. Maybe the line of thought is "well at least they're trying, anyway".

Originally posted by inimalist
YouTube video

if you make the assumption that morality has a goal, and that goal is to create a global civilization that maximizes human happiness and flourishing, then i do think you can say that there is at the very least the process of trial and error to discern methods that bring you objectively closer to that goal than others. i don't disagree with that assertion.

but is that what is actually meant when people refer to objective morality? i tend to think of an objective morality as being no different from any other 'objective' analysis of reality investigated by hard science. i.e. his example of water being 2 parts oxygen, 1 part hydrogen. he says that a 'biblical chemist' could claim that this is untrue on the basis of his unfounded beliefs, and this would be the same as a moral relativist doubting the premise that suffering is objectively 'bad,' or that building the global civilization cited above is 'good.'

but is that really the same? either water is or isn't 2 parts oxygen 1 part hydrogen. whether you value evidence or not is irrelevant to the actual structure of the universe. meanwhile, in order to even entertain that an objective morality exists you must accept the premise that some purpose for our species is built into the structure of our reality.

the only scientific justification for this idea that i can discern for this is that morality is conceivably a tool of evolution. but is evolutionary morality built on axioms like "suffering is bad" or "flourishing is good," or is it built on simple survival? the two might go hand in hand in some cases, in others it will not. that's where many of the 'hard' questions come from. so it sort of seems to me that this suffering/flourishing based morality is a version of morality that evolution has yet to catch up with.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But, now, if you asked most people if they should allow black people to use the same facilities as most people, the extreme majority would say, "yes". So I don't know what your point is.

And you credit that mainly to the presence of more black people?

That most people now know some black people certainly matters but completely disregarding the Civil Rights movement seems a bit extreme.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I seriously have no idea what your point is.

My point is exactly what I wrote. The modern pattern seems to be that when a hated/feared group becomes more prevalent the response is even more fear/hated of that group rather than less.

More Mexicans in America has made immigration a major issue rather than eliminating it.
More Muslims in Europe has generated massive fear and even government crackdowns rather than causing people to like Muslims more.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But, from what I gather, the opposite is true.

The opposite is also true, yes. Echo chambers exist for just about everything these days.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It seems there's a large Web 2.0 movement of pro-atheism and anti-theism. It's like, everywhere I go, there is something anti-theistic on every major entertainment site.

I'm not referring to any "movements". I'm saying exactly what I wrote. We live in an age where you can go recharge your zeal and anger any time you want by seeking out groups of people who agree with you. This doesn't require a movement, it only needs one site in the entire world in order to work.

There are, in point of fact, a few:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/answers.html
http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism
http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/evil_atheists.htm
http://creation.com/atheism (although this one is fairly thoughtful it does get into the insidious atheist evils)

Originally posted by red g jacks
harris has what i'd consider the most convincing argument for secular morality i've heard, and i do agree completely with his ideas about how we should use goal-oriented scientific and logical insights to guide our actions, but even still i feel sort of instinctively that it falls short of the mark of anything i'd label 'objective.'

if you make the assumption that morality has a goal, and that goal is to create a global civilization that maximizes human happiness and flourishing, then i do think you can say that there is at the very least the process of trial and error to discern methods that bring you objectively closer to that goal than others. i don't disagree with that assertion.

but is that what is actually meant when people refer to objective morality? i tend to think of an objective morality as being no different from any other 'objective' analysis of reality investigated by hard science. i.e. his example of water being 2 parts oxygen, 1 part hydrogen. he says that a 'biblical chemist' could claim that this is untrue on the basis of his unfounded beliefs, and this would be the same as a moral relativist doubting the premise that suffering is objectively 'bad,' or that building the global civilization cited above is 'good.'

but is that really the same? either water is or isn't 2 parts oxygen 1 part hydrogen. whether you value evidence or not is irrelevant to the actual structure of the universe. meanwhile, in order to even entertain that an objective morality exists you must accept the premise that some purpose for our species is built into the structure of our reality.

the only scientific justification for this idea that i can discern for this is that morality is conceivably a tool of evolution. but is evolutionary morality built on axioms like "suffering is bad" or "flourishing is good," or is it built on simple survival? the two might go hand in hand in some cases, in others it will not. that's where many of the 'hard' questions come from. so it sort of seems to me that this suffering/flourishing based morality is a version of morality that evolution has yet to catch up with.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And you credit that mainly to the presence of more black people?

Le sigh.

That's a strawman. That's not even close to the point I made.

