I'm bringing human values to the table. Even some religionists support human values.
This is where you're losing the argument.
Yes, I get it. In the abstract, great, fine. But no, these values have nothing to do with atheism, and one of the interesting things about your notion of a symptom is that it does in fact remain problematic: What is the rational justification of these human values?
Wait: The next question is actually,
which human values. The answer to that is:
Precisely. What that means: Human values, as a general proposition, are all well and fine and wonderful, but what that phrase means is vaguely and diversely applied, and barring rational justification, the only difference between any iteration of human values either theistic or not is the difference about answering why:
Why are these the values? The theist might explain, "Because God says so". The atheist, in this case, is left with answering, "Because." Is there a path around this rhetorical problem? Of course there is. I've been asking about it for years, and atheists keep telling me it has nothing to do with them or atheism or anything else.
Toward that last, avoidance of the issue, part of the problem is precisely what you've stumbled into: If one puts anything on the table, it is subject to the same rational scrutiny as anything else, such as, oh, let's say, a religious argument. Actually defending against that rational scrutiny means having a clue about history and philosophy, and that requires effort.
Previously in this thread, see
#82↑:
You don't need God; for most people, "because" is sufficient, or, "that's just how it goes". Once upon a time even some religious people tried this point in order to ward off accusations of supremacist prejudice .... Higher cause is higher cause; if an assertion of higher cause is not rational, it isn't all that different from "God"; if we get rid of God, but keep all the other irrational higher causes, then we haven't really accomplished much except, perhaps, set a new standard for human dysfunction in having gotten rid of religion.
Over in a differnt thread, about attitudes toward atheists,
#136↗:
Try it this way: The reason atheists want their atheism to have nothing to do with anything else is because if we follow such simplistic rationalist objectivity absolutely, we very quickly brook nihilism. If we set aside some body of atheists we might reasonably presuppose, who just don't talk about it, it feels like a fair statement in my lifetime to suggest that the atheistic discourse I have encountered generally avoids this problem; in the end, what atheism challenges isn't an abstract higher authority, but, rather, a label.
It's not a matter of disdaining the prospect of "human values", but, rather, conventional wisdom on what those values are, and what is their rational justification. This is what the atheistic argumentation we're witnessing here at Sciforums seems to be afraid of. Not merely afraid. Terrified. Petrified. Angry.
In all these years, the continued failure of this community's atheistic representation to evolve beyond pabulum and fallacy surely makes some point, but do we hold it to itself or apply it to atheism at large? Trust me, Maher and Dawkins aren't doing that much less badly. Still, though, it's one thing if, say Maher can only make jokes; he is, after all, a performing comedian. But his result does make a certain point. Any of us can call purity cult sick; but if you're not a comedian pandering to a large audience and therefore trying to keep it as simple and featureless as possible, what does the atheist bring to the psychoanalysis of Quiverfull, the Duggars, and the sex-abuse grooming cult in one corner of American Christendom? Precisely nothing.
When people around here fret at the damage religion does to society, it's easy enough to disbelieve many, simply because it's not really so important to them; rather, their priority is complaint, judgment, and the satisfaction of uttering condemnation. And that is what it is, but it's not worth much more than the moment of having done so.
The reason we don't apply these outcomes to atheism at large is the same reason people should be cautious about any such upscaled projection.
But as long as we're dealing with this range of atheism, yeah, it's actually kind of funny that even if we disagree with the religionists about why, at least they can tell us. Evangelical atheists should take the hint; they would probably stop losing these weird arguments they get into.
†
I will also note that Musika has apparently figured out, in this thread, something about how to work the argument. And while there are many days I will disagree with him about much, other people went and handed it to him. And now all he need do is stand there and hold tightly in the buffeting bluster, and that flag will continue to fly. He's the only one that can tatter it, right now.
And on that note, it's one thing to say he has apparently figured it out, but it's something you pick up if you watch closely, because it happens over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. And it's true, if you follow this back to that point, when people fell over each other to get into that part of the back and forth, it's all trope and fallacy, and he literally need just hold fast and let everyone else embarrass themselves.
Trying to shield a critque from criticism occasionally results in these sorts of gaffes, and some people got caught out in the moment, and it actually is one of those easier said than done solutions, but it's also true, it's been years, and this latest multivectored failure seems nearly a demonstration of the point. Yeah, yeah, yeah, people get it: There is no God. Great, now what? Well, if that has nothing to do with someone, why is that person still disrupting the discussion? Clearly, some think it still has something to do with them, but absolutely refuse to acknowledge any substantial connection. And the thing is that if we atheize "God" itself, what atheism objects to is arbitrary assignation of organizing authority. It's one thing to strike "God" from the org chart, but it's not even a question of replacing it with caprice, as atheists refuse the question of the subsequent vacuum.
People can't have it both ways. One cannot reach "atheism" out to criticize something and then pretend the critique has nothing to do with atheism.
Getting rid of God doesn't cut off harm from justifying rhetoric, but that's not the point; the point of this iteration of "atheism" would seem to be usurpation of arbitrary value assignment.
Seriously, has adopting an atheistic outlook actually cured anyone of racism, misogyny, or other harmful behaviors many atheists would complain of the religious? No, it just cures them of one symptomatic excuse by offering them a different symptom.
Of course, that's the problem with making any idea into an identity politic.
