A Treatise on Atheists.

Eramen

lazybones32 wrote: »

Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe in the same God but it is only the Christian religion that is parodied and mimicked. Judaism and Islam aren't as widespread as Christianity in Ireland but not elsewhere - America has a large Jewish Community as does England - but why don't the enlightened members of the Atheist Community raise their voice against the Jews and Muslims? Are they afraid of insulting these faiths; do they expect some consequence from singling-out Judaism or Islam?
We (theists), according to detractors, are all as 'mistaken' (or delusional) as each other but the atheists go after the 'big fish' first? Congratulations on the strategy and tactics employed on that one.

Very well pointed out. The reason Dick Dawkins brand 'atheists' don't attack Islam and Judaism is obvious to most intelligent folk. These 'atheists' seek to hide behind a thinly veiled veneer of so-called 'progress' and 'equality'. It would be very un-politically correct of them to dissuade Muslims from practicing their religion (never mind a bit too dangerous for their type) and attacking the Jews is well.. let's just say it's never a good idea to criticize them whether rightly or wrongly. Atheist or not.

This effectively means that all atheists are 'allowed' to attack is the very foundations of European civilisation itself; the philosophies, religion, culture, values and customs that were, and still are, an integral part of our everyday life, and the very reason for our success in the first place mind you.

Atheism has no real meaning beyond being a party to maintaining the ideology of the secular society. Though I'm not too sure that modern-day atheists understand their own roots. This secularism arouse out of the Protestant reformation, which was sponsored by the merchant classes and some Princes in medieval Europe. They did this because they wanted to commercialize the economy, as Catholicism's 'poorness in spirit' and 'blessed are the poor' made it difficult for them to turn hefty profits at society's expense without interference from other powers (I'm not saying the RCC are the 'good guys' here, this is just how it happened). So they figured it would be better to overturn the church in order to make the power of money the rulers of the secular state.

This trend accelerated into the enlightenment and brought about the industrial revolution. Modern atheism simply continues on in this vain, further deracinating the masses from their human culture and values. In this way the rich inevitably become the super rich. Atheism, which is just secularized modern Protestantism, isn't the only 'problem' in this regard. The hyper-materialism that the reformation spawned takes many forms, the shallow pop-culture, stupefied politics were the masses are promised welfare in return for votes, the false intellectualism of education etc. Atheism is but one small part of a cultural phenomenon that simply promotes the destruction of one's own roots aka Western 'white man' values. And this, they call 'freedom'. If you oppose them you are a sexist, racist, homophobe, intolerant, yadda, yadda, yadda.

The only thing the Jews, Muslims and atheists have in common is the beards. But at the least the Jews and Muslims got balls and I can respect this. They don't trample all over their own civilisation, but instead have the humility to see where it came from, its continued benefits and continue to embrace it. Most atheists, and their bed-fellows the feminist, pathetically phoney Keynesian 'liberal', cultural-marxist etc, have no such regard. Instead they just have an ideological block.

ankaragucu

Eramen wrote: »

Very well pointed out. The reason Dick Dawkins brand 'atheists' don't attack Islam and Judaism is obvious to most intelligent folk. These 'atheists' seek to hide behind a thinly veiled veneer of so-called 'progress' and 'equality'. It would be very un-politically correct of them to dissuade Muslims from practicing their religion (never mind a bit too dangerous for their type) and attacking the Jews is well.. let's just say it's never a good idea to criticize them whether rightly or wrongly.


You obviously havent read Dawkins because he DOES in fact criticise Islam and Judaism and all other organised religions.Ridiculous to nit pick on this about which religions he complains most about.He thinks they're ALL pie in the sky thats the whole point!

robindch

Eramen wrote: »

Very [...] block.

Good lord, I'm surprised you didn't blame the Black Death, The Fall of the Roman Empire and Uggs on atheism too.

I can understand your sigline interest in "Negative Philosophy".

Eramen

robindch wrote: »

Good lord, I'm surprised you didn't blame the Black Death, The Fall of the Roman Empire and Uggs on atheism too.

I can understand your sigline interest in "Negative Philosophy".

Europa: A History - Norman Davies

Why should we stop our educational intercourse regarding history etc when we finish school like it seems most have done ? .. surely the 'history channel' just doesn't cut it if we want to refine our knowledge?!

History is mainly about understanding the movements of ideas, giving rise to effects. Why do you continue to slavishly adopt the rte / dept of eejitcation view of the world? You must have a very poor view of anthropology at the very least!

