Atheist's Worldview

[dadof10]

My contention is that atheism has certain doctrines attached to it, and that these doctrines shape a certain worldview. Some atheists disagree and claim that atheism's only doctrine is "lack of belief in god/gods". I submit many atheists subscribe to certain doctrines above and beyond that singular statement. It is proven by American Atheists website and the definition of atheism given to the US Supreme Court by Madalyn Murray O’Hair (below).

The following definition of Atheism was given to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963), to remove reverential Bible reading and oral unison recitation of the Lord's Prayer in the public schools.

“Your petitioners are Atheists and they define their beliefs as follows. An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy.

An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.

An Atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.

He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man.

He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter.

He believes that we are our brother's keepers; and are keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now.â€Â

My questions are:

if atheists believe "that a hospital should be built instead of a church", where are all the great atheist hospitals? I see many founded by Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Seventh Day Adventists, etc. but I don't see many hospitals started by atheists. There may be some, but throughout history it has been the Church who has cared for the sick.

If atheists believe that "he wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man.", where are all the great atheist foundations for the curing of diseases, all the atheist run homeless shelters, all the groups that take a stand against unjust war. Again, there may be some, but the majority of atheist action is envolvement in lawsuits, not "understanding and loving man".

In fact, the most terrible mass slaughter of human beings has occurred in this century at the hands of atheistic and Marxist totalitarian governments - 60 million in Mao's China, 40 million in Stalin's Russia, millions under the National Socialists of Germany, millions under the Marxists of Cambodia, and so forth. How do you justify this with the statement "He believes that we are our brother's keepers; and are keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now"? Or do you think you even need to justify it?

 

[wavy]

Your whole case is built off of a fallacy: hasty generalization/unrepresentative sample. Please learn what that means...or you can choose not to and run with your 'doctrines' of atheism that you apparently googled on the internet. I have a feeling, nonetheless, that you'll make the wrong choice. It's like me googling the doctrines of Mormons and posting it as representative of 'Christianity'.

As far as your claims about atheists regiments being responsible for mass murder and genocide, please read The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, W. W. Norton, 2005, by Sam Harris for a rebuttal of that oft parroted assertion.

I also wanted to address your other fallacy (erroneously committed in another thread) that the burden of proof is on atheists to disprove God's existence (a universal/infinite negative). After exposing your fallacy you and another user sophistically claimed that we need to provide evidence of *why* we don't believe in God. That's not the same thing as disproving God's existence (which can never be done), and an entirely different question. I don't believe in God because I fail to see evidence. That's not a statement that needs 'evidence'.

Despite your fallacious reasoning and the continued exposure of it, you still don't appear to grasp the issue. I suggest taking some kind of formal logic course, or if that's too much for you, then you seem to be good at googling random information off of the internet...so google it.

Thanks,
Eric

 

[dadof10]

Your whole case is built off of a fallacy: hasty generalization/unrepresentative sample. Please learn what that means...or you can choose not to and run with your 'doctrines' of atheism that you apparently googled on the internet. I have a feeling, nonetheless, that you'll make the wrong choice. It's like me googling the doctrines of Mormons and posting it as representative of 'Christianity'.

As far as your claims about atheists regiments being responsible for mass murder and genocide, please read The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, W. W. Norton, 2005, by Sam Harris for a rebuttal of that oft parroted assertion.

I also wanted to address your other fallacy (erroneously committed in another thread) that the burden of proof is on atheists to disprove God's existence (a universal/infinite negative). After exposing your fallacy you and another user sophistically claimed that we need to provide evidence of *why* we don't believe in God. That's not the same thing as disproving God's existence (which can never be done), and an entirely different question. I don't believe in God because I fail to see evidence. That's not a statement that needs 'evidence'.

Despite your fallacious reasoning and the continued exposure of it, you still don't appear to grasp the issue. I suggest taking some kind of formal logic course, or if that's too much for you, then you seem to be good at googling random information off of the internet...so google it.

