If atheism is the view that there are no gods then it would have nothing to do with free speech. If atheism challenges theism to show proof of god/s, then it would most certainly be challenging theism's right to free speech. If atheism isn't to the left, then theism isn't to the right???

There are two possibly valid positions, one, the belief in a naturally occurring universe, and one in a supernaturally occurring universe. Consequently, there can be no (logically) valid middle ground.

You ask theists for evidence of god/s then you have no evidence of god/s yourself, for your request to be valid, means you also have no evidence of Nature (a naturally occurring universe). You can't hold out for evidence of one then still ask for evidence of the other

Some atheists challenge some theists from time to time to justify their beliefs. On a philosophy forum that is entirely appropriate and acceptable. It's also appropriate and acceptable in public discourse in response to theists arguing for their beliefs, or even just proselytising. I don't think I've ever heard an atheist say that theists should not be allowed to express their views.

You personify atheism and theism in your post, which I think causes conceptual mischief.

Indeed, both theism and atheism are neutral with regard to political handedness. There are many lefties in the clergy in the UK for example. And many right wing people whom I very much doubt believe in anything much past the narrow material interests of themselves and their loved ones.

I'm not sure if I'm an atheist or not, but in any case I ask both theists and atheists to justify their metaphysical views on a philosophy forum. The question of the burden of proof is interesting and complex it seems to me.

From a purely pragmatic standpoint, a great many social theorists (Durkheim, Weber, Scheler, Parsons) either observe or descry the onset and escalation of social deterioration associated with the decline of traditional religious values and the rise of industrial-scientific secular humanism. So if theism and atheism are both to be judged on their respective merits, then either one can be said to be on shaky ground. It depends on your perspective, doesn't it?

With the decline of traditional religious values and the rise of industrial-scientific secular humanism. So if theism and atheism are both to be judged on their respective merits, then either one can be said to be on shaky ground. It depends on your perspective, doesn't it? — Pantagruel

Sure. And even if society is more 'stable' or 'harmonious' under a monolithic religion, it says nothing about the truth of the belief system. It makes sense that a kind of monoculture, where there is minimal dissent or skepticism, is going to appear more stable.

Make up your mind, do you welcome the technologies produced from science or not. — universeness

Absolutely no. They are the cause the planet will get fucked up more and more. It grows exponentially in accordance with the imperative of science: "Discover!" Creation and the creatures involved in it gets fucked. No wonder humanity will be in danger one day, if not already. That clock! Dreaming to escape by a space ark is as silly as the believe in one almighty monster god. But dream on universeness! Instead of reducing technology, by the advocates even mirrored as indistinguishable from magic one day, you try building a spaceship to the stars! To escape the mess brought about by technology in the first place! Dream on dream on. We cant even create a virus...

Sure. And even if society is more 'stable' or 'harmonious' under a monolithic religion, it says nothing about the truth of the belief system. It makes sense that a kind of monoculture, where there is minimal dissent or skepticism, is going to appear more stable. — Tom Storm

The commentary usually involves what Durkheim (for example) calls anomie, the sense of being alienated from any kind of substantive value.....

The commentary usually involves what Durkheim (for example) calls anomie, the sense of being alienated from any kind of substantive value..... — Pantagruel

That's the cliché, of course and it conveniently overlooks other factors. It reminds me of when I used to meet (some) old Germans, in the 1970's. They'd intone, "Say what you like about Hitler, but there was less crime, everyone knew their role and there was national pride.' Overarching foundational meta-narratives like religions bring unity and certainty, regardless of intrinsic merit.

And even if society is more 'stable' or 'harmonious' under a monolithic religion, it says nothing about the truth of the belief system. — Tom Storm

Precisely. The monolithic reign of the current religion of the sciences says nothing about the truth of that belief.

I think we all have faith regardless of what we say. But that doesn't mean everything in life will turn out okay. We need to ward off the forces of 'evil' for one thing. Atheism is one of those.
— Gregory A

Well, if people don't believe in god, who am I to tell them they should? I don't understand it but its up to them. And to be fair, no one really knows. Im convinced gods exist, for atheists also. But that's my objective reality. — EugeneW

But atheists aren't just people who don't believe in a god/s, they are as well actively opposed to such belief. It's why they are called 'atheists'. And you are entitled to share your beliefs, regardless of their strengths, with anyone prepared to listen. It's a right of free speech you have.