In saying all this the ideological 'atheist' is too deeply bound within his own sub-cultural norms to go beyond the self-appraising beliefs he has borrowed from the moralists of his cause. You can't come to an impartial, birds-eye view of life with this attitude.

Eramen

PopePalpatine wrote: »

If we were all slavishly adopting the Dept. of Education view of the world, we'd still be devout Christians.

I don't ever recall having been indoctrinated into the Catholic religion even though I went to a Catholic school. However I know that it suits the Hitchens brand atheist to declare otherwise, that he was left mentally scarred and traumatized because of this 'horrific' episode of his life and is now seeking to cure his anguish with 15 hours of mmo gaming per day. This does not float my boat. Neither do I believe this narrative. This modern 'atheist' fiction only serves to paralyze the intellect and promote the idea of seeing oneself as an eternal victim at the hands of religion.

Just man up, embrace the good in your civilisation, including that parts of religion you find acceptable (Alain deBotton style), and change your life for the better. Why do you wear your sub-cultural identity on your sleeve? Why attack the foundation of civilisation, our culture, customs, values and ideals which are a requirement for advanced society? There is a lot to be said for for a unified society in ideals and ethics, and this can only be achieved through compromise. This means atheists and fundie Christians alike need to stfu about their selected narratives and see the commonality between themselves.

Devout Christian/atheists.. Sure, they are 'different' on the surface. But when you look deeper they have the same inner mentality. There's not much difference between them.

Both ideologies operate on the religious part of the psyche. All people have this part of the mind. It's a biological necessity. Here in this psychological niche, mere cultural truths become universal realities when processed by the intellect. We invent religion as a mechanism to help the individual create meaning out of the chaos of the constantly occurring changes we behold around us in nature.

Atheism, like anything else, is a mass movement preaching its own universal reality, it's own religious interpretation of life. Dawkins etc are simply cashing in on this phenomenon, providing a morality that atheists will find acceptable. It's just that it's a slave morality as Nietzsche would say. "Evil is anything that encourages weakness."

It's a morality that encourages of the destruction of the culture and civilisation that gives us a meaning, purpose and higher existence. At least the Christians have something going for them, as they don't seek to annihilate their own society through the idiocy of extreme ideology. Feminism, atheism, fabianism, cultural marxism, and phoney neo-Keynesian liberalism/conservatism. All the same bs, same origin.

Delirium

So the RCC is the foundation of civilisation and you weren't indoctrinated at an RCC school? You completely sure about that?

PopePalpatine

Eramen wrote: »

At least the Christians have something going for them, as they don't seek to annihilate their own society through the idiocy of extreme ideology. Feminism, atheism, fabianism, cultural marxism, and phoney neo-Keynesian liberalism/conservatism. All the same bs, same origin.

First of all - feminism is a spectrum of ideologies. At the very extreme end you'd get those who say that penis-in-vagina is rape, but I've never met a feminist in my life who believes that. Most of them want equality with men and not to have to travel abroad for vital medical procedures.

As for "fabianism" - if you're referring to the Fabian Society, who want to take gradual steps towards a socialist society - well, they can't be more destructive than laissez-faire capitalists - I'd hazard a guess that Fabians were (and still are) far and few between in the boardrooms of "too-big-to-fail" banks prior to the credit crunch.

"Cultural Marxism" sees the contemporary culture as a tool of oppression. For all of your posturing about how bad popular culture is, is it too much of a leap to suggest that you too may think along the same lines as them? If their society is oppressive, and produces an oppressive culture (*cough*auld Catholic Éire*cough*), why wouldn't they seek to dismantle it?

And FFS...have you ever considered it is possible to come up with a system of morality/ethics without creating a religion? For all of your grandiose and verbose posturing, I can't recall you ever mentioning empathy.

Eramen

SW wrote: »

So the RCC is the foundation of civilisation and you weren't indoctrinated at an RCC school? You completely sure about that?

I don't think you understand. Catholicism is made up of/is the embodiment of what came before it, i.e. Greek philosophy. Similarly the golden age of Greek civilisation is based on Pythagoreanism, which preceded Greek philosophy. All these form the basis of our civilisation. Each one grew out of and culminated into the next outer form while retaining the same metaphysical, cultural, inner language.

