Extreme Atheism - leads to a Proxy God by default.

[Quantum Quack]

Most of my friends are atheists and they would simply describe atheism as simply not believing in any deities/gods of any kind. That’s it. They dislike that there are atheists trying to create a religion out of disbelief. It’s really just a reaction to theism, nothing more. When I identified as an atheist, I simply felt indifferent.

You can label it whatever you like, but how can atheism be “extreme?” If you’re on the fence with your faith views, you’re not an atheist. If you simply don’t believe, then you’re an atheist. Why go to extremes?

I reeeeeaaalllyyy don’t believe!! No one cares. lol

The issue is whether freewill is real or delusion.
An extreme atheist believes that free-will is a delusion.
An extreme theist also believes that free-will is an illusion.
Such is the nature of Fatalistic predetermination as promoted by those who believe as such.
see wiki and do some research if you are interested...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatalism

Simple really!

 

[Quantum Quack]

One meets that challenge by looking carefully at the process by which the behavior involved is determined.
Dreams are involved. Choices. Upbringing. All aspects of human identity. Ethics exist, in other words, in the real world.

The only "challenge" is to a belief that human decisions - and therefore the grounds of responsibility ethical or otherwise - must be supernatural to exist. Once the physical process of becoming and being a human being is noticed,
including especially the mental behavior and mental activities and making decisions on mental criteria and so forth,
as part of the determined universe,
ethical responsibility follows immediately. It's an aspect of determined human nature.

Meanwhile, there is no such thing as an extreme atheist. Like an extreme insect - no appropriate continuum of intensity applies.

Of course there is...
When an atheist includes in his belief system a super natural phenomena (using your own words) then they can be considered as extreme.
If an atheist uses a belief system to support his non-belief then he is applying a religious notion to his or her belief.

The degree of extremism is able to be determined by the intensity of their devotion and preparedness to falsely accuse others of being deluded for having contrary beliefs.

The context of the word "religious" no doubt will draw all the nutters out, but read the following.

religious:

• treated or regarded with a devotion and scrupulousness appropriate to worship. ( google religious )

Synonyms:
Scrupulous, conscientious, meticulous, sedulous, punctilious, zealous, strict, rigid, rigorous, exact, close, unfailing, unswerving, undeviating;
fussy, pedantic, fastidious, nitpicking, finicky, finical

in Context:
"He was quite religious in his devotion to promoting an anti-religious message"

 

[Quantum Quack]

No!

All the evidence I have seen points to there being no God at all or at least not a God who cares about humans.

Why are people living in extreme poverty if there is a God who gives a damn about humans? Or why does money rule the world and make this world go round? Why is there so much hardship in life if there is a God who gives a damn about us?

All of the cruel and bad things which happen to so many people in every single day make me deeply believe that there is no God at all.

so ....Who/what is responsible for human suffering do you think and would you have it any other way?

 

[Yazata]

Most of my friends are atheists and they would simply describe atheism as simply not believing in any deities/gods of any kind. That’s it.

When I was younger, 'atheism' meant belief that the proposition 'God exists' is false. I think that's how it's still typically used in the philosophy of religion.

Then in the 1990's, I started seeing aggressive promotion of the idea that 'atheism' simply meant 'lack of belief in God'. The first place I remember seeing it promoted that way was on the old usenet group alt.atheism. (A collection of loud and nasty idiots if I ever saw one.) Apparently it's based on a distinction invented by Anthony Flew between 'strong atheism' ('God exists' is F) and 'weak' atheism (I don't believe in God).

Rhetorically, weak atheism seems to many atheists to have two advantages:

1. It allows them to argue that atheism is the default condition for human beings. Babies are born without belief in God, hence arguably are 'weak' atheists, born in pristine atheist innocence. The goal becomes to prevent their corruption. (Shades of Rousseau.)

2. It allows them to insist that atheism bears no burden of proof. While belief in God must be forced to produce justification acceptable to the atheist (an impossible task), there is no need for atheists to produce any argument for atheism that's convincing to theists or to anyone else.

Frankly, I find both of those to be rather dim and 'unclear on the concept' at best. Disingenuous and intellectually dishonest if we're less charitable.

They dislike that there are atheists trying to create a religion out of disbelief.