Here's the exact point I made:

"If you asked most people if they should allow black people to use the same facilities as most people, the extreme majority would say, "yes"."

There are no other implications involved: only what is presented. You can speculate as to why people are more accepting of black privilege: I am not.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
...completely disregarding the Civil Rights movement seems a bit extreme.

Of which I did not even come close to doing.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
My point is exactly what I wrote.

Cool, but your point was kind of muddy/unclear.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The modern pattern seems to be that when a hated/feared group becomes more prevalent the response is even more fear/hated of that group rather than less.

Not really. The opposite is true.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
More Mexicans in America has made immigration a major issue rather than eliminating it.

They seem to be hated much less now than they were 10 years ago.

The were hated less 10 years before that. The Mexican hate probably peaked somewhere in the 1800s, for the US.

I'm just speculating, just as you are.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
More Muslims in Europe has generated massive fear and even government crackdowns rather than causing people to like Muslims more.

Name those government crack-downs.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm not referring to any "movements". I'm saying exactly what I wrote. We live in an age where you can go recharge your zeal and anger any time you want by seeking out groups of people who agree with you. This doesn't require a movement, it only needs one site in the entire world in order to work.

There are, in point of fact, a few:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/answers.html
http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism
http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/evil_atheists.htm
http://creation.com/atheism (although this one is fairly thoughtful it does get into the insidious atheist evils)

And I would note that those sites don't get near as much volume as reddit.

http://www.estimurl.com/US/www.reddit.com

900,000+ a day

What about richarddawkins.net?
http://www.estimurl.com/US/www.richarddawkins.net

4,237 a day.

What about patheos.com?

http://www.estimurl.com/US/www.patheos.com

18,807 a day.

Or how about atheists.org:

http://www.estimurl.com/US/www.atheists.org
1252 a day

what about god and science?

1,832 a day.

What about conservapedia:

2,753

What about atheismexposed.tripod.com?

8 people a day. Eight. Eight. Eight.

Seems there is a massive difference between the two. 😐

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The fact people have more acceptant views of blacks than fifty years ago has almost nothing to do with there being more of them and everything to do with that thing called the Civil Rights Movement.

So the point was finding and pointing out an irrelevant exception to personal beliefs?

That's an apples to oranges comparison. We can chose what we believe: we can't help how we were born.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Edit: Also, on your note on Mormons, I think (with some exceptions) people are more comfortable with theists of any kind than atheists. Maybe the line of thought is "well at least they're trying, anyway".

That's possible, but I get a lot of "Mormons are satanic cultists" in Oklahoma and I never hear that about atheists. It seems to be calming down a bit as the decades pass, though.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So the point was finding and pointing out an irrelevant exception to personal beliefs?

That's an apples to oranges comparison. We can chose what we believe: we can't help how we were born.

Do you think that the fact blacks have more rights and are more accepted is a direct result of there being more of them than before?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I might be tired, but what you just wrote makes no sense to me.

Meh. It makes sense to me.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Do you think that the fact blacks have more rights and are more accepted is a direct result of there being more of them than before?

No.

But I made a point about that, too. It's an apples to oranges comparison between atheists and the rest of the US.

Originally posted by dadudemon
...between atheists and the rest of the US.

That is scary. Why wouldn't atheists be part of the US?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is scary. Why wouldn't atheists be part of the US?

"Between Native Americans and the rest of the US."

"Between the Scissor-Tail Fly Catchers and the rest of the bird species."

"Between the blue colors and the rest of the color palette."

Originally posted by dadudemon
"Between Native Americans and the rest of the US."

"Between the Scissor-Tail Fly Catchers and the rest of the bird species."

"Between the blue colors and the rest of the color palette."

Ohhh! Us as in all of us. Not the USA, also written as US. 😂

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ohhh! Us as in all of us. Not the USA, Also written as US. 😂

No, still U.S.

Atheists are part of the US. But his comparison was between atheists and the rest of the US (meaning, he separates out the atheists from the rest of the US people, and compares them, as a whole, to the US population. It's quite common when comparing population demographics. There's nothing disturbing about that. That's how you compare different groups of people with each other.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, still U.S.

Atheists are part of the US. But his comparison was between atheists and the rest of the US (meaning, he separates out the atheists from the rest of the US people, and compares them, as a whole, to the US population. It's quite common when comparing population demographics. There's nothing disturbing about that. That's how you compare different groups of people with each other.)

Back to my original post. 😎