Atheism is based on the changes that happened in the church during the late middle ages through to the enlightenment. It sprouted materialism, which is scientific-humanism. This comes from Catholicism via Thomas Aquinas and Scholasticism. It's one of the core discourses of the Catholic religion. In this way atheism is an outgrowth of Christianity, particularly of the Protestant wing. "That every man can come to God through his own truth without the need for the intercession of a learned class of man (clergy)" was a central theme of this reformation.

Modern atheism has just run with this idea. It finds its place in the world by proselytizing that every man can be 'saved' through higher knowledge and awareness exercised in the world. This is the exact same principle as Christianity but in a more technical form suited for the commercial phase of our civilisation. There are no intellectual expressions contained in atheism that weren't contained in Christianity in some form.

Atheist and Christian ethics/morality are very hard to distinguish between because they are almost identical, due to them being part of the same movement of civilisation. One is based off the other.. ie Platonism morphing into humanitarianism.

The problem with most people is that they see themselves and their ideas as 'new', 'different', 'unique'.. when really all these ideas and movements are a product of Western civilisation through its various stages of change. Religions, cultures, ideas don't stand still or die completely. They grow organically and eventually wilt and fade as part of the cycle of time and nature. It's like saying your genetics are completely 'new' but they aren't, they come from your parents and are the produce of many generations. Ideas are the exact same.

Atheism will grow into something else in the future, and in fact I already see the changes happening. Materialistic atheism's critical mass was about 10 or 20 years ago or more.

Atheism and Christianity are blood-related and twins. If they were diametrically opposed our civilization would've destroyed itself by now.

Eramen

Obliq wrote: »

I'm loving how you acknowledge Christianity/Religion is an idea, grown organically (and set to wilt and fade) as part of the cycle of nature (human nature, for example). Nice one. We've been trying to tell you that - something has sunk in after all ;-)

I'm not entirely sure where you're coming from when you say 'we've' and 'you'. You should remember to include atheism also as an religious/idea, as well as so much more.

Though you have taken your own meaning to what I said (which isn't a bad thing) it's of a lower quality to the original meaning.

Ideas aren't necessarily bad, they are basis for gathering information about substances so that we can compile it in the form of knowledge. The sciences are also an idea, as is history, sociology, psychology and so on. This is so because they aren't part of the properties of existence, instead they act as the interpreters of these properties of existence, which is a huge difference.

We will never be able to point to something and say, 'this is history' or 'that is science' as they are not substantial. These learned disciplines such as the sciences are merely a platform of intellectual abstraction from which we can then measure objects (the substance itself) in relation to our concept of being. This is the only way anything acquires any meaning for us. This is what is called knowledge.

But the peculiar thing is that these qualities of the universe that we deduce by abstractive reason only come to have being after this reasoning and not before, aka if something of substance is not measured (through ideas) it is therefore considered to be insubstantial. So you come to a situation today where physicists, much like the metaphysians of the past and present, say that all reality really is, is information, as our world can only be made sense of through the disciplines of ideation.

It's even thought now that time and space are qualitative, and not the basis of anything, as they are emergent from our ideas of them and are dependent on something prior to them. Check out what physicist Fotini Markopoulou has to say on the subject.

robindch

Eramen wrote: »

In saying all this the ideological 'atheist' is too deeply bound within his own sub-cultural norms to go beyond the self-appraising beliefs he has borrowed from the moralists of his cause. You can't come to an impartial, birds-eye view of life with this attitude.

Honestly, it's been a while since I've seen to much verbiage deployed in the service of so little.

Eramen

robindch wrote: »

Honestly, it's been a while since I've seen to much verbiage deployed in the service of so little.

It's hardly my fault you can't make sense of it? My explanation certainly falls outside the intellectual discussion of the current moralisms of the popular 'atheist' circles that's for sure, and I suspect that this is the reason for the lack of understanding.

To bring it down a notch for ya'll, atheistic fundamentalism makes it so that knowledge and ideas that fall outside of their cultural 'truths' are immediately rejected as heretical, often branded as 'unscientific', 'unprogressive' and 'religious'. This are of course religious statements themselves in origin which is the real sucker.

Generally the responses on this thread by people representing A&A have been lackluster at best, culminating in non-arguments, begrudgery and low grade thinking.

This is all part of a sub-culture with little meaning beyond the face-value stereotype; the single angry white male relentlessly attacking the foundation of his own being and civilisation. Of course there's a lot of money to be made too in leading this movement. Though I've always thought of these kinds of superficial sub-cultures (which includes a lot more than atheism[tm], so certainly I'm not singling it out) as just things to talk about over a pint at the week-end and nothing more. It's a social thing rather than a genuine ideal, an identity to be worn on the sleeve to 'fit in', to find value, to have a place.

