, I’m an atheist, but still think Hanover’s position is far more interesting than yours. — Jamal

So you are declaring for Hanover's pov, so what?

if your posts had any effect at all, I think you’d turn me towards God. — Jamal

Well if that happens then I have brought you and Mr Hanover closer to each other and god. Would that not mean all three of you should be grateful to me?

Atheism as such is not a religion, but your sort of atheism is fanatical. Earlier on in this discussion, people including me and you were discussing the causes of oppression, totalitarianism, and genocide, and we broadly agreed that religion could not be identified as the central cause. A better candidate for that cause would be fanaticism and absolute certainty. — Jamal

I know atheism is not a religion. Quote where you think I have typed something fanatical?
I have given my credence level regularly, for the non-existence of god as 99.999%
This is a similar credence level as folks like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennet, Matt Dillahunty, Jimmy Snow, Forrest Valkai, Shannon Q, most scientists in the cosmology and astro-physics community, Roger Penrose, Sean Carroll etc, I could list many many more from the on-line atheist community and the science community. Do you consider all of them fanatics as well?

There is no absolute certainty about ANYTHING, just very high credence levels.
I am no fanatic and you saying I am has no value at all, until you provide convincing evidence for your spurious claim, which I think comes much more down to you trying to defend, your floundering friend and his weak attempts to justify his theism.

You want to find a place god can nestle with/exist with atheism yes? — universeness

No.

I am just asking for you to analyse the proposal I am suggesting considering god as omni this and omni that — universeness

I'm not a believer, so it's a little weird to analyse things as if I were. Further, anything said by people who are believers of this sort doesn't really rely upon the ontological argument or classical philosophical notions of God.

So I am lead to believe that you're not understanding, but you're acting like I'm not understanding.

Perhaps we've come to our little spot of dogma in the conversation.

your floundering friend — universeness

This was my favourite bit.

Perhaps. I am trying to 'appreciate' where you are coming from in your support of non-literal theism.

Especially if one is using the text non-literally -- then that person is being pretty explicit about what is real and what is myth, rather than conflating the two. — Moliere

'God is love,' is the only offering you seem to have favoured so far from the musings of 'non-literal' theism. Can you offer some more?

Quote where you think I have typed something fanatical? — universeness

lol

Yes. I am a reluctant post-modernist.
— Tom Storm

That's a pity. You're missing out. The original guys enjoyed it. (The dialogue between Searle and Derrida is a good example.) It was having a sure-fire way of tweaking the lion's tail - where the lion was the orthodox academy. The sense of fun that I found in them was part of the appeal. (I also realized that it must have been part of Socrates' appeal when he revealed Socratic method to his friends. I suspect that it was one of the reasons he lost the trial.) — Ludwig V

I was just making a mild joke that many of us are postmodernists reluctantly through the influence the ideas have had on our culture. I tend towards anti-foundationalist skepticism myself. I've done some desultory reading, but I have never privileged any philosophy in my life as I've had other priorities. Which is why I am here; to get a taste of what I might have missed.

I am glad I typed something in this thread you are not offended by!
You accused me of being a fanatic Mr Jamal. Quote where, or have the honesty to withdraw your accusation.

Quote me your idea of my fanaticism dusty!

I don’t think I need to quote you, since I estimate that most others reading this exchange will see exactly what I mean. I’m not trying to convince you that you’re fanatical.

Well, I expect every current member of YOUR site, is rushing right now to confirm your request.
I doubt I will even have enough time to type this response and post it before EVERY current member of YOUR site confirms that they think I am a fanatical atheist! :scream:

You know you can use italics instead of shouting with capital letters?

I used to teach netiquette to classes from S1 to S3, and you can use capitals for emphasis rather than as an indication of shouting. I try never to shout but I do try to emphasize on occasion.
In netiquette, whole sentences of capitals are indeed considered shouting, as are capitalised expletives etc.

It still looks like shouting to me, even if it’s single words. I suspect others feel the same, but I could be wrong.

I am trying to 'appreciate' where you are coming from in your support of non-literal theism. — universeness

For me it frequently comes down to the political pull. If we can act in concert together in pursuing knowledge or justice or pleasure, then I don't particularly care about the frame that a person lives by. That's for them to decide. If they are interested they can ask me what I think, and we all do from time to time, but for the most part I just don't feel it's much of my concern.

And Universalist Unitarians just aren't the literalists you're targeting, if you want a bigger organization that you can investigate on your own. IMX, they're good people. It's not my thing, but hey -- that's OK.

There is a lot of 'netiquette' guidelines out there. There are even ones for in-house use, written by a particular company or organisation.
A guideline such as: Netiquette and capital letters.
When writing emails or any web content on the internet, there’s a general rule that frowns upon the use of blocks of capital letters. It's seen as shouting and as such deemed aggressive behaviour or poor etiquette. There are exceptions to the rule, most commonly for short headings, where uppercase type can bring focus to a specific section.

mentions 'blocks of capital letters' and identifies some exception. So in the school I taught computing science in for 30+ years, we taught that there were some exceptions to a blanket ban on the use of capitals in electronic type. Capitalisation for the purpose of emphasis was ok if the content was not threatening. I am quite willing to switch to the preferred use of bold for emphasis.

Well thanks for the info but I think I will leave that personal investigation of IMX for now.
I will happily work cheek by jowl with theists of any variety to gain a more progressive politics.
I will still counter theistic claims in the same way I have always done, especially when they are presented as absolute truths hidden behind stealth tactics and camouflage.