If we start with 'weak' atheism, with the idea that atheists simply lack belief in God, we find that virtually no atheists are content to stop there. They will often insist that theism is responsible for all sorts of craziness and crimes that atheism isn't guilty of. Atheists will insist that there's no good evidence for the existence of God. They will insist that belief in God is equivalent to belief in the Easter bunny. They will insist (as W4U has done) that one can't be a theist and an intellectual. And on and on.

Chapter 8 of Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion is entitled "What's Wrong with Religion? Why be so Hostile?" One of the chapter sub-titles is "How 'moderation' in faith fosters fanaticism". I think that it's obvious that a lot more is happening with Dawkins than mere 'lack of belief in God'.

You can label it whatever you like, but how can atheism be “extreme?”

How would I interpret the phrase "extreme atheism"? We can start with the mere lack of belief in God. That might arguably be a minimum qualification for being an atheist. But the more of what we might call 'auxiliary assumptions' we pile atop that minimum condition, and the more hostile and dismissive those new assumptions start to be towards other people's beliefs, the more 'extreme' the atheism gets. We move away from simply not believing in God to an ideology that sets itself up in opposition to any sort of religious belief. Eventually, out there at the extreme end, we end up with the mass murder.

Obviously atheists aren't unique in that regard. We can make similar observations about theistic belief, or about political adherence for that matter (which is probably the worst offender in our time). All of them appear to be forces for good or at least seem innocuous, but can turn nasty and can even result in terrible crimes when allowed to run amok. It's the human condition, I guess. Atheists can't claim any kind of special immunity from it.

 

[spidergoat]

atheism bears no burden of proof

That's true.

They will often insist that theism is responsible for all sorts of craziness and crimes that atheism isn't guilty of.

also true

Eventually, out there at the extreme end, we end up with the mass murder.

certain ideologies can include atheism, but you were right the first time, mere atheism doesn't.

It's the human condition, I guess

Because we don't say those things about theism, mostly religion. But even mere theism requires faith, belief without evidence, and that in itself is harmful.

 

[Quantum Quack]

How would I interpret the phrase "extreme atheism"? We can start with the mere lack of belief in God. That might arguably be a minimum qualification for being an atheist. But the more of what we might call 'auxiliary assumptions' we pile atop that minimum condition, and the more hostile and dismissive those new assumptions start to be towards other people's beliefs, the more 'extreme' the atheism gets. We move away from simply not believing in God to an ideology that sets itself up in opposition to any sort of religious belief. Eventually, out there at the extreme end, we end up with the mass murder.

well stated..
Some will use the early era of the crusades as an example of religious inspired war and the associated atrocity etc but none will refer to the genocidal (non-war) mass murder of our infamous atheists that sort to rid the world of theism.
Religious purges are not war. They are more about forcing people to worship a totalitarian figure instead of a God. To demonstrate their envy they historically pursued the theist by the millions to set them selves up as a God in their own nations.
It is happening right now in China but in a covert way of extreme surveillance and financial control and so called re-education camps for the Muslim minority.
An extreme atheism driven to simply replace one God with another God ~ himself.

 

[Write4U]

utter nonsense.. I never suggested that Newtons beliefs proved the existence of God... what utter insane BS...

So why did you bring up his name? As an example of an theist intelligentsia, no? What then is the implication in that assertion?

 

[Write4U]

n Context:
"He was quite religious in his devotion to promoting an anti-religious message"

Oh nooooo. this is just too much.

He was theistically promoting atheism??? Give me a break, please.

And please do not attempt to correct me. I know what it means to religiously pursue a goal.

That is a metaphor and the use of theist zealotry to make a different point. Duplicitous.

 

[Write4U]

well stated..
Some will use the early era of the crusades as an example of religious inspired war and the associated atrocity etc but none will refer to the genocidal (non-war) mass murder of our infamous atheists that sort to rid the world of theism.
Religious purges are not war. They are more about forcing people to worship a totalitarian figure instead of a God. To demonstrate their envy they historically pursued the theist by the millions to set them selves up as a God in their own nations.
It is happening right now in China but in a covert way of extreme surveillance and financial control and so called re-education camps for the Muslim minority.
An extreme atheism driven to simply replace one God with another God ~ himself.

Wronggggggggggggg.

 

[Write4U]

An extreme atheism driven to simply replace one God with another God ~ himself.

Both atheists and theist have gone to such extreme ends. The Pope is the worldly proxy for God and used be more powerful that a king.

You see, there is NOTHING you can cite as atheist extre bad behavior that has not already been practised by theist extremist (zealots).