Thanks,
Eric

I'm not going to waste my time with your arrogant, condescending post. If I respond, I'm sure there will either be "ambiguity" over my use of some words or you'll simply beg off again with "I will now terminate this silly discussion."

You have not addressed any points and seem to be only interested in confrontation.

Go away, and quit wasting my time.

 

[francisdesales]

I'm not going to waste my time with your arrogant, condescending post. If I respond, I'm sure there will either be "ambiguity" over my use of some words or you'll simply beg off again with "I will now terminate this silly discussion."

You have not addressed any points and seem to be only interested in confrontation.

Go away, and quit wasting my time.

I see you have discovered the typical response to someone who questions the beliefs of atheists...

Ad hominem.

Regards

 

[VaultZero4Me]

if atheists believe "that a hospital should be built instead of a church", where are all the great atheist hospitals? I see many founded by Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Seventh Day Adventists, etc. but I don't see many hospitals started by atheists. There may be some, but throughout history it has been the Church who has cared for the sick.

I thought that this posting was going to center around what specifically is believed by different atheists, including myself. If it is just going to be an unsubstantiated attack after another, thereby not following its original intent then I am going to ignore this thread. I do not feel like going on in pages of arguments on multiple topics which make it hard to understand what the point of the thread is.

Now, give key areas in which you feel that a not believing in God(s) requires some sort of an answer, and I will show you my position on those questions.

 

[dadof10]

I'm not going to waste my time with your arrogant, condescending post. If I respond, I'm sure there will either be "ambiguity" over my use of some words or you'll simply beg off again with "I will now terminate this silly discussion."

You have not addressed any points and seem to be only interested in confrontation.

Go away, and quit wasting my time.

I see you have discovered the typical response to someone who questions the beliefs of atheists...

Ad hominem.

Regards

Firsthand....Over and over again...

 

[VaultZero4Me]

I'm not going to waste my time with your arrogant, condescending post. If I respond, I'm sure there will either be "ambiguity" over my use of some words or you'll simply beg off again with "I will now terminate this silly discussion."

You have not addressed any points and seem to be only interested in confrontation.

Go away, and quit wasting my time.

I see you have discovered the typical response to someone who questions the beliefs of atheists...

Ad hominem.

Regards

There was nothing ad hom in his post, though it was condescending. But I charge that the majority of your posts to me have used sarcasm to be condescending, as well as Dad's.

An ad hom attacks character over argument. There is no character attack in charging his argument as fallacious. His argument is entirely fallacious, and no different than the arguments that charge all of christianity with the acts of the men who have committed terror in the name of the Christian God in our recent history. Show me how the two are different.

And in regards to Germany, I suggest a study in history in regards to the church, Hitlers profession of faith, and the faith of the nation that followed him. Certainly was not atheistic.

But again all of this is off op, and if I am going to participate I would like for a formal question to be written in regards to the specific areas that you want to know what I believe.

 

[dadof10]

if atheists believe "that a hospital should be built instead of a church", where are all the great atheist hospitals? I see many founded by Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Seventh Day Adventists, etc. but I don't see many hospitals started by atheists. There may be some, but throughout history it has been the Church who has cared for the sick.

I thought that this posting was going to center around what specifically is believed by different atheists, including myself. If it is just going to be an unsubstantiated attack after another, thereby not following its original intent then I am going to ignore this thread. I do not feel like going on in pages of arguments on multiple topics which make it hard to understand what the point of the thread is.

Now, give key areas in which you feel that a not believing in God(s) requires some sort of an answer, and I will show you my position on those questions.

I didn't want this thread to be preceived as a personal attack on you. If you decide not to post, that's fine. The reason I gave the atheist definition again and asked questions was to spark a debate.

If my alleged "attacks" are unsubstantiated, prove it. That's why we are all here, right?

 

[VaultZero4Me]

if atheists believe "that a hospital should be built instead of a church", where are all the great atheist hospitals? I see many founded by Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Seventh Day Adventists, etc. but I don't see many hospitals started by atheists. There may be some, but throughout history it has been the Church who has cared for the sick.