Scientists are obliged to stay out of what are philosophical positions, and they mostly do
— Gregory A

Scientists are obliged to do no such thing! They often choose to, when they think that the philosophical points made are erroneous and of little value or meaning to the hypothesis/theory/experimental results under discussion at the time. But they will speak to philosophical claims if and when they feel it is prudent to do so. — universeness

There are no scientists here regardless of your or others qualifications. All people here are philosophers.

Science has done no good.
— EugeneW

What?? Should we have just stayed in our caves then and not made the use of fire that we did and not have employed science to attach a big bit of sharpened flint/stone to the end of a strong long pole and used it to more easily kill animals for food or spear the local tribal invaders? — universeness

Scientists are people who 'specialize' in fields of what otherwise are part of regular human existence.

the other is destroying religion
— Gregory A

You give Richard a great compliment here, you should send him a copy of your compliment, it will help brace him in this, in my opinion, honorable goal but I think 'destroy' is unlikely, 'vastly reduce its influence in politics, education, commerce and society,' would be more accurate and a more realistic and achievable goal. — universeness

Dawkins suffers from Lee Oswald syndrome. How to become famous in America. Oswald assassinated an American president, Dawkins goes after its religion. Both destructive actions.

Dawkins suffers from Lee Oswald syndrome. How to become famous in America. — Gregory A

:grin:

:100:

We're bound to rerun in the universal domain eternally. Again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again

And the gods watch. Again. Without morally obliging. — EugeneW

Alternatives modes of expression (recommended):

1. We're bound to rerun in the universal domain eternally. Again and again and again...

2. We're bound to rerun in the universal domain eternally. Again and again and again...ad infinitum

3. We're bound to rerun in the universal domain eternally. Again and again and again...ad nauseum :vomit:

4. We're bound to rerun in the universal domain eternally. Again and again and again (again × $\infty$)

5. Left to the reader as an exercise

↪Gregory A
If atheism is the view that there are no gods then it would have nothing to do with free speech. If atheism challenges theism to show proof of god/s, then it would most certainly be challenging theism's right to free speech. If atheism isn't to the left, then theism isn't to the right???

There are two possibly valid positions, one, the belief in a naturally occurring universe, and one in a supernaturally occurring universe. Consequently, there can be no (logically) valid middle ground.

You ask theists for evidence of god/s then you have no evidence of god/s yourself, for your request to be valid, means you also have no evidence of Nature (a naturally occurring universe). You can't hold out for evidence of one then still ask for evidence of the other

Some atheists challenge some theists from time to time to justify their beliefs. On a philosophy forum that is entirely appropriate and acceptable. It's also appropriate and acceptable in public discourse in response to theists arguing for their beliefs, or even just proselytising. I don't think I've ever heard an atheist say that theists should not be allowed to express their views.

You personify atheism and theism in your post, which I think causes conceptual mischief.

Indeed, both theism and atheism are neutral with regard to political handedness. There are many lefties in the clergy in the UK for example. And many right wing people whom I very much doubt believe in anything much past the narrow material interests of themselves and their loved ones.

I'm not sure if I'm an atheist or not, but in any case I ask both theists and atheists to justify their metaphysical views on a philosophy forum. The question of the burden of proof is interesting and complex it seems to me. — bert1

Some atheists can't challenge some theists. Atheism as the term suggests is a challenge by all atheists to all theists, put up or shut up. Atheism by its existence threatens the free speech of theists. It is 'a-theism'. You are confusing atheism with naturalism the belief that the universe comes about naturally, no need for the supernatural, and is the real counterargument to theism. There is no proof of Nature (Big Bang is a theory, abiogenesis, and evolution too) so why the need to prove God.

And yes there are leftwing elements in the clergy, and there are the trendoid religions with their Harley Davidson riding priests, but let's face it religions are generally conservative. And conservatism is on the right.

Page 33! In 10 days! Theism rules! Is it the state of the world? Much god talk going on. More than half of recent threads involve gods. Are they trying to reach out? Do they wanna say something? I predict: within 10 days, page 50 will be reached.

