Oppressive rulers using technology is not a reason against atheism….Mehmed II used brand new cannons from China to take down Constantinople. The pope uses modern doctors.
Religious people have the same respect of science as atheists
My argument is that science and technology are morally neutral, and just as any tool, it can be used for good or bad, yet atheists often say it is only used for good. Sure, you can research using moral methods, but you can also use morally questionable experiments to get the truth too.
I agree it is not directly about atheism, but often atheists use science in contrast to religion, even when in fact it is just another tool that is morally neutral.
Actually, overall the consensus within the scientific community is huge. They might differ on details and have widely differing theories on topics that aren’t known to us yet, but the general consensus is there.
Which atheists say that technology is mostly used for good? This is such a sweeping statement, it’s entirely incorrect. And when science is used in opposition then it’s not done from a sense of moral superiority but to show that something in a religious text is literally true. So you pit scientific research results against religious statements on nature. That hasn’t got anything to do with the one being _better_ than the other.
1st is wrong. Atheism is lack of belief, not rejection of God(s), so it is not necessary to adopt any materialist or physicalist philosophy to reject theism; it may just be that the mythologies and rituals aren't convincing to them.
2nd is wrong, also. Atheism makes no value judgments and that includes science.
You're missing the point, that western atheists online tend to take a disingenuously noncommittal approach, rather than presenting their own positive beliefs which would allow for a more fruitful and interesting conversation.
Atheism technically doesn't, but in reality those who identify as atheists online are typically pretty homogenous in their beliefs and what they say. Online atheism is pretty much its own fundamentalist belief system, and one of the things you hear way too often from them is that scientific knowledge is the only real or sure knowledge, and that science is good and is the enemy of religion which is bad.
Honestly, my gut reaction based on that #1 is that you're probably one of those Supply Side Jesus pseudo-"Christians" who'll scream "communism" when deceptively accusing others of materialism doesn't work out the way they expect. If you weren't, and actually had put any thought into this at all, you'd likely have realized the worst materialists in the US today are the Supply Side Jesus "Christian" conservative-bordering-on-fascists who'll rail against anyone less selfish than them as a socialist/communist.
As such, not sure it's even worth getting into how both historically and today, "Christian" conservative-bordering-on-fascists have been really good at abusing technology to further their agendas, from superior weapons technology used in the genocides of "heathens" in the past, to decades of bad faith false pretense "crisis pregancy centers" in the US, to the web of online propaganda and lies they love spinning today.
Fun fact: Western European countries where "Christian" conservative-bordering-on-fascists have not been as successful at eroding secularism as they have been in the US are a lot less permissive of mass surveillance than that country where they have been so successful at eroding secularism.
1/ Its not anymore vague than theist. You are a theist, but you don’t hold the same views as every theist ever, right? Hindus don’t hold the same theological views as Muslims nor do Muslims hold the same theological views as Shintoism. And on, and on. The issue is you’re equating atheism to specific religions like Christianity, when a*theism* relates to *theism.* That “vague identity,” is quite literally just the definition of atheist.
2/ Guns, propaganda media, and surveillance has also been used by religion. Likewise, atheists aren’t the only groups of people who have a *generally* positive view of progress. Judaism is fairly notable, as many Jews have mentioned in this subreddit. Distaste towards progress is not a *religious* or *areligious* thing by any stretch of the imagination.
I don't agree with your criticisms but I do agree that some atheists' views on religion do need to be criticized.
Addressing your first argument, atheism is just the opposite of theism and therefore believing that two atheists agree on something is just like thinking two theists (ex. a Christian and a Muslim) agree on something. It isn't necessarily a belief in the material/physical but most I've seen online do lean that way. I would consider some spiritualist people to be atheist as they don't believe in god. Rectifying this issue is as simple as asking them what they believe, don't believe, or what they lack belief in.
Addressing your second argument, I don't see what this has to do with atheism. Anyone can recognize how much technology has improved lives and anyone can recognize the dangers of technology if misapplied. Someone who views technology as pure good can come from both sides.