Unfortunately, like most sub-cultures, atheists seek to blame one entity for all their problems. 'Religion'. It's at this point sub-cultures go beyond mere amusement to become social problems/intellectually void.

shruikan2553

Wait a second, this isnt boards.ie. How did I end up on the fox news website?

Pherekydes

Eramen wrote: »

...the single angry white male relentlessly attacking the foundation of his own being and civilisation.

Jeez, don't forget the beards!

Legend_DIT

Even if you grant that religious attitude is the primary foundation of western civilisation, this doesn't make it true.

My personal feeling is that there is no god, and I don't need to think about the antecedents to this viewpoint as this tells me very little about whether it is valid or not.

As has been pointed out by many comedians when charged with favouring ridiculing Christianity over others, it is mainly because that is what is best known by both the critic and audience. I imagine there are atheists from Jewish and Muslim cultures who are better qualified to direct specific criticisms there.

However, before levelling these criticisms to Dawkins, follow him on Twitter - he is not critical of Christians exclusively.

Eramen

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Wait a second, this isnt boards.ie. How did I end up on the fox news website?

O rly.. Praising Muslim culture and highlighting the disaster of modernity via secular neo-liberal/conservatism?!

PopePalpatine

A quick question, Eramen - do you believe that humanity would be better off in any way had the Reformation and Enlightenment never happened?

Pherekydes

Eramen wrote: »

...secular neo-liberal-conservativism.

What's this then?

ankaragucu

ankaragucu wrote: »

I thought aetheists were people who dont believe in gods or religion.

By that I mean thats what being an atheist means to me.In totality.Simple as that.Its got nothing to do with Er,Amen's long winded pronunciations.Or indeed with the rest of his waffle.

ankaragucu

Bet youre glad you asked......

PopePalpatine

Eramen, I'm just as worried as you are about multinational corporations getting their tentacles into governments. If you want a group to shake a fist at, go for anarcho-capitalists.

Femme_Fatale

I find the most prominent christians on Boards.ie to be extraordinarily hate-filled and nasty - i.e. not christian (with the exception of the departed Philologos).

Anyway, I just doubt god's existence, nothing more - I don't think this, that, whatever paranoid shyte the atheist obsessed "christians" tell themselves I think.

Femme_Fatale

It's amusing the way it upsets some christians so much, so they make up sh1t to make themselves feel better.

Osgoodisgood

Eramen wrote: »

Atheism is based on the changes that happened in the church during the late middle ages through to the enlightenment. It sprouted materialism, which is scientific-humanism. This comes from Catholicism .......

Modern atheism has just run with this idea. It finds its place in the world by proselytizing that every man can be 'saved' through higher knowledge and awareness exercised in the world. This is the exact same principle as Christianity ........

No no no no no. Atheism is a position on god claims. The position being that the claimants have not met their burden of proof. That's all. The rest of your post has nothing to do with atheism.

shruikan2553

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

It's amusing the way it upsets some christians so much, so they make up sh1t to make themselves feel better.

It seems like a thesaurus is the next book they read after a bible.

Brian Shanahan

Pherekydes wrote: »

What's this then?

Something made up by the religious right to ridicule their opponents without them having to go to the bother of looking up what their opponents are saying, whether it works, what evidence they have, and put together a counter based on a proper, logical and thought through basis. It's the same tactic as saying atheism caused communism and nazism and therefore all atheists are mass murderers.

Brian Shanahan

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

I find the most prominent christians on Boards.ie to be extraordinarily hate-filled and nasty - i.e. not christian (with the exception of the departed Philologos).

I take it you never called him when he started making unprovable assertions and calling them facts then.

Benny_Cake

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

I find the most prominent christians on Boards.ie to be extraordinarily hate-filled and nasty - i.e. not christian (with the exception of the departed Philologos).

There are prominent Christians on Boards now?!

In all seriousness, while you do get some posters who claim to be Christian and have an obsession with gay people or weird conspiracy theories, they usually don't last too long. They are often reregs of the same person, for what it's worth.

Eramen

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

I find the most prominent christians on Boards.ie to be extraordinarily hate-filled and nasty - i.e. not christian (with the exception of the departed Philologos).
.

I see. You didn't by any chance have look in the AA for the same bigotry? Perhaps not.

