Atheism & Religion: Equal Tools?

what i was objecting to was the assertion that "god equals truth" whereas i would have thought that "god equals truth plus..." was more realistic. if we see this new spread of atheism as part of the a continuation of religious modes of thought, as a refinement based on the belief in an objective truth. then the things we are removing as part of the process of refinement are- the "plus".

There are subjective expectations and requirements for a "god" where the only requirement for truth is that it is empirically demonstrable. So the difference between atheism and religion would be the removal of these subjective requirements.


but if there is no objective truth then my objection to religion can only be made on the grounds that some things are more subjective than others. if, as i gathered from your last, a sliding scale of subjectivity to objectivity cannot exist without the two extremes, then this argument is completely invalidated.

 

i duinno wud diz wordz meanz but i liek big titz

 

Yes, you're right. God does not literally equal Truth -- Truth is one of the characteristics assigned to God (usually exclusively to God). God is Truth, but the content of that Truth is another matter: God is thus and thus. But in your second paragraph you say that the only criterion for Truth is that it be empirically demonstrable, which contradicts the belief that God is Truth. On the contrary, in the religious understanding it is always reason or revelation (Platonism or Gnosticism) that connects one with Truth. Empirical truths are devalued in an extreme way, understood as "mere appearance," "the veil of Maya." It is only later, as intellectual honesty develops, that certain thinkers are forced to admit that nothing is better known than the "world of appearance," nothing more reliable than the evidence of the senses. Empirical science has replaced God as the road to Truth, which was my original point. They are also considered synonymous: the models produced by empirical science are taken for True, though empirical science contains more than just "Truth."

I prefer not to invoke the dichotomy of "subject" and "object," because we have no right to assert this relation either. In general I prefer the less specific but more valuable terms "absolute" and "relative." Are some kinds of knowledge more absolute than others? Yes, but in a relative sense. Those kinds of "knowledge" which can be denied by many (i.e. religious doctrines) are less absolute than empirical evidence (i.e. the observation that the sun is shining) -- but from what perspective are they more or less absolute? This is decided on the basis of human consensus: certain things appear true to (almost) everyone. But does the fact that something appears true to everyone give us the right to assert that it is absolute Truth? Of course not! We should rather inquire after the necessity of these things being perceived as true. Why is there a consensus on this point and not on another? This should be considered from the perspective of evolution, of adaptation and growth, if one wishes to abide by the scientific method. The positing of a "true world" has absolutely no justification in this case: there is no reason for assuming that our own agreement is proof of Truth. Perhaps sufficient reason for understanding why I call scientism dogmatic, and argue that it still makes religious claims without being aware of it.

 

Intuitively, it's difficult for me to conceptualize the absence of ultimate Truth--an objective reality beyond our immediate perceptions--even though I don't see how we can ever be certain that we're in contact with it. I rely on intuitive judgments that Santayana calls "animal faith" to sort out fact from nonsense. I assume there's an external reality and that when I'm putting these words of wisdom out there for your consideration, I'm not just talking to myself or to an hallucination. I could be a brain in a jar in some scientist's lab, experiencing a virtual reality in a computer program. How would I know? And there are actually people who believe that, at least one of them holding a professorial chair at Oxford. Yes, that could be. But I have a hunch it isn't so. I have faith in logic and math, and regard science, with all its limitations, as the gold standard in reliable knowledge. I think Dawkins is a bit cocky in assuming that science is the royal road to truth, and in dismissing alternatives. But at the other extreme, I reject post-modern relativism that views science as just another "story" on a par with Biblical literalism. I accept evolution, not because I think it's "the Truth", but because it's the only scientific theory of our origins, it accounts for the known facts, and it's falsifiable. Whether that process leads to truth is debatable, but it's a reasonable strategy for a betting man.

 

I am not sure what answers you are looking for related to your post,or how it relates to Atheist, but here is a stab at it from an atheist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Face Eater
Have sex with a 67 year old prostitute and kill your cat. Quickest way to enlightenment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROLLINGALONG
its common knowledge that a cock in your mouth is kind of the smoking gun of gayness
Quote:
Originally Posted by orison319
Ps: masturbate on LSD with caution..

​

I would have to admire the 67 year old working person, but don’t think I would have the desire to have sex with her. I suspect it comes from my being married, and having a trust relationship with my wife. I would hope I would not be judgmental about her chosen profession. Not real fond of cats, but I think it would be better to find it a home VS killing it.

I would suspect the 2nd statement would need further clarification as to the sex of the individual with the appendage in their mouth, as well as the situation which resulted in condition. If it was a woman, say the 67 year old working woman from your last quote it would not relate to their sexual preference at all. If it was a hetro couple enjoying life’s gifts it would also not relate to being gay, and if it were two men, than what difference would it make in our lives.

The last one I am at a lost to discuss. I have never used LSD, not sure if I have even ever seen it so I can only relate to half of the topic, but I am all for that half.

 

Look closer.

 

a tool can only be measured by what you intend to do with it. atheism is not such a tool, but merely the mostly harmless absence of one. neither have organized beliefs proven to overwhelmingly effective for the job of stopping people from screwing everything up for each other.

 

This^^^ blows your credibility as an objective truth seeker.

 

Why?

 

"..god has always..." absolutist premise

 

you don't KNOW that. the only things that are KNOWN, is that nothing has to be known in order to exist, and that some things happen more often then others. there is also a fairly broad consensus that some things happen more often when other things happen first, and that humans are capable of writing books.

 

Well first, there is a difference between absolutism and hyperbole: the point of that statement was to bring out the age-old identification of God with Truth. Second, perhaps you can point to a monotheistic religion, modern or historical, which believes in a God but considers their God to be false, i.e. not to be identified with "Divine Truth." You can certainly find something like this in polytheistic religions, where their concept "God" has not yet swelled to encompass everything in existence, and it is admitted that the gods may deceive us, etc. The belief in one God, however, is a historical analogue to the belief in one, "objective" Truth: at some point the two became interchangeable.

 

Why do theists always give me the impression that a god on earth is the last thing they'd be able to bear?! I have yet to meet a theist who doesn't seem to want all gods confined to heaven, or at the very least absent from it.

:-D

Come on you goddies!

Be of good heart! Let us poor old atheists believe in life and love since we're not afraid of 'God', let alone "Truth".

 

Oh oh, I know the answer to this.

You are impressionistic.

 

It's true, I am, and young, just barely! May guf the impender forgive me!

 

Not to sully your youth but I would say nature is more reliable than ingenuity.

 

Is it reliability that's wanted? Oh there's truth enough for you! Our natures are ingenuous; do the crutches of contrast - 'god and man' mean so much to us after all?

 

Concerning the question are atheism and religion equal tools, I would say reliability is the measure we are looking for, is it useful to our desired aim.

Atheism of itself is not a cohesive banner under which groups can be organized. Some other principle must be called upon, some measure of good.

 

Atheism is the absence of belief that gods/deities exist. It is not the complete lack of belief.

 

thedope:

:-D

Not being an atheist, you may not see how lacking belief in god is good in itself?

But yes, who needs a banner? Atheism is only the "NO" to the redundancy of god.

Human beings and their organs. Will they ever learn?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipzR9bhei_o"]Bach, Toccata and Fugue in D minor, organ - YouTube