I thought that this posting was going to center around what specifically is believed by different atheists, including myself. If it is just going to be an unsubstantiated attack after another, thereby not following its original intent then I am going to ignore this thread. I do not feel like going on in pages of arguments on multiple topics which make it hard to understand what the point of the thread is.

Now, give key areas in which you feel that a not believing in God(s) requires some sort of an answer, and I will show you my position on those questions.

I didn't want this thread to be preceived as a personal attack on you. If you decide not to post, that's fine. The reason I gave the atheist definition again and asked questions was to spark a debate.

If my alleged "attacks" are unsubstantiated, prove it. That's why we are all here, right?

It is fallacy of composition and stands refuted on its on terms. You are saying, A=B and A=C, therefore B=C. This certainly is not necessarily true, and unless you can explain why B is also C, it stands as being refuted merely on the basis of being a fallacy.

I did not view it as personal attack at all. I mean unsubstantiated attack on atheism through over generalization with people like Stalin and the like. That is the same as attacking Christianity on the basis of the crusades, abortion clinic bombings, IRA, etc.

If you want to discuss those, I feel it would require a new thread, as this one I thought was going to be on specific beliefs of myself and an other atheist who wanted to join.

I am just trying to avoid 4 pages of missing the point of the thread.

What specific questions do you have on my view point? Maybe numbering a list with those specific questions will allow us to make some head way.

 

[dadof10]

What specific questions do you have on my view point?

Vault, my views are in the OP. Certainly you can find something in the first paragraph that you can respond to. I have done what you asked and started a thread. If you choose to not respond, at this point, I don't care. This is getting tiresome.

God Bless, Mark

 

[VaultZero4Me]

My questions are:

if atheists believe "that a hospital should be built instead of a church", where are all the great atheist hospitals? I see many founded by Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Seventh Day Adventists, etc. but I don't see many hospitals started by atheists. There may be some, but throughout history it has been the Church who has cared for the sick.

If atheists believe that "he wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man.", where are all the great atheist foundations for the curing of diseases, all the atheist run homeless shelters, all the groups that take a stand against unjust war. Again, there may be some, but the majority of atheist action is envolvement in lawsuits, not "understanding and loving man".

In fact, the most terrible mass slaughter of human beings has occurred in this century at the hands of atheistic and Marxist totalitarian governments - 60 million in Mao's China, 40 million in Stalin's Russia, millions under the National Socialists of Germany, millions under the Marxists of Cambodia, and so forth. How do you justify this with the statement "He believes that we are our brother's keepers; and are keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now"?

If that is the crux of this thread, then no, I am not inclined to respond. It lacks specificity to be conducive to a fruitful discussion, as well as containing multiple examples of fallacy of composition. None of your claims are substantiated, merely asserted.

Also, I thought you wanted to know my view on supposed doctrine. AA is not established as a doctrine in any case.

I prefer that you be more concise as to what you feel I am forced to answer with my non-belief, so that I can respond.

I am not being picky here by any means, any argument and OP should be well defined so that discussion doesn't fall into the chasm of 11 pages of circles that we have seen on other threads.

 

[dadof10]

If that is the crux of this thread, then no, I am not inclined to respond. It lacks specificity to be conducive to a fruitful discussion, as well as containing multiple examples of fallacy of composition. None of your claims are substantiated, merely asserted.

Also, I thought you wanted to know my view on supposed doctrine. AA is not established as a doctrine in any case.

I prefer that you be more concise as to what you feel I am forced to answer with my non-belief, so that I can respond.

I am not being picky here by any means, any argument and OP should be well defined so that discussion doesn't fall into the chasm of 11 pages of circles that we have seen on other threads.

Certainly you can find something in the first paragraph that you can respond to.

If you don't want to respond to these points, don't. I feel that what we were discussing in the previous thread is contained in the FIRST paragraph anyway. Like I previously said, I simply put these examples there to spark discussion.