Standman

I think it's high time we all debated the definition of atheism for the umpteenth time.

Piliger

Eramen wrote: »

It's hardly my fault you can't make sense of it? My explanation certainly falls outside the intellectual discussion of the current moralisms of the popular 'atheist' circles that's for sure, and I suspect that this is the reason for the lack of understanding.

Gee it's a while since I had a laugh this satisfying

Eramen

Standman wrote: »

I think it's high time we all debated the definition of atheism for the umpteenth time.

The problem is that some people today who call themselves atheists seem to such have a fixation with god/religion/Christianity that they have tried to associate the very concept of atheism solely with the latter.

It's just plain wrong and the concept of atheism has been muddled in their own minds. People are listening to marketing more than reason. Atheism doesn't revolve around people's emotional state or their fascinations. It actually has a real philosophical meaning far beyond (and very different) from it's use by modern 'atheists'.

Poor Siddhartha is rolling in his grave.

Eramen

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

No no no no no. Atheism is a position on god claims. The position being that the claimants have not met their burden of proof. That's all. The rest of your post has nothing to do with atheism.

Atheism is a-theism (non-theism). You know like the philosophy Pythagoras advocated? That's atheism and it is entirely different to you're modern 'atheism' which is nothing more than a sub-cultural moralism embraced by people who reject theism for whatever reason. The trouble is when you try to make this cultural morality an absolute truth, stating it as 'fact', you're making a religious venture out of your atheism. This is seems to be the case for many atheists today.

God claims would be dealing more with epistemology or cosmology. In my posts I was following the intellectual history of your branch of what you call 'atheism'. Your ideas didn't just pop out of a black hole, they have meaning and a historical 'paper trial' which it's very interesting to explore.

Piliger

Eramen wrote: »

The problem is that some people today who call themselves atheists seem to such have a fixation with god/religion/Christianity that they have tried to associate the very concept of atheism solely with the latter.

It's just plain wrong and the concept of atheism has been muddled in their own minds. People are listening to marketing more than reason. Atheism doesn't revolve around people's emotional state or their fascinations. It actually has a real philosophical meaning far beyond (and very different) from it's use by modern 'atheists'.

Poor Siddhartha is rolling in his grave.

I don't agree. Atheism is simple term and it doesn't need, nor merit from, being reduced to philosophical reductionism.

oscarBravo

Piliger wrote: »

I don't agree. Atheism is simple term and it doesn't need, nor merit from, being reduced to philosophical reductionism.

Indeed. In fact, it's hard to find a better definition of a straw man than inventing a definition of a word in order to have something to attack.

seamus

Eramen wrote: »

The only thing the Jews, Muslims and atheists have in common is the beards. But at the least the Jews and Muslims got balls and I can respect this. They don't trample all over their own civilisation

No, they just trample all over everyone else's.

Femme_Fatale

Benny_Cake wrote: »

There are prominent Christians on Boards now?!

In all seriousness, while you do get some posters who claim to be Christian and have an obsession with gay people or weird conspiracy theories, they usually don't last too long. They are often reregs of the same person, for what it's worth.

Three long-term such posters spring to mind straightaway.

Eramen wrote: »

I see. You didn't by any chance have look in the AA for the same bigotry? Perhaps not.

Oh yeh there are definitely some bigoted atheists but they don't claim to be subscribe to a doctrine of "Love thy neighbour", "Judge not lest ye be judged" and so on.

Absolam

Eramen wrote: »

Atheism is a-theism (non-theism). You know like the philosophy Pythagoras advocated? That's atheism and it is entirely different to you're modern 'atheism' which is nothing more than a sub-cultural moralism embraced by people who reject theism for whatever reason.

A lot of different philosophies might be considered athiest by theists, since they are absent a theistic element. But athiests, whether modern or classical, don't reject theism as you say; they lack theism in the first place. It is less a rejection of what is than a non-embracement of what isn't.

Eramen wrote: »

The trouble is when you try to make this cultural morality an absolute truth, stating it as 'fact', you're making a religious venture out of your atheism. This is seems to be the case for many atheists today.

it only becomes a religious venture when it includes a supernatural element. To a theist, rejecting the supernatural may seem to acknowledge it in the rejection, making the venture appear to be religious to a theist, whereas, to the impartial observer, there is no supernatural element at all.

Eramen wrote: »

God claims would be dealing more with epistemology or cosmology. In my posts I was following the intellectual history of your branch of what you call 'atheism'. Your ideas didn't just pop out of a black hole, they have meaning and a historical 'paper trial' which it's very interesting to explore.