The irony of this thread is that despite having gone off topic, it essentially shows us what Atheist dogma looks like. A successful thread after all.

Maybe we have our own form of netiquette here. At least, I think it looks bad too if done regularly. You might be misunderstood as being intemperate and there's nothing lost by switching to bold or italics.

I just don't see religion as being a major contributor to the array of problems humanity faces. If there are ways in which some religious sects or aspects of religion are exacerbating personal, social and environmental problems than those specific areas and issues are what need to be addressed, and corrected or reigned in, not religion as a whole, because some religions and aspects of religion are arguably also ameliorating personal. social and environmental problems.

If you can't see that, then of course you won't agree, but that would say more about you than about religion. All of those I've ever encountered with your kind of anti-religious fanaticism were once devout, or at least heavily conditioned by religion when they were young, and I'm betting you fit in that category.

I prefer what scientists do. They file the question under "pending", basically meaning "to be worked out later". That's the undogmatic response. — Ludwig V

Right, that is the undogmatic response, but it may also be an evasion or deflection in the form of an implied promissory note that it will all certainly become clear later. Of course, "later" may never come. I think this evasion or deflection happens in science just as it does in religion.

I am glad that you found Badiou useful for you.

I am not sure if the following relates to your OP but here it goes:

The 'rationalists' tradition developed the idea of seeing reason as different from theology in various ways. Hegel is interesting as someone who viewed the 'concepts' of religion as something integrated into a larger understanding of reason. Rational premises are the ground for dispensing with theological registers. Badiou's approach is he doesn't take the Hegelian view that such a trajectory of thinking can be resolved or is the large tendency of the world seen through a teleology. For Badiou, the vitality of reason is tied to an asymmetry it cannot go beyond. And it is kind of an accident.

What about 'magical thinking' 'delusion' and 'willful ignorance' – you don't think they are "major contributors to the array of problems humanity faces"? And whether or not religion causes them, it exacerbates these atavistic tendencies, no?

By "atheist dogma", are you referring to a critical rejection of literal theism and/or interpretation of "revealed" scriptures – or something else?

For Badiou, the vitality of reason is tied to an asymmetry it cannot go beyond. And it is kind of an accident. — Paine

I really do need to read Badiou then. Sometime.

Damnit.

I’m referring to how the OP defines it. Everyone seems to have forgotten what this thread is about.

I hope I haven't, though I'm willing to be judged.

I thought it was about the atheist dogma of interpreting scripture with a literal lense in the same way that one might interpret "the cat is on the mat".

Or, more open: about how interpreting scripture with respect to how we use language with respect to making true statements is not a good way to interpret scripture when talking to people who don't do it like that.

As I'd pointed out (on the first page of this thread) the absurdity of the OP ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/811827
I assumed that by page fifteen a more defensible notion than "atheist dogma causes religious fundamentalism" was being discussed. My mistake for not reading the last several pages of the thread.

Damnit. — Moliere

I feel your pain.

What about 'magical thinking' 'delusion' and 'willful ignorance' – you don't think they are "major contributors to the array of problems humanity faces"? And whether or not religion causes them, it exacerbates these atavistic tendencies, no? — 180 Proof

I can't think of any specific major problems caused by magical thinking, and I think it, delusion and willful ignorance are primordial features of human psychology.

The percentage of humanity motivated by rational thought is probably rather small, and i don't think this necessarily has much to do with religion. religion may be one of the manifestations of this predominent irrational element in human nature, and also may feedback into it to some extent.

Probably most people don't care to much about science as aworldview motivator, they just want to enjoy its technological benefits, while also fearing its destructive potentials; more destructive weaponry, including most notably the horrors of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

Also, chemical pollution is seen as a major problem, and even the benefits of increased prosperity and medical technology have contributed to the burgeoning population that is, in itself contributing to the depleting of resources, destruction of habitat and so on.

I think the major problems humanity faces are the result of selfishness, greed, indifference to others, lack of compassion, complacency, addiction to comfort, habitual behavior, resistance to change and many other contributing negative traits.

I think religion will fall away when and if people no longer need it.

What about 'magical thinking' 'delusion' and 'willful ignorance' – you don't think they are "major contributors to the array of problems humanity faces"? — 180 Proof

As William James says, "The ultimate test for us of what a truth means is the conduct it dictates or inspires."

This I would apply to the moral more than the mundane. I realize a bridge can be built only a certain way.

So even should a belief in God be entirely delusional, if it should lead to greater happiness, and should its disbelief lead to misery, you'd be hard pressed to explain why we should accept the cold hard scientific misery unless you hold that adherence to empirically motivated beliefs is always righteous. Such would be a basic tenant of your dogma.

And should you suggest that the acceptance of the scientifically unprovable as fact will necessarily lead to misery, then you again are only asserting dogma.

Belief is a choice and a choice is a judgment and judgments are based upon criteria. If your sole dogmatic criterion for choice of what to believe is whether the fact is empirically justified, then such is your dogma.

Explain why the person who lives a fulfilled life, positively contributing in every way to society, and who does that as the consequence of his deluded belief in the most basic anthropomorphic God and simplest literal interpretation of scripture, is worse than the strict scientific empiricist who suffers terribly from the hard knowledge that life is devoid of purpose.

I think religion will fall away when and if people no longer need it. — Janus

So will science, but neither will happen.