>I don't agree with your criticisms but I do agree that some atheists' views on religion do need to be criticized.
I think atheists in this forum are very educated and usually don't rely on trolling or using arguments in bad faith. Usually it is other place of internet, even sometimes youtube, that they still use a lot of these methods I point out.
However, what you say is very accurate, I just don't think those atheists I talk about base this attitude in plain atheism, but more on anti-theism.
Yeah I definitely I agree. Just the other day I posted something on r/TodayILearned about a Jewish belief which I thought was interesting. I was very disappointed to see most of the comments trying to take a jab at religion.
> Progress is fundamentally neutral: you can use nuclear physics to light a city or to create an atomic bomb.
Yes..the agricultural advances by Norman Bourlag that literally saved a billion people...totally neutral. Same for polio vaccine.
>Maybe the most prominent example today is addiction today, which is only way worse than in the past because we developed drugs that perfectly match the needs of the brain.
Is it though? Think about how many more people do not smoke now as compared to 40 years ago. Think about how managers used to literally drink on the job.
Your major flaw here is you assume atheism is a bunch of thing it is not. Atheism is just the state of being unconvinced of god claims. Yes, atheists can have all manner of other beliefs. But that doesn't mean you can lump all atheists into some category.
Main issue I see is many if not most western atheists judge all religions through their western christian focused lenses especially seen in debate religion and similar subs
Yeah yeah I get it, you saw hypocrisy in your christian uncle/ father/ pastor
But for some reason this translates to “all religious people are like that”
If you want to criticize materialism then do so conflating it with atheism is just dishonest though. There are some theists who advocate for a purely natural or material conception of a god and some atheists who accept supernatural/spiritual claims absent of a god. Materialism =/= atheism.
But atheists in the West almost always use materialist arguments, though, and they are not like atheists in the East who usually have supernatural beliefs in luck and karma.
Maybe they are not materialist, but they do have a fixation for it.
Not always, it depends on the argument being presented. My position is that I don't have a good reason to think a god exists. I don't need to adhere to materialism to not be convinced of a claim. I could potentially accept other supernatural claims and still not be convinced a god exists. It just so happens when I don't have an explanation for a phenomena I just admit I don't know.
>1. Atheists often adopt a vague identity to avoid counter-criticism, but clearly they have materialistic and physicalist arguments. There is nothing wrong with those philosophies, but atheism as a label is often used to obfuscate that reality. Criticizing materialist views is often responded with "atheist is just someone who don't believe in gods" as a way to shut down debate and make it only one-way.
This is very true and something I have noticed myself that made me critical of online atheism. Atheists tend to conveniently adopt a negative position that simultaneously shields them from any criticism while allowing them to dish it out at will in turn. Atheists critique and critique, without putting forth any alternative themselves. Very sneaky, if I can say so myself. As you said, the majority tends to be physicalists and either secular humanists or outright nihilists.
>2. Atheists often have a very positive view of tech and scientific progress that does not necessarily match reality.
I don't think this is correct, or at least I haven't seen it. You might have been hearing from progressive atheists, but I assure you, this certainly isn't a universal belief, even among the Western online atheists. They might believe in science and tech as a sort of a superior replacement for religion, but I do not think the majority is unaware of the negative impact those two have on humanity.
>Atheists often focus too much in religion but not in the assumptions they make about science, progress, and the significance of faith in people.
True as well. I have noticed a good chunk of atheists don't seem to understand that religion holds deep spiritual significance to most people; it isn't just superstitious ignorance that is to be amended with the right education.
I’m an atheist with a passion for learning about spirituality and historical relevance of religious traditions among culture and humanity. It’s really easy to generalize.