Theism does not relate to atheism. Atheism relates to theism. Theism is not an attack on atheism. Theists defend theism from the attacks of atheists. Where's the hypocrisy then.
— Gregory A

The hypocrisy I was referring to was a theist being offended by an atheist while at the same time constantly saying the same sorts of things about atheists, and of course more broadly speaking the religious have done far more offensive things to atheists than anything someone like Dawkins has ever done to theists. Its hypocrisy.
Because of this perceived “attack” in theism its impossible to have a real conversation across the isle when one or both parties come in with a chip on their shoulders. — DingoJones

Theists have every right to defend themselves from atheists. And sure there is a need for control mechanisms that do self arise, unions for example defending workers from the negative effects of Capitalism's survival of the fittest philosophy's impact on wages. But religion is hardly out of hand. And governments themselves have a far worse track record when it comes to mistreatment of its citizens. That said atheists are not anarchists as well.

And conservatism is on the right. — Gregory A

I read rumors though that guys like Dawkins and Harris joint with the extreme right.

Just read the title of one of Pinker's books, one part in the new bible series:

Enlightenment NOW. The case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress.

Nice words. Humanism and progress. Who dont like humans and progress. But words can deceive. One's humanism can be other's inhumanity. One's progress can be other's way back.

I read rumors though that guys like Dawkins and Harris joint with the extreme right. — EugeneW

Dawkins comes across as conservative, Harris too I'm sure. But atheism is different things. To these two it is a vehicle to fame they wouldn't have by just being scientists. Why atheism is an element of the Left is that it represents a patriarchal system, Moses, Jesus & Muhammad being men. The Bible teaching that women should obey their husbands, getting the Left's heckles up as well.(although good advice at the time, and mostly still now. Husbands obeying their wives in different instances too. A survival mechanism, the same reason why men are usually older than their female partners).

That's the cliché, of course and it conveniently overlooks other factors. It reminds me of when I used to meet (some) old Germans, in the 1970's. They'd intone, "Say what you like about Hitler, but there was less crime, everyone knew their role and there was national pride.' Overarching foundational meta-narratives like religions bring unity and certainty, regardless of intrinsic merit. — Tom Storm

I don't see were you have established this is a cliche.

Karl Polanyi created the theory of substantive economics to specifically redress the problem that modern life has become over-monetized and lacking in substantive value. I live in the world; it's a real problem, not a cliche.

Just read the title of one of Pinker's books, one part in the new bible series:

Enlightenment NOW. The case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress.

Nice words. Humanism and progress. Who dont like humans and progress. But words can deceive. One's humanism can be other's inhumanity. One's progress can be other's way back. — EugeneW

Humanism is the 'faith' of atheists and is meant to be a slap in the face for theism. But if a god is real, then anything set up to challenge its existence must fail. Humanism is a fail as just about all that is wrong with the world is of human creation. Global Warming the threat of Nuclear Winter etc. Atheism too is a fail. Naturalism fails as it is virtually non-existent and can never offer faith anyhow.

Somehow, the atheistic worshipper - servant, if you like - only of that sublimely monstrous, self-devouring, deaf dumb & blind god, i.e, "Nature", is a carbon copy of the apocalyptic worshipper of the omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent monster god appearing in the monotheist world religions — EugeneW

So what examples of 'worship' do you witness atheists participating in? Do they pray to nature, do they build places of worship to nature? Do groups of atheists gather together and sing worship songs to mother nature? Do we have a holy book of nature? Do atheists use any of the Omni's to refer to nature? I find your conflated comparison ridiculous.

The existence of gods fills life with a meaning that is non-explicable. — EugeneW

Not for any atheist I know of.

The gods are just there eternally. How they came to be is a complete mystery. — EugeneW

Taking a leaf out of your book EugeneW, It could just as easily be said:
The Universe is just there eternally. How it came to be is a complete mystery.
The boring old switcheroo!

Gods can even be useful for physics and cosmology. — EugeneW

Only as examples of lazy, quick-fix solutions that offer zero progress.

you try building a spaceship to the stars! — EugeneW

I think I will leave that to those better qualified than I, meanwhile, the theists/religious stalwarts are welcome to continue to stagnate on Earth. I predict that if theism still has advocates 100,000 years from now, they will not have progressed one planck length from where they are right now. They will still be wasting their time and energy on that which does not exist and the evidence they have to support their claim will be the same as it is now.

