Best Argument for Atheism?

by leavingwt 71 Replies latest jw friends

  • leavingwt
    leavingwt

    For those who feel Dawkins' style is acerbic, perhaps Paul Kurtz will be a refreshing change.

    Secular Humanist Takes On New Atheism

    Concerned that his positive vision of humanism is being threatened and perhaps eclipsed with a new brand of acerbic atheism, Paul Kurtz has drafted and released just this week a new "Neo-Humanist Statement of Secular Values and Principles." The lengthy document has been endorsed by close to 70 distinguished men and women, incorporating many of their suggestions. Kurtz was previously responsible for drafting three highly influential statements, including Humanist Manifesto 2 in 1973, A Secular Humanist Declaration in 1980, and Humanist Manifesto 2000, released the same year.

    Kurtz has been the leading intellectual and organizational figure in the atheist/freethought/humanist movement for over 40 years. Throughout his long career Kurtz has sought to develop a positive alternative to the reigning theological orthodoxies of the day. While Kurtz has spent much of his life critically examining religion, he believes that secular humanists need to emphasize and build positive alternatives to religion. For Kurtz, it is not enough to reject God. He has always maintained that secular humanism and atheism are not identical. Throughout the years this put Kurtz at odds with atheist firebrand Madalyn Murray O'Hair. For many years both Kurtz and O'Hair were the leading foes of leaders of the religious right such as Pat Robinson, Jerry Falwell, Tim LaHaye, David Noebel and others. Now with the emergence of "the new atheism" Kurtz finds himself in the uncomfortable position of being the elder statesman and founder of a movement tempted by tactics he has warned against before.

    "I hope this statement will help reorient the humanist movement in a positive and constructive direction by emphasizing what we are for rather than against," said Kurtz, who founded the Council for Secular Humanism in 1980 and the Center for Inquiry in 1991. He now serves as chair emeritus for both organizations.

    Among the signers of this new statement, coming ten years after Humanist Manifesto 2000, are heavyweights Rebecca Goldstein, Colin McGinn, Steven Pinker, Lionel Tiger, Patricia Schroeder, Phillip Kitcher, Owen Flanagan, and Ann Druyan (the widow of Carl Sagan). Also included are movement insiders such as R Joseph Hoffmann, Joe Nickell, James Randi, DJ Grothe, Carleton Coon, Edd Doerr, Terry O'Neill, Dale McGowan, Anthony B. Pinn, along with many others.

    Writing in the December 2009/January 2010 issue of Free Inquiry, the magazine he founded, Kurtz declared "militant atheism is often truncated and narrow-minded...it is not concerned with the humanist values that ought to accompany the rejection of theism. The New Atheists, in my view, have made an important contribution to the contemporary cultural scene because they have opened religious claims to public examination...What I object to are the militant atheists who are narrow-minded about religious persons and will have nothing to do with agnostics, skeptics, or those who are indifferent to religion, dismissing them as cowardly."

    "While I certainly don't believe that we ought to abandon our criticism of religious fanaticism or allow religious doctrine to dictate public policy, the future of the secular humanist and scientific rationalist movements depends upon appealing to a wider base of support," continued Kurtz. Some 16 percent of the American population is not affiliated with any church, temple, or mosque--approximately 50 million Americans--whereas only 2 to 3 percent are estimated to be out-and-out atheists. Hence, Neo-Humanism wishes to address its message to a broader public who we believe should be sympathetic."

    Kurtz says that his new manifesto advances a new form of humanism that is not antireligious per se, nor avowedly atheist. "There are various forms of religious and non-religious beliefs in the world. On the one end of the spectrum are traditional religious beliefs; on the other 'the new atheism.' Not enough attention is paid to humanism as an alternative," declares the statement.

    "This statement aims to be more inclusive by appealing to both non-religious and religious humanists and to moderate religious believers who share common goals. It seeks to foster moderation rather than divisiveness and to spark a genuine conversation about meaning and value and the common problems that confront us all as a nation and inhabitants of planet Earth," added Kurtz.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/secular-humanist-takes-on_n_512153.html

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips
    I just don't think you are being 100% honest with yourself, I think that you do care enough to ASK these questions.

    In my opinion, the LWTs, the Farkels, the JWoods, the Terrys, and many others that are atheists on this board are thoroughly honest. I don't agree with them, but I do not question their sincerity, nor the fact that they have attempted to be rigorous and thorough in placing a foundation for their views.

    BTS

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    BTS,

    LWT knew what I meant when I said that.

    He cares enought to ask the questions AND cares enough to ask WITHOUT a forgone conclusion in his mind.

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine

    Best Argument for Atheism? Haiti.

  • TD
    TD

    I respect the position of intelligent, articulate people like David Galloway, but his presentations and lectures don't speak to the issue raised by Farkel.

    Sometimes it's easier to spot logical fallacies when they are committed by the "other side" so I'll use myself as the "goat" here:

    Tom - New species arise via natural forces.

    Deputy Dog - I don't think so. Where's your proof, Tom?

    Tom - Proof? Prove that it doesn't happen!

    In the above exchange, I've made a claim, therefore the burden of proof rests on me. Since it is not possible to prove a negative, demanding that it be done is not only an evasion of the claimant's responsibility, it is a logical fallacy to boot.

    "God definitely exists" and "God definitely does not exist" are both positive assertions that require proof. From the standpoint of pure logic, there currently is not proof of either assertion. People like Galloway and Dawkins simply present evidence. Neither presents proof.

    Dragging the concept of philosophical "Truth" into what should be a logical presentation, indulging in the fallacy of presenting problems for the opposing view as proof of your own and an a priori Christian bias are a few things that I think Galloway indulges in unnecesarily, but to be fair, many atheists display similar shortcomings.

  • Terry
    Terry
    In my opinion, the LWTs, the Farkels, the JWoods, the Terrys, and many others that are atheists on this board are thoroughly honest.

    Hey, for the record, I'm not an Atheist!

    I don't think there is anything to "know" about God. It is a non-issue. So, I can't disbelieve or believe. I can only discuss God on the basis of what other people believe or don't believe.

    I can't rule out possibility for unproved things. That would be the idiot in me.

    BEING and IDENTITY are defining for a person. To make one's life ABOUT what they do NOT accept is to become what you hate.

    I have no wish to hate or become what I hate.

    Atheists are widely despised as a group for a substantive reason (not factual but emotional).

    The idea of god is a conceptual superlative which one publicly