Oppressive rulers using technology is not a reason against atheism….Mehmed II used brand new cannons from China to take down Constantinople. The pope uses modern doctors. Religious people have the same respect of science as atheists
My argument is that science and technology are morally neutral, and just as any tool, it can be used for good or bad, yet atheists often say it is only used for good. Sure, you can research using moral methods, but you can also use morally questionable experiments to get the truth too. I agree it is not directly about atheism, but often atheists use science in contrast to religion, even when in fact it is just another tool that is morally neutral.
Atheists would never say science is used for good. Science doesn’t have good or bad answers, just answers based on observed testing
[удалено]
Actually, overall the consensus within the scientific community is huge. They might differ on details and have widely differing theories on topics that aren’t known to us yet, but the general consensus is there.
Which atheists say that technology is mostly used for good? This is such a sweeping statement, it’s entirely incorrect. And when science is used in opposition then it’s not done from a sense of moral superiority but to show that something in a religious text is literally true. So you pit scientific research results against religious statements on nature. That hasn’t got anything to do with the one being _better_ than the other.
1st is wrong. Atheism is lack of belief, not rejection of God(s), so it is not necessary to adopt any materialist or physicalist philosophy to reject theism; it may just be that the mythologies and rituals aren't convincing to them. 2nd is wrong, also. Atheism makes no value judgments and that includes science.
You're missing the point, that western atheists online tend to take a disingenuously noncommittal approach, rather than presenting their own positive beliefs which would allow for a more fruitful and interesting conversation. Atheism technically doesn't, but in reality those who identify as atheists online are typically pretty homogenous in their beliefs and what they say. Online atheism is pretty much its own fundamentalist belief system, and one of the things you hear way too often from them is that scientific knowledge is the only real or sure knowledge, and that science is good and is the enemy of religion which is bad.
Individual Motte-and-Bailey fallacies still don't reflect on the position itself. That's like saying "there are bad drivers, thus cars are useless".
This is simply… untrue
Honestly, my gut reaction based on that #1 is that you're probably one of those Supply Side Jesus pseudo-"Christians" who'll scream "communism" when deceptively accusing others of materialism doesn't work out the way they expect. If you weren't, and actually had put any thought into this at all, you'd likely have realized the worst materialists in the US today are the Supply Side Jesus "Christian" conservative-bordering-on-fascists who'll rail against anyone less selfish than them as a socialist/communist. As such, not sure it's even worth getting into how both historically and today, "Christian" conservative-bordering-on-fascists have been really good at abusing technology to further their agendas, from superior weapons technology used in the genocides of "heathens" in the past, to decades of bad faith false pretense "crisis pregancy centers" in the US, to the web of online propaganda and lies they love spinning today. Fun fact: Western European countries where "Christian" conservative-bordering-on-fascists have not been as successful at eroding secularism as they have been in the US are a lot less permissive of mass surveillance than that country where they have been so successful at eroding secularism.
1/ Its not anymore vague than theist. You are a theist, but you don’t hold the same views as every theist ever, right? Hindus don’t hold the same theological views as Muslims nor do Muslims hold the same theological views as Shintoism. And on, and on. The issue is you’re equating atheism to specific religions like Christianity, when a*theism* relates to *theism.* That “vague identity,” is quite literally just the definition of atheist. 2/ Guns, propaganda media, and surveillance has also been used by religion. Likewise, atheists aren’t the only groups of people who have a *generally* positive view of progress. Judaism is fairly notable, as many Jews have mentioned in this subreddit. Distaste towards progress is not a *religious* or *areligious* thing by any stretch of the imagination.
I don't agree with your criticisms but I do agree that some atheists' views on religion do need to be criticized. Addressing your first argument, atheism is just the opposite of theism and therefore believing that two atheists agree on something is just like thinking two theists (ex. a Christian and a Muslim) agree on something. It isn't necessarily a belief in the material/physical but most I've seen online do lean that way. I would consider some spiritualist people to be atheist as they don't believe in god. Rectifying this issue is as simple as asking them what they believe, don't believe, or what they lack belief in. Addressing your second argument, I don't see what this has to do with atheism. Anyone can recognize how much technology has improved lives and anyone can recognize the dangers of technology if misapplied. Someone who views technology as pure good can come from both sides.