Here is the first paragraph:

My contention is that atheism has certain doctrines attached to it, and that these doctrines shape a certain worldview. Some atheists disagree and claim that atheism's only doctrine is "lack of belief in god/gods". I submit many atheists subscribe to certain doctrines above and beyond that singular statement. It is proven by American Atheists website and the definition of atheism given to the US Supreme Court by Madalyn Murray O’Hair (below).

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Well maybe I am confused at the question. Are you claiming to exist a universal doctrine that is applicable across the spectrum of all athiests, merely based from the idea of atheism alone?

The AA article does contain doctrine, but to make it universal, you need to support that claim.

If you expect me to take the time to participate in this thread, it is not too much to ask for you to enumerate what specific areas you are looking for (something that I originally requested as well) in a format that would be more conducive than just posting the AA statement(a group I had never heard of honestly).

Spell out what specific areas, rather than posting that document and asking me to respond to it.

The last part of the original OP dealt with blaming atheism for the crimes of Stalin and other dictators. That was not what I understood this post to be about. If we start discussing those, we will entirely miss the opportunity to discuss what you view as atheism as a doctrine. Those topic areas can spill into long, long debates on various issues not connected to the OP.

That is what typically happens when you do not limit the scope of an argument, and that is exactly what I am trying to avoid.

If you want to discuss in what way atheism is at fault for whatever crimes are said to be committed in the name of atheism, we would need a new thread again. In fact, I believe you can find multiple old postings on that same issue, and I doubt that a new thread would add anymore to those same ones.

 

[wavy]

There was nothing ad hom in his post, though it was condescending. But I charge that the majority of your posts to me have used sarcasm to be condescending, as well as Dad's.

An ad hom attacks character over argument. There is no character attack in charging his argument as fallacious. His argument is entirely fallacious, and no different than the arguments that charge all of christianity with the acts of the men who have committed terror in the name of the Christian God in our recent history. Show me how the two are different.

And in regards to Germany, I suggest a study in history in regards to the church, Hitlers profession of faith, and the faith of the nation that followed him. Certainly was not atheistic.

But again all of this is off op, and if I am going to participate I would like for a formal question to be written in regards to the specific areas that you want to know what I believe.

I shouldn't have been condescending, true. But you are 100% correct here and I thank you for pointing that out. People often confuse ad hominem with negative criticism (presumably in ignorance) and so it's an easy way to dismiss some one. Ad hominem arguments are attacks on one's character for the sole purpose of prevaricating an argument that that person makes for lack of an answer.

I have done no such thing, since I have directly addressed 'dad's' argument and exposed it for the fallacies that it contains.

Thanks,
Eric

 

[wavy]

It is fallacy of composition and stands refuted on its on terms. You are saying, A=B and A=C, therefore B=C. This certainly is not necessarily true, and unless you can explain why B is also C, it stands as being refuted merely on the basis of being a fallacy.

I did not view it as personal attack at all. I mean unsubstantiated attack on atheism through over generalization with people like Stalin and the like. That is the same as attacking Christianity on the basis of the crusades, abortion clinic bombings, IRA, etc.

If you want to discuss those, I feel it would require a new thread, as this one I thought was going to be on specific beliefs of myself and an other atheist who wanted to join.

I am just trying to avoid 4 pages of missing the point of the thread.

What specific questions do you have on my view point? Maybe numbering a list with those specific questions will allow us to make some head way.

I don't see where specifically you're seeing the fallacy of composition. What you described looks like an undistributed middle syllogistic fallacy.

Thanks,
Eric

 

[Gabe]

I have many friends who are atheists, some could not care less about the suffering of others while some are what I regard as selfless humanitarians. If I asked any of them 'what does being an atheist mean?' I can say without a doubt that they would all reply 'it means I do not believe in the existence of a god or gods' morals have nothing to do with it and vary from one individual to another.