I don't see were you have established this is a cliche. — Pantagruel

Sure it's a cliché, but I didn't establish it as one - that was done by every thinker or apologist from Nietzsche to Jordan Peterson. It's a very common 'go to' argument against atheism.

Last ten days saw an unusual high activity concerning gods. The threads:

-The invalidity of atheism
-My favourite philosophers of religion and theologians
-If one person can do it
-Jesus and Greek philosophy
-Omnipotence
-What is mysticism
-A first cause is logically necessary
-Thoughts on the way we should live
-The problem of evil
-Christian abolitionism
-Does God love some more than others
-Different creation/causation narratives
-Why are things the way they are
-The meaning of life
-Atheism and solipsism
-An argument against the existence of the most advocated god
-Free will and omnipotence
-A time problem for theism
-Can theists reject dualism
-Pascal's wager
-Does God have free will?
-The Christian trilemma
-Omnipotence and the law of non-contradiction
-The root of all evil
-An objection to a cosmological modal argument
-Fine tuning argument
-Why does time move forward

Is this a strange coincidence? Do I perceive pregnancy everywhere?

There are no scientists here regardless of your or others qualifications. All people here are philosophers. — Gregory A

:rofl: Another pearl of knowledge from Gregory A which again, is way off the mark.

Scientists are people who 'specialize' in fields of what otherwise are part of regular human existence. — Gregory A

and your point is.......

Dawkins suffers from Lee Oswald syndrome. — Gregory A

Yeah, I am sure Richard Dawkins read about the life of Lee Harvey Oswald and thought to himself, "That's the life for me! If I copy his approach to life then I will become famous in America too!!" :lol:
'Keep em comin' Gregory A, you are very entertaining.
I think you will find that Oswald is infamous not famous and Dawkins is well known and respected, unlike Oswald. Your comparison between the two is utter nonsense.
Did Jim and Tammy Baker study Lee Harvey Oswald in their bid to become famous in America or is that suggestion, like yours, just BS.

So what examples of 'worship' do you witness atheists participating in? — universeness

The worship of an alien super advanced and super "intelligent" species (the omniscient and omnipotent gods) who have created us in their super computer. Cheers mate! You hang over from last night,? :smile:

Einstein said: "der Herr Gott würfelt nicht"... How clear can it be?
— EugeneW

I don't speak that language but I am content with the Wikipedia quote on Einstein, for now.
If I am wrong then I am sure some god will permit his 'essence' to comlink with me in one of my dreams to correct me, as it seems all the available documentation on Einstein is unable to irrefutable settle this issue. — universeness

Einstein would have been a realist which would leave him a little ambiguous. The harshness of reality and the miraculousness of existence causing confusion to many philosophers. The promise of immortality that 'Many Worlds' offers for example would have given him (if he'd lived a few more years) some reason to have belief. While on the other hand (his) determinism pretty much dashes all hope of believing.

Do they pray to nature, do they build places of worship to nature — universeness

In the labs they even beg nature! Forcing her to give answers in a language they suppose nature speaks. But she doesn't speak this language. They force her to speak it. By arranging the shape of experiment. Poor nature! Like that she wont answer...

Yeah, I am sure Richard Dawkins read about the life of Lee Harvey Oswald and thought to himself, "That's the life for me! If I copy his approach to life then I will become famous in America too!!" : — universeness

Our friend Dawkins want to be famous not like Oswald but like the the guys writing silly books about him. Pays off...

Yeah, I am sure Richard Dawkins read about the life of Lee Harvey Oswald and thought to himself, "That's the life for me! If I copy his approach to life then I will become famous in America too!!" :lol:
'Keep em comin' Gregory A, you are very entertaining.
I think you will find that Oswald is infamous not famous and Dawkins is well known and respected, unlike Oswald. Your comparison between the two is utter nonsense.
Did Jim and Tammy Baker study Lee Harvey Oswald in their bid to become famous in America or is that suggestion, like yours, just BS. — universeness

It would be the nature of the syndrome not who it would be named after that matters. And Oswald's first name was Lee, not Lee-Harvey, (and being a communist he would have dropped his middle name ). Jim and Tammy wanted wealth more than fame. And who wants to be infamous, Oswald thought he was doing the right thing by communist standards killing an enemy (actually the best friend the communists had at the time when compared to his opponent at the 1960 general election the rabidly anti-communist Richard M. Nixon).