But atheism doesn't have branches; it is simply all that isn't theism.

Piliger

Absolam wrote: »

A lot of different philosophies might be considered athiest by theists, since they are absent a theistic element. But athiests, whether modern or classical, don't reject theism as you say; they lack theism in the first place. It is less a rejection of what is than a non-embracement of what isn't.

I don't agree.

First of all it doesn't matter a damn what theists decide to call whomever. They make stuff up as they go along all the time.

Secondly I, as an Atheist, reject theism wholly and completely and comprehensively. I also believe most Atheists do the same. I don't lack anything. It is the theists who lack.

it only becomes a religious venture when it includes a supernatural element. To a theist, rejecting the supernatural may seem to acknowledge it in the rejection, making the venture appear to be religious to a theist, whereas, to the impartial observer, there is no supernatural element at all.

Theists always try to slap a label of 'religiosity' on to Atheists because to do so they believe they are 'infecting' Atheists with the same flaw that they themselves suffer from, and think that by doing so they reduce the power of Atheism. They don't. It is a miserable failure every time.

tawnyowl

Eramen wrote: »

I don't ever recall having been indoctrinated into the Catholic religion even though I went to a Catholic school. However I know that it suits the Hitchens brand atheist to declare otherwise, that he was left mentally scarred and traumatized because of this 'horrific' episode of his life and is now seeking to cure his anguish with 15 hours of mmo gaming per day. This does not float my boat. Neither do I believe this narrative. This modern 'atheist' fiction only serves to paralyze the intellect and promote the idea of seeing oneself as an eternal victim at the hands of religion.

Hint: you may want to cut out the stereotyping - you might turn into John Waters (no, not the filmmaker) if you don't.

Just man up, embrace the good in your civilisation, including that parts of religion you find acceptable (Alain deBotton style), and change your life for the better. Why do you wear your sub-cultural identity on your sleeve? Why attack the foundation of civilisation, our culture, customs, values and ideals which are a requirement for advanced society? There is a lot to be said for for a unified society in ideals and ethics, and this can only be achieved through compromise. This means atheists and fundie Christians alike need to stfu about their selected narratives and see the commonality between themselves.

What does a "unified society" look like and why is it desirable?

Devout Christian/atheists.. Sure, they are 'different' on the surface. But when you look deeper they have the same inner mentality. There's not much difference between them.

Except Christianity assumes a divine command theory, which is out of the question for atheists.

Both ideologies operate on the religious part of the psyche. All people have this part of the mind. It's a biological necessity. Here in this psychological niche, mere cultural truths become universal realities when processed by the intellect. We invent religion as a mechanism to help the individual create meaning out of the chaos of the constantly occurring changes we behold around us in nature.

And the proof of the biological necessity of the religious part of the mind is?

Atheism, like anything else, is a mass movement preaching its own universal reality, it's own religious interpretation of life. Dawkins etc are simply cashing in on this phenomenon, providing a morality that atheists will find acceptable. It's just that it's a slave morality as Nietzsche would say. "Evil is anything that encourages weakness."

How much of Nietzsche are you familiar with? Have you read his book Daybreak (sometimes translated as Dawn)?

tawnyowl

Eramen wrote: »

That's a good question PP. I don't think there can ever be a definitive answer to it though.

In the pre-reformation West people tended to be able to find a social belonging far more easily in society due to its hierarchical, natural structure. People organised themselves based on talent, profession, learned & martial orders, householders, landed and unlanded etc. This built true community, mutual reliance and a flourishing of cultural activity, the pinnacle of which was the High Middle Ages and the Holy Roman Empire. There was great artistic, literature, civil, scientific development at this time, with the mystical, metaphysics and philosophy right along side them, controlling their outcomes in an [mostly] ethical manner.

This is a highly idealised account of what happened - how do you know that this order was natural, for example? How do you know that people were organised according to talent? Someone who might have made a great philosopher may have spend their entire life as a serf, unable to access the learning that would have allowed them to learn to read, write and philosophise?

As for the manner you claim was mostly ethical, well, it wasn't exactly fun to be, say, a member of a religious minority, say a Jew or Muslim. Even Christians didn't have a great time if they were in the minority - e.g. Cathars.