The difference is that atheist extremism was never " in the name of god", but some other reason sucj as against the power of religion.

Whereas theist extremism was always "in the name of god" and often against the power of some other religion.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Out of respect to one of the most important scientist this world has had, Sir Isaac Newton, a devoted theist, I am not going to respond to the insane ramblings that attempt to drag this man through the mud of their insanity.

 

[Goldtop]

An extreme atheism driven to simply replace one God with another God ~ himself.

Check out what I bolded in your statement. That would be extreme theism, not atheism. Extreme atheism makes no sense, one can't "extremely" lack belief in theism, they simply just lack it.

 

[Write4U]

The issue is whether freewill is real or delusion.
An extreme atheist believes that free-will is a delusion.
An extreme theist also believes that free-will is an illusion.
Such is the nature of Fatalistic predetermination as promoted by those who believe as such.
see wiki and do some research if you are interested...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatalism

Simple really!

And totally wrong. Do I sound like a fatalist? Is that because I believe in god or don't believe in god?
Your inferences carry no weight whatever. Fatalism has nothing to do with belief in the existence of a god if one does not believe in god to begin with.

OTOH, the often invoked theist statements that "god will provide" and "god's will be done" are fatalist statements, that you will never hear an atheist say.

In fact you even have to invoke a "proxy god' in an atheist to establish atheist fatalism . How convoluted is that?

 

[wegs]

When I was younger, 'atheism' meant belief that the proposition 'God exists' is false. I think that's how it's still typically used in the philosophy of religion.

Then in the 1990's, I started seeing aggressive promotion of the idea that 'atheism' simply meant 'lack of belief in God'. The first place I remember seeing it promoted that way was on the old usenet group alt.atheism. (A collection of loud and nasty idiots if I ever saw one.) Apparently it's based on a distinction invented by Anthony Flew between 'strong atheism' ('God exists' is F) and 'weak' atheism (I don't believe in God).

Rhetorically, weak atheism seems to many atheists to have two advantages:

1. It allows them to argue that atheism is the default condition for human beings. Babies are born without belief in God, hence arguably are 'weak' atheists, born in pristine atheist innocence. The goal becomes to prevent their corruption. (Shades of Rousseau.)

2. It allows them to insist that atheism bears no burden of proof. While belief in God must be forced to produce justification acceptable to the atheist (an impossible task), there is no need for atheists to produce any argument for atheism that's convincing to theists or to anyone else.

Frankly, I find both of those to be rather dim and 'unclear on the concept' at best. Disingenuous and intellectually dishonest if we're less charitable.



If we start with 'weak' atheism, with the idea that atheists simply lack belief in God, we find that virtually no atheists are content to stop there. They will often insist that theism is responsible for all sorts of craziness and crimes that atheism isn't guilty of. Atheists will insist that there's no good evidence for the existence of God. They will insist that belief in God is equivalent to belief in the Easter bunny. They will insist (as W4U has done) that one can't be a theist and an intellectual. And on and on.

Chapter 8 of Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion is entitled "What's Wrong with Religion? Why be so Hostile?" One of the chapter sub-titles is "How 'moderation' in faith fosters fanaticism". I think that it's obvious that a lot more is happening with Dawkins than mere 'lack of belief in God'.



How would I interpret the phrase "extreme atheism"? We can start with the mere lack of belief in God. That might arguably be a minimum qualification for being an atheist. But the more of what we might call 'auxiliary assumptions' we pile atop that minimum condition, and the more hostile and dismissive those new assumptions start to be towards other people's beliefs, the more 'extreme' the atheism gets. We move away from simply not believing in God to an ideology that sets itself up in opposition to any sort of religious belief. Eventually, out there at the extreme end, we end up with the mass murder.

Obviously atheists aren't unique in that regard. We can make similar observations about theistic belief, or about political adherence for that matter (which is probably the worst offender in our time). All of them appear to be forces for good or at least seem innocuous, but can turn nasty and can even result in terrible crimes when allowed to run amok. It's the human condition, I guess. Atheists can't claim any kind of special immunity from it.

Sounds like religion to me. They might miss theism so much (some who were once theists) that they must drag fragments of it with them into ''their'' atheism.

