Atheist/Anti-theist/Agnostic Troper Group

Yes, that does seem to be the case. Libertarians often oppose feminism (at least in the mainstream forms-some will advocate individualist feminism). Of course I should clarify that by saying they are opposed to certain measures (non-discrimination, equal pay laws) not just in regards to women but on general principles. I speak from experience as a former libertarian in saying there is a nasty strain of bigotry among far too many libertarians, although certainly not everyone (this appalled me at the time), going so far as to deny the holocaust or make the usual racist and sexist claims.

It's ironic since as Sargon makes clear, libertarianism is fundamentally individualists and rejects collectivist ideas on principle, yet some make very collectivists claims themselves (all blacks, all women, etc.). I also agree with his alarm at any resurgence of Marxism, but much of that is due to overly libertarian policies wrecking the economy. Libertarianism is another failed utopian ideology which is from the opposite perspective, which like Marxism refuses to admit it's ever wrong.

Sargon unsurprisingly shows some ignorance here, for instance claiming Marx's "I am not a Marxist" statement as an admission he was wrong. Rather, it was showing disagreement with some self-styled Marxists at the time. Libertarianism mostly appeals to young, fairly successful white males from my experience, and one factor is a feeling that they are being made to feel guilty for being all those things. Of course, I'm not saying they're right, but that is a common perception. Also note the "just get over it already" sentiment to blacks which he shows (no doubt this also extends to women). Libertarianism, like Marxism, rests on simply and consistent principles which have an intuitive appeal to many, but are simply wrong, in many cases due to being overly simplistic.

It's odd he, an atheist, brings up one teacher trying to indoctrinate students into atheism, while many more examples of indoctrinating people into religion come up. He also claims not to disagree with people from "the left" are saying, but what they do. This is nonsense, however, as seen in this very video (partly because it's much too broad): Marxism is a leftist ideology with which he makes his disagreement quite clear. Progressivism too you can find he clearly disagrees with in other material. Fine, but be honest about it.

edited 7th Mar '17 6:43:38 AM by Fireblood

Because he's posted about in the Rational Wiki? Is RW really the most reliable source, Adric?

Admitting I was a little suprised that the TAA's video defense of atheism didn't generate as much discussion as I hoped it would. Glad, though, that some discussion did come, just in a different direction.

Oh, and thanks for analysis, Fireblood. If I go on like this, I can either parrot many contradictory viewpoints - or perhaps actually form some kinda more coherent views of my own, whichever.

edited 13th Apr '17 3:38:28 PM by MerryMikael

Well, his defense is pretty generic, so I didn't have much comment. I'm not sure if anyone else watched it.

It's useful to know many different viewpoints, and may help you form your own.

So do any of you here ever seriously consider whether we're wrong, and a god exists (however that is defined)? On a broader note, which argument for God's existence do you find the best (if any of them) or argument against it?

edited 24th Mar '17 5:21:31 PM by Fireblood

Whenever I hear someone arguing for the existence of God, I can (usually) understand their line of thinking, but the obstacle of having to believe the massively unrealistic premise as an axiom is just too much for me. I can understand the argument, but I can't accept it. I suppose it's related to how you might encounter a fantasy or sci-fi world and, from a worldbuilding perspective, appreciate how it "works" within its internal rules and so on; but generally, you wouldn't say it's realistic or plausible in any framework other than that of fantasy.

When it comes to arguments for the existence of God, I tend to have the most time for ones that approach it from making the huge assumption as small as possible. Rather than making very complicated statements as to the power of their deity, a argument like this would posit that mostly the universe works without intervention, and God is only there as an observer or "prime mover" or such. The more active the God, the more magical explanations I'm offered; and thus, the harder the pill becomes to swallow.

Against God, it's much the same for me: arguments that point out how much we're asked to just accept for free are ones that I tend to consider most convincing. If you posit to me a God that can hear a prayer and act on it, I will probably build my counter-argument to that on the number and scale of things you are asking me to assume on no evidence. Even if I was to take for granted that there is some kind of a God, you've still got a very long way to guide me from there to a God matching your specific claims.