The trouble is that when the reformation happened it allowed some classes to usurp power and to dictate over the rest of society. The merchants and guilds gradually surpassed the aristocracy who were the guarantors of the cultural, political, religious order. Later during the Enlightment, the capitalists and guilds enabled nations to thrive materially, but this happened with massive colonial expansion and the destruction of normative society, ie the rural township and personal identity in favour of objectifying people as urban-dwelling masses to be used for their political and economic worth only (without regard for their humanity or the spiritual concern).

You seem to have a romanticised view of aristocrats as some kind of guardians of society.

Imperialism existed before the Enlightenment as well as after it -

Thus today, we have a massively urbanized society, where corporations have become even more powerful than national and international government. Regulation heavily by large conglomerates in their favour. The international commercial code administers banks in controlling the leveraging or wiping away of the assets/wealth of the populace through credit-control and interest.

The objectified masses have become rootless and lack a meaningful, self-directing cultural heritage. Sub-cultures and popular entertainments now define individual/group identity [of which modern atheism is but one small facet]. Pop-culture and the false-intellectualism of education now define the boundaries of human knowledge and social acceptability. There is little regard for true genius. A hierarchy still exists, but it is no longer a natural, humanistic one. Instead it's based on economic class, race (due to globalism), consumer-brand loyalty and financial status.

Again, you're assuming that there was a better age that was more "natural" or "humanistic" (whatever you mean by those terms). Nor is it clear what you mean by "true genius".

We have acquired the prime value of all late urbanized civilisations [Late Rome, Oligarchic Greece, Late China] - that is that everyone is 'entitled' to believe and act exactly as they wish, without regard for anyone or group loyalty, because it is their right and freedom. This has always lead to critical upheavals in the past, as nobody at this point is able to identify their common interests, or work together, and so they remain disunited and distanced. Nothing great can be achieved in this kind of social setup. Even personal happiness becomes hard to achieve.

Man has been emptied of his customs, history, national culture, values, virtues, and higher ideals. The world today is thoroughly divided on a global scale in almost every conceivable dimension. Politics is a numbers game with little substance.

So, in answer to your question, one might say that everything after Socrates was 'downhill' :P - yet further technological progress, increased roboticisation, and economic shrinkage, without metaphysical guidelines will only produce a more deracinated, divided society which is presided over by the few increasingly powerful entities. Of course we would be lying if we said society has not been going in this direction for many generations. You have to look at my criticism of atheism within this scope.

Have you been reading Oswald Spengler?

robindch

Eramen wrote: »

To bring it down a notch for ya'll, atheistic fundamentalism makes it so that knowledge and ideas that fall outside of their cultural 'truths' are immediately rejected as heretical, often branded as 'unscientific', 'unprogressive' and 'religious'. This are of course religious statements themselves in origin which is the real sucker.

The primary theme of the works of the new atheists is the rubicon, and eventually the stasis, of consciousness. If one examines the subcapitalist paradigm of context, one is faced with a choice: either reject neocultural theory or conclude that sexuality is fundamentally a legal fiction. Hitchens suggests the use of material postdialectic theory to challenge colonialist perceptions of class. However, the characteristic theme of Dawkins essay on the subcapitalist paradigm of context is the bridge between society and class. The premise of constructivism states that society, somewhat surprisingly, has intrinsic meaning, given that Harris' critique of the subcapitalist paradigm of context is invalid. Therefore, the subject is contextualised into a pretextual idea of Harris that includes reality as a paradox.

In summary, orderliness belongs to potential phenomena while nature relies on unbridled human observation.

I hope this clarifies my position a little.

Absolam

What he said. But mine has sprinkles.

Penn

lazybones32 wrote: »

Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe in the same God but it is only the Christian religion that is parodied and mimicked. Judaism and Islam aren't as widespread as Christianity in Ireland but not elsewhere - America has a large Jewish Community as does England - but why don't the enlightened members of the Atheist Community raise their voice against the Jews and Muslims? Are they afraid of insulting these faiths; do they expect some consequence from singling-out Judaism or Islam?
We (theists), according to detractors, are all as 'mistaken' (or delusional) as each other but the atheists go after the 'big fish' first? Congratulations on the strategy and tactics employed on that one.

The reason why Christianity is perhaps "parodied and mimicked" more than other religions is because people in Western cultures know more about Christianity than other religions. Ireland for example, the vast, vast majority of us went to a Christian school, were raised in Christian households and learnt a lot about Christianity as part of our education. To paraphrase Dara O'Briain about why he doesn't make jokes about Muslims: "...because a) I don't know the first thing about Islam, and b) neither do you."