One of my friends actually labels atheism in that way ''my atheism.'' We all have egos. We all want our truths to be known. And if atheists are honest, (and they get upset with theists for this very same thing) they wish to convince theists, to come on over to their way of thinking. The water's fine.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Check out what I bolded in your statement. That would be extreme theism, not atheism. Extreme atheism makes no sense, one can't "extremely" lack belief in theism, they simply just lack it.

there is a whole heap of discussion going on in this thread on just that topic... get informed, read the various posts and participate if you wish...

 

[Write4U]

Ok , lets just end this confused madness.

Arguments against God's existence –

• Argument from free will – contends that omniscience and free will are incompatible, and that any conception of God that incorporates both properties is therefore inherently contradictory.[10][11][12] Also called the "paradox of free will", and "theological fatalism".
• Argument from inconsistent revelations – asserts that it is unlikely that God exists because many theologians and faithful adherents have produced conflicting and mutually exclusive revelations. The argument states that since a person not privy to revelation must either accept it or reject it based solely upon the authority of its proponents, and since there is no way for a mere mortal to resolve these conflicting claims by investigation, it is prudent to reserve one's judgment. Also known as the "avoiding the wrong hell problem."
• Argument from nonbelief – premise that if God existed (and wanted humanity to know it), he would have brought about a situation in which every reasonable person believed in him; however, there are reasonable unbelievers, and therefore, this weighs against God's existence. The argument affirms inconsistency between the world that exists and the world that should exist if God had certain desires combined with the power to see them through.
• Argument from poor design – reasons that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator God would create organisms that have optimal design. Organisms have features that are sub-optimal. Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. Also called the "dysteleological argument."
• Incompatible-properties argument – argument that the existence of evil is incompatible with the concept of an omnipotent and perfectly good God. A "good" God is incompatible with some possible worlds, thus incapable of creating them without losing the property of being a totally good God. A "good" God can create only "good" worlds.
• Omnipotence paradox – states that: if a being can perform any action, then it should be able to create a task which this being is unable to perform; hence, this being cannot perform all actions. Yet, on the other hand, if this being cannot create a task that it is unable to perform, then there exists something it cannot do.
• Problem of evil – question of how to explain evil if there exists a deity that is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient.[13][14] Some philosophers have claimed that the existences of such a god and of evil are logically incompatible or unlikely.
• Fate of the unlearned – eschatological question about the ultimate destiny of people who have not been exposed to a particular theology or doctrine and thus have no opportunity to embrace it. The question is whether those who never hear of requirements issued through divine revelations will be punished for failure to abide by those requirements.
• Problem of Hell – ethical problem related to religions in which portrayals of Hell are ostensibly cruel, and are thus inconsistent with the concepts of a just, moral and omnibenevolent God

And personal arguments by some atheists.

• Atheist's Wager – goes something like this: "You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in god. If there is no god, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent god, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him."[16]
• Russell's teapot – analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate the idea that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claimed that a teapot were orbiting the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it would be nonsensical for him to expect others not to doubt him on the grounds that they could not prove him wrong. Sometimes called the "celestial teapot" or "cosmic teapot."
• Theological noncognitivism – argument that religious language, and specifically words like "god", are not cognitively meaningful. Theological noncognitivists await a coherent definition of the word God (or of any other metaphysical utterance purported to be discussable) before being able to engage in arguments for or against God's existence.
• Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit – counter-argument to the modern form of the argument from design, by Richard Dawkins. A central thesis of the argument is that, compared to supernatural abiogenesis, evolution by natural selection requires the supposition of fewer hypothetical processes and thus, according to Occam's razor, a better explanation than the God hypothesis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_atheism

Refute any of these arguments and you will have my intellectual admiration.

Else you're just talking out of your mouth.

 

[wegs]

Write4U - perhaps all that one should take from the OP, is that there are parallels between atheists and theists. Because we're human. And, the definition of ''extremism'' for the purpose of this thread, is not suggesting that ALL atheists who believe that free will is an illusion, will certainly start going off the rails back to religion. There are a lot of different ways to express one's belief in a higher power, by the way. It's not relegated to religion, or one set religion, or one idea of a god. Also, can one atheist speak for all? No. So, maybe this thread resonates with some atheists, but if it doesn't sit well with you, that's perfectly okay.

You needn't take it personally.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Ok , lets just end this confused madness.