Just because a website or someone in a court case gives their interpretation of what a word means does not make it so. The general usage and understanding of the term 'atheist' does not have anything to do with preferring to 'build Hospitals rather than Churches' frankly, if I was an atheist (which I am not, I'm a Christian) I would prefer the building of Nightclubs and restaurants to Churches, because places of worship would be meaningless to me. What about the atheists who have no internet access or have no interest in American Law? (ie- atheists who do not live in America) how would they read their 'scripture'? Most would not be aware of these definitions.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

It is fallacy of composition and stands refuted on its on terms. You are saying, A=B and A=C, therefore B=C. This certainly is not necessarily true, and unless you can explain why B is also C, it stands as being refuted merely on the basis of being a fallacy.

I did not view it as personal attack at all. I mean unsubstantiated attack on atheism through over generalization with people like Stalin and the like. That is the same as attacking Christianity on the basis of the crusades, abortion clinic bombings, IRA, etc.

If you want to discuss those, I feel it would require a new thread, as this one I thought was going to be on specific beliefs of myself and an other atheist who wanted to join.

I am just trying to avoid 4 pages of missing the point of the thread.

What specific questions do you have on my view point? Maybe numbering a list with those specific questions will allow us to make some head way.

I don't see where specifically you're seeing the fallacy of composition. What you described looks like an undistributed middle syllogistic fallacy.

Thanks,
Eric

I am a mere business graduate, so my formal logic training is wanting, but I do not see how its an undistrubted middle.

What portion is undistributed?

1. Stalin was an atheist.
2. Stalin was a murderer.
3. Atheism causes murder.

Or am I setting up the conditions wrong?

 

[VaultZero4Me]

I spent some time looking it up and I do see the slight difference, and understand why this is not a composition fallacy, though I am not sure undistributed middle fits it exactly either (although a little better).

I will look it up to try and find a better fit, if there is one.

 

[wavy]

I am a mere business graduate, so my formal logic training is wanting, but I do not see how its an undistrubted middle.

What portion is undistributed?

1. Stalin was an atheist.
2. Stalin was a murderer.
3. Atheism causes murder.

Or am I setting up the conditions wrong?

I didn't know what you were originally applying the variables to, but now I see what you're doing. You're correct. It is the fallacy of composition, that characteristics of parts apply to the whole.


Thanks,
Eric

 

[platos_cave]

My contention is that atheism has certain doctrines attached to it, and that these doctrines shape a certain worldview. Some atheists disagree and claim that atheism's only doctrine is "lack of belief in god/gods". I submit many atheists subscribe to certain doctrines above and beyond that singular statement. It is proven by American Atheists website and the definition of atheism given to the US Supreme Court by Madalyn Murray O’Hair (below).

Miss O'Hair is not the representative of atheism, just American Atheists as an organization. It compromises mostly Secular Humanists.

You can't take one single definition from the AA and apply it to everyone. The standard common definition of atheism is the disbelief in the existence of any god. I don't know any atheists who claim that the only "doctrine is" lack of belief in god/gods". It might be more accurate to state that the only thing all atheists have in common is a disbelief in God. That's not really a doctrine, though.

Of course many atheists subscribe to many beliefs, which is obvious, just not any of them regarding a deity.

In fact, the most terrible mass slaughter of human beings has occurred in this century at the hands of atheistic and Marxist totalitarian governments - 60 million in Mao's China, 40 million in Stalin's Russia, millions under the National Socialists of Germany, millions under the Marxists of Cambodia, and so forth. How do you justify this with the statement "He believes that we are our brother's keepers; and are keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now"? Or do you think you even need to justify it?

See above. I'm not a Communist (although I don't think it would be accurate to label Nazis as atheists), so I don't think that it would be any more accurate to lump all atheists together as it would be to lump all theists together. You don't subscribe to Islamic beliefs, so why would I berate you on suicide bombers?

As for everything else, I'm sure there a some of those things, but frankly I don't think its relevant .