Ireland, England and America are countries with a long historical connection to Christian religions. Elements of Christianity have been present throughout our schools, communities, art... everywhere. That's why when it comes to things like separation of church and state, it's almost always separation of elements of Christianity and state.

Between our societies becoming more multi-cultural and easily available access to information and discussions through the internet, more people are learning about different religions, and there's definitely a lot more jokes being made about those religions than there were even 10 years ago. But more people in Western cultures know more about the story of Genesis, Noah's Ark, Jesus etc than would know about elements of Islam or Judaism. That's why when it comes to mocking or parodying religion, Christianity is used because more people will understand the reference.

smacl

So far as I'm aware, there are no broadly accepted current definitions of atheist that include anything other than lack of a belief in a god or gods. While other commonalities may exist between various groups that rally under the word Atheist, suggesting that this changes the meaning of the word atheist is entirely specious.

Eramen

Eramen wrote: »

That's a good question PP. I don't think there can ever be a definitive answer to it though.

In the pre-reformation West people tended to be able to find a social belonging far more easily in society due to its hierarchical, natural structure. People organised themselves based on talent, profession, learned & martial orders, householders, landed and unlanded etc.

No, people didn't, men did

Turtwig

bluewolf wrote: »

No, people didn't, men did

Sorry but this post is far too short. I CANNOT understand you. You need to elongate it, add details, verbiose, that sort of thing.

e.g

The primary theme of the works of the new atheists is the rubicon, and eventually the stasis, of consciousness. If one examines the subcapitalist paradigm of context, one is faced with a choice: either reject neocultural theory or conclude that sexuality is fundamentally a legal fiction. Hitchens suggests the use of material postdialectic theory to challenge colonialist perceptions of class. However, the characteristic theme of Dawkins essay on the subcapitalist paradigm of context is the bridge between society and class. The premise of constructivism states that society, somewhat surprisingly, has intrinsic meaning, given that Harris' critique of the subcapitalist paradigm of context is invalid. Therefore, the subject is contextualised into a pretextual idea of Harris that includes reality as a paradox.

Eramen

bluewolf wrote: »

No, people didn't, men did

We already know that modern atheism and feminism are bed-fellows with the same intellectual origins. Blamin' the 'patriarchy' and religion since 1799.

Classy. Pun intended.

Yeah, we should whitewash history and pretend none of that happened, cool

equivariant

robindch wrote: »

In summary, orderliness belongs to potential phenomena while nature relies on unbridled human observation.

I hope this clarifies my position a little.

Brilliant. The "unbridled" bit really capped that for me

PS Is there a course somewhere that teaches you how to write this stuff?

PPS Apart from first arts in UCD that is, of course...

Osgoodisgood

Eramen wrote: »

Atheism is a-theism (non-theism). You know like the philosophy Pythagoras advocated? That's atheism and it is entirely different to you're modern 'atheism' which is nothing more than a sub-cultural moralism embraced by people who reject theism for whatever reason. The trouble is when you try to make this cultural morality an absolute truth, stating it as 'fact', you're making a religious venture out of your atheism. This is seems to be the case for many atheists today.

God claims would be dealing more with epistemology or cosmology. In my posts I was following the intellectual history of your branch of what you call 'atheism'. Your ideas didn't just pop out of a black hole, they have meaning and a historical 'paper trial' which it's very interesting to explore.

Well, you got the first few words right.
The rest was more straw-manning and wishful thinking. You should stop doing that.

Bannasidhe

Eramen wrote: »

Europa: A History - Norman Davies

Why should we stop our educational intercourse regarding history etc when we finish school like it seems most have done ? .. surely the 'history channel' just doesn't cut it if we want to refine our knowledge?!

History is mainly about understanding the movements of ideas, giving rise to effects. Why do you continue to slavishly adopt the rte / dept of eejitcation view of the world? You must have a very poor view of anthropology at the very least!

In saying all this the ideological 'atheist' is too deeply bound within his own sub-cultural norms to go beyond the self-appraising beliefs he has borrowed from the moralists of his cause. You can't come to an impartial, birds-eye view of life with this attitude.

Dear Sir.

Please employ critical analysis.

Could you also provide evidence for your statements?

Yours.

Professional Historian.

PS 'European Civilisation' is based on the Roman model (who borrowed from the Greeks who borrowed from the Persians) - this is not the same thing as the Roman Catholic model.