Arguments against God's existence –

• Argument from free will – contends that omniscience and free will are incompatible, and that any conception of God that incorporates both properties is therefore inherently contradictory.[10][11][12] Also called the "paradox of free will", and "theological fatalism".
• Argument from inconsistent revelations – asserts that it is unlikely that God exists because many theologians and faithful adherents have produced conflicting and mutually exclusive revelations. The argument states that since a person not privy to revelation must either accept it or reject it based solely upon the authority of its proponents, and since there is no way for a mere mortal to resolve these conflicting claims by investigation, it is prudent to reserve one's judgment. Also known as the "avoiding the wrong hell problem."
• Argument from nonbelief – premise that if God existed (and wanted humanity to know it), he would have brought about a situation in which every reasonable person believed in him; however, there are reasonable unbelievers, and therefore, this weighs against God's existence. The argument affirms inconsistency between the world that exists and the world that should exist if God had certain desires combined with the power to see them through.
• Argument from poor design – reasons that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator God would create organisms that have optimal design. Organisms have features that are sub-optimal. Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. Also called the "dysteleological argument."
• Incompatible-properties argument – argument that the existence of evil is incompatible with the concept of an omnipotent and perfectly good God. A "good" God is incompatible with some possible worlds, thus incapable of creating them without losing the property of being a totally good God. A "good" God can create only "good" worlds.
• Omnipotence paradox – states that: if a being can perform any action, then it should be able to create a task which this being is unable to perform; hence, this being cannot perform all actions. Yet, on the other hand, if this being cannot create a task that it is unable to perform, then there exists something it cannot do.
• Problem of evil – question of how to explain evil if there exists a deity that is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient.[13][14] Some philosophers have claimed that the existences of such a god and of evil are logically incompatible or unlikely.
• Fate of the unlearned – eschatological question about the ultimate destiny of people who have not been exposed to a particular theology or doctrine and thus have no opportunity to embrace it. The question is whether those who never hear of requirements issued through divine revelations will be punished for failure to abide by those requirements.
• Problem of Hell – ethical problem related to religions in which portrayals of Hell are ostensibly cruel, and are thus inconsistent with the concepts of a just, moral and omnibenevolent God

And personal arguments by some atheists.

• Atheist's Wager – goes something like this: "You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in god. If there is no god, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent god, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him."[16]
• Russell's teapot – analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate the idea that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claimed that a teapot were orbiting the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it would be nonsensical for him to expect others not to doubt him on the grounds that they could not prove him wrong. Sometimes called the "celestial teapot" or "cosmic teapot."
• Theological noncognitivism – argument that religious language, and specifically words like "god", are not cognitively meaningful. Theological noncognitivists await a coherent definition of the word God (or of any other metaphysical utterance purported to be discussable) before being able to engage in arguments for or against God's existence.
• Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit – counter-argument to the modern form of the argument from design, by Richard Dawkins. A central thesis of the argument is that, compared to supernatural abiogenesis, evolution by natural selection requires the supposition of fewer hypothetical processes and thus, according to Occam's razor, a better explanation than the God hypothesis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_atheism

Refute any of these arguments and you will have my intellectual admiration.

Else you're just talking out of your mouth.

Starting a new thread so that your topic can be discussed properly would earn my intellectual admiration...

 

[Write4U]

Write4U - perhaps all that one should take from the OP, is that there are parallels between atheists and theists. Because we're human. And, the definition of ''extremism'' for the purpose of this thread, is not suggesting that ALL atheists who believe that free will is an illusion, will certainly start going off the rails back to religion. There are a lot of different ways to express one's belief in a higher power, by the way. It's not relegated to religion, or one set religion, or one idea of a god. Also, can one atheist speak for all? No. So, maybe this thread resonates with some atheists, but if it doesn't sit well with you, that's perfectly okay.

You needn't take it personally.

The problem is that QQ makes it personal.
He asserts that I, as atheist is creating a proxy-god, which is so insultingly dishonest it cannot be ignored.
His argument is that atheism the non-belief in god invariably leads to a proxy god, by default, no less.
Therefore by inference he is calling this atheist a liar , and I won't let that stand unchallenged.
If you have read some of my posts you will note that I was a victim of theist zealotry and I will not ever let that happen again, physically or mentally.

This is a totally unacceptable logic . See the above list of logical atheist arguments.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The problem is that QQ makes it personal.
His argument is that atheism the non-belief in god invariably leads to a proxy god, by default, no less.

This is a totally unacceptable logic . See the above list of logical atheist arguments.

What does the thread title say in words?