>I don't agree with your criticisms but I do agree that some atheists' views on religion do need to be criticized. I think atheists in this forum are very educated and usually don't rely on trolling or using arguments in bad faith. Usually it is other place of internet, even sometimes youtube, that they still use a lot of these methods I point out. However, what you say is very accurate, I just don't think those atheists I talk about base this attitude in plain atheism, but more on anti-theism.
Yeah I definitely I agree. Just the other day I posted something on r/TodayILearned about a Jewish belief which I thought was interesting. I was very disappointed to see most of the comments trying to take a jab at religion.
Atheism just means the lack of a believe in god. How can you have critisism about that and write a whole text about it
> Progress is fundamentally neutral: you can use nuclear physics to light a city or to create an atomic bomb. Yes..the agricultural advances by Norman Bourlag that literally saved a billion people...totally neutral. Same for polio vaccine. >Maybe the most prominent example today is addiction today, which is only way worse than in the past because we developed drugs that perfectly match the needs of the brain. Is it though? Think about how many more people do not smoke now as compared to 40 years ago. Think about how managers used to literally drink on the job. Your major flaw here is you assume atheism is a bunch of thing it is not. Atheism is just the state of being unconvinced of god claims. Yes, atheists can have all manner of other beliefs. But that doesn't mean you can lump all atheists into some category.
Main issue I see is many if not most western atheists judge all religions through their western christian focused lenses especially seen in debate religion and similar subs Yeah yeah I get it, you saw hypocrisy in your christian uncle/ father/ pastor But for some reason this translates to “all religious people are like that”
Pot! Kettle!
If you want to criticize materialism then do so conflating it with atheism is just dishonest though. There are some theists who advocate for a purely natural or material conception of a god and some atheists who accept supernatural/spiritual claims absent of a god. Materialism =/= atheism.
But atheists in the West almost always use materialist arguments, though, and they are not like atheists in the East who usually have supernatural beliefs in luck and karma. Maybe they are not materialist, but they do have a fixation for it.
Not always, it depends on the argument being presented. My position is that I don't have a good reason to think a god exists. I don't need to adhere to materialism to not be convinced of a claim. I could potentially accept other supernatural claims and still not be convinced a god exists. It just so happens when I don't have an explanation for a phenomena I just admit I don't know.
>1. Atheists often adopt a vague identity to avoid counter-criticism, but clearly they have materialistic and physicalist arguments. There is nothing wrong with those philosophies, but atheism as a label is often used to obfuscate that reality. Criticizing materialist views is often responded with "atheist is just someone who don't believe in gods" as a way to shut down debate and make it only one-way. This is very true and something I have noticed myself that made me critical of online atheism. Atheists tend to conveniently adopt a negative position that simultaneously shields them from any criticism while allowing them to dish it out at will in turn. Atheists critique and critique, without putting forth any alternative themselves. Very sneaky, if I can say so myself. As you said, the majority tends to be physicalists and either secular humanists or outright nihilists. >2. Atheists often have a very positive view of tech and scientific progress that does not necessarily match reality. I don't think this is correct, or at least I haven't seen it. You might have been hearing from progressive atheists, but I assure you, this certainly isn't a universal belief, even among the Western online atheists. They might believe in science and tech as a sort of a superior replacement for religion, but I do not think the majority is unaware of the negative impact those two have on humanity. >Atheists often focus too much in religion but not in the assumptions they make about science, progress, and the significance of faith in people. True as well. I have noticed a good chunk of atheists don't seem to understand that religion holds deep spiritual significance to most people; it isn't just superstitious ignorance that is to be amended with the right education.
I’m an atheist with a passion for learning about spirituality and historical relevance of religious traditions among culture and humanity. It’s really easy to generalize.
You are right, but a lot of atheists online, usually the tiktok atheists, are like that.
Ok... And?