If God is presented as a (of the) source of morality and moral behaviour, I will not be very accommodating to tales of a God who acts in ways I cannot accept as moral, especially if it's not even moral according to the rules allegedly dictated by that same God.

Still, these moral arguments do not, for me, generally constitute arguments about whether God exists. Instead, they are arguments about what God is like; and I will not see the point of going there if we haven't established that there is a God first. Even if you really want there to be or not be a God, that is not an argument either way. Thus, "God is goodness and love and compassion" is not going to convince me, any more than "God is evil and hate and ruthlessness".

The only case where I would consider an argument along these lines as an argument for or against God is if there is a larger argument being made where the moral value of God is an implicit part of that argument. For instance, you could build something like "there is an opposite to everything" and "if there is nothing, there must be something" and "if there is suffering, there must be salvation/love" and "if there is evil, there must be good" and "the good, nice, creative, caring part of this balance if God, and the other side is not God". There's at least some structural integrity to this model, even if it is extremely naive, simplistic, and baseless; so at least in contemplating the merits of such a model, I could accept, for the sake of argument, that a proof of God's goodness is a proof in favour of this model. (Again, though, I've still not been at all convinced that the model is sound, or that God is a necessary implication of it, or that the various axes we discuss are not arbitrary, or that they are necessarily linked to each other, and so on.)

For me, arguments - often made by creationists - that are based on pointing out how big or complex something it don't pull me towards God. The idea behind those arguments is that if they can prove that X is incredibly complex, there must be an entity that made it - it can't have come to be naturally. There are a couple of problems with that, though.

The more trivial, for the purposes of answering to this kind of challenge, is that we know, generally speaking, that relatively simple processes, given time, will yield very complex outcomes; and thus, showing me such an outcome just makes me more interested in the underlying processes that made it.

The other, more serious, problem is that if you're going to assert that your complex X could only have been deliberately made, I cannot help but expect that the entity that deliberately made it must have been complex enough to conceive of your complex X - that is, even more complex than X, and you've given me no proof that that creative entity exists. Thus you're positing an additional entity (additional to X, that is) that you ask me to just accept. If I have assumed the existence of simple processes and sufficient time for them to have resulted in X, I believe I have almost certainly made fewer assumptions than I would have to make to accept your complex creator that made X.

If anything, by showing me how complex X is, you have made me less inclined to believe in a creator that could have made X. Before, the creator I had been offered had been complex enough to think of and create everything else that wasn't previously explained; yet now I am to add X to that tally, as well, and somehow this is offered to me as if that would make the creator of X less difficult of an assumption to make.

Yes, I understand people's views (or try to) too in many cases. Though there are usually holes that mean it's illogical to begin, sometimes it's not that but just otherwise unsupported.

Like you, the "prime mover" deist god is the most plausible to me. It's funny that this was what Aristotle posited (he coined the term) but it was wedded to the Catholic God by people like Aquinas. This does not fit, since their god would be quite the intervener (and also there were multiple prime movers, not surprising since Aristotle came from a polytheist society). I find the cosmological argument the most intuitively plausible.

There are many logical problems with most god concepts that I've seen, or they simply get asserted without sufficient proof to begin with, as I mentioned before.

The moral arguments are relevant when they posit a very specific god, as is usually the case (no one seems to be satisfied with leaving it at prime mover). So for the usual Christian god concept, then evil, divine hiddenness and other things are serious issues.

I guess they could support God being simple by analogies like you make, for instance acorns become trees etc. To me the real issue is the "design" of things isn't really apparent, or poor if assumed.

edited 25th Mar '17 5:44:41 PM by Fireblood

In a book series Very Short Introductions, there is one about atheism. Anyone?

edited 29th Mar '17 9:20:08 AM by MerryMikael

Yes, there is one.[1]

Exactly what I was referring to. Perhaps the typo of an extra question mark made it come out wrong.

Anyone read?

edited 30th Mar '17 6:29:52 AM by MerryMikael

Sorry yes, I misread that. I haven't read it yet, no.

There's also one for agnosticism. Apparently a good chunk of it is dedicated to arguments against religion.

The atheist entry, at least according to description, argues for how atheism doesn't exclude a meaningful life. That connects to a sticking point I have with Jerry Coyne, for instance. Coyne just says how everything's meaningless and can't be otherwise (among other things, of course). Well, if everything's so meaningless, so try studying anything at all? Why should atheism exclude having a grounding for values? Even Greta Christina, herself an atheist, has written a book on how to find consolement about death without religion, for instance.

edited 30th Mar '17 5:52:06 PM by MerryMikael

I don't really get how "meaning" affects that. What's the point in studying if nothing has any meaning? What's the point of studying if it has? There are other questions to answer.

Yeah I'm kind of an anti-nihilist. The world doesn't have inherent meaning, but that doesn't mean we can't create meaning ourselves

Okay? Sounds like asking to be elaborated on.

So far the first and only book in Very Short Introductions I've read is The Meaning of Life by Terry Eagleton. I really enjoy Eagleton's approach to the subject matter. Sounds like you'd like it.

When we talk about nihilism, is it saying that there is no inherent meaning to things, or that there is absolutely no meaning to anything, period?

I figure we're on the former.

The latter's clearly something dismissing any possibility of getting anywhere. Seems that we posters do entertain the possibility of constructing meanings. Sure I can be wrong. Can just say I haven't run into a total existential nihilist (here or elsewhere).

edited 31st Mar '17 4:56:26 AM by MerryMikael

Kyler, saying there is no inherent meaning to things leaves it open that meaning could be created. This is called existentialism. Nihilism says no meaning exists, period, and there can't be. So there is the difference. I am neither. Certain things do have inherent meaning.

Mikael, I have run into a self-declared existential nihilist. They really didn't act that differently from anyone else though. So it may not make such a difference. I think it would be hard to truly live that out.

edited 31st Mar '17 6:35:12 PM by Fireblood

If I can refer back to Eagleton's The Meaning of Life(also in Very Short Introductions -series), he definitely plays with the idea that life might not add up to any coherent meaning. He even plays around with the cosmic horror-y idea that the meaning of life may not be something we are better off knowing(akin to TEH WILL of Arthur Schopenhauer).

I recommend.

edited 1st Apr '17 6:28:14 AM by MerryMikael

I don't like calling myself a nihilist because I don't appreciate many of the attitudes that self-declared nihilists sometimes exhibit, but it is an accurate label for my views on the reality of the fundamental meaning and value of life. I don't believe there is any objectively true value in anything. All judgments of value or meaning are subjective.

That said, I love the universe, life, living things, art, culture, comedy, and so on. I can admit that I can't conceive of a way they could have any meaning or purpose independent of subjective entities that care about these things, while also acknowledging my own (subjective) appreciation for them. When there is no more life in the universe, it will not have made any difference whether there ever was life, and that conclusion, to me, is inevitable; yet while there still is life, to that life, things can have meaning.

I just consider it dishonest to pretend that that meaning is somehow an entity in itself, or that it is permanent or supported by something eternal. Others have access to personal experiences that make them believe otherwise, but I haven't been exposed to any such experience - or argument, either - to support the idea that there is objective, eternal value in anything.

So, yeah, I'm a nihilist and I love life.

The reputation of nihilists is so low that it's telling TV Tropes describes such an attitude as The Anti-Nihilist. While I'm not a nihilist myself, as I've mentioned, there's no contradiction or "surprise" in this view.

edited 1st Apr '17 5:59:52 PM by Fireblood

By the way Best Of, I'm curious: where is your avatar image from? I just saw someone else using it.

On another note, I came across an interesting verse in the Quran (Surah Al-Jathiyah 45:24):

"And they say, "There is not but our worldly life; we die and live, and nothing destroys us except time." And they have of that no knowledge; they are only assuming."

It sounds like atheism, materialism or something similar. They existed then too. I find it fascinating to come across statements such as these, given how the irreligious views get often scrubbed out of history.

My avatar (actually, almost all of the avatars I've ever used here) comes from the Discworld books by Terry Pratchett. The character in Sam Vimes.

Ah, okay. I have yet to read those novels, though I've heard good stuff about them.

Pratchett is my favourite author, ever. Consequently, I can't help but make a recommendation here. The Discworld books, except maybe one or two of them, were all written with the idea that they'd all work as stand-alone novels, with no context necessary from the other books in the series. That said, they do almost all happen during the same period and in mostly the same four or five locations in the Discworld, with characters (major and minor) appearing across multiple books, constituting sub-series (each based on a given character or group) within the main series.

Usually, the recommended reading order, if you want to follow the characters as they grow, rather than reading them at one point in their life and then going back to an earlier point, is the same order that the books were published. However, there are a couple of reasons why I tend to recommend something else.

First, the first two or three books are not among the strongest in the series. Their tone is different, and Pratchett still had to develop as an author before the series would really find itself. That's why I wouldn't start with them: instead, I recommend that you start somewhere else and when you get immersed in that world and in the way Pratchett thinks, go back to the first books. Don't get me wrong: they're still very good. Just not Pratchett good. (The same, unfortunately, applies to most of the last five or six books in the series, as Pratchett's Alzheimer's disease was starting to show.)

Second, there are a couple of books that are even more stand-alone than the ones that are part of a sub-series. As I said, Pratchett always tried to include enough information in each book to establish the world and characters for the reader even if they hadn't read the preceding books. Still, you get more out of them if you read mostly in order. Out of the more stand-alone-ish books, I would recommend Small Gods (which, incidentally, deals with religion - especially organised religion - from the point of view of this particular fantasy universe). Small Gods takes place long before the rest of the books, so chronologically it's the first in the series (not counting time travel and other similar quirks). It's very much in the same tone and spirit and style, and has the same sort of substance, as the very best Discworld books. That's why I always recommend that one as the starting point for getting into Discworld.

Just to very briefly introduce the world, the main difference between the Discworld and our world is the in the Discworld universe, belief is very powerful - it seems to be closely tied to magic, which is real in that universe. If very many people strongly believe that something is the case about the laws of nature, then that is how it is and the world will adjust to accommodate that belief. Consequently, gods exist and compete with each other for believers - the more belief, the stronger the god. Atheists also exist, but they have to wear rubber shows because they get struck by lightning all the time. Small Gods is about the god of a very powerful religion at the centre of a theocratic, monotheistic state. As it turns out, people believe in the church and the state so strongly that they don't really have resources to also believe in the actual god; so when he tries to manifest as a mighty lion, he incarnates as a tortoise, instead. That's where the story of Small Gods begins.

Vimes first appears in Guards! Guards!. It is one of the first books in the series, but it doesn't appear until Pratchett has shook off most of the baggage he created for his world early on in his writing of the series. He is the head of the Night Watch - a rudimentary police force - in the Discworld's largest city, Ank-Morpork, where most of the Discworld stories take place. Ankh-Morpork is a lawless and chaotic place, and the Night Watch are mostly treated as if they're just one of the weaker gangs that roam the night. There are only a few officers left, and Vimes is the most qualified of them even though he is suffering from a very severe and debilitating case of alcoholism. The Discworld stories centred around the Night Watch follow Vimes' career as he seeks to get a hold of his life and re-establish the Night Watch and the rule of law in Ankh-Morpork.

My favourite novel is Night Watch, which (obviously) is part of the Night Watch series within Discworld. It's pretty close to the end of Vimes' story (as Pratchett left it, anyway). Its plot and themes parallel Les Misérables, which was my favourite book until I read Night Watch. That's how good Pratchett is, in my opinion. I wouldn't recommend reading Night Watch, though, until you've read the Night Watch series up to that point (and preferably all of the other Discworld novels until that point, as well.)

Anyone else read Eagleton's book(The Meaning of Life)? His Marxist bias doesn't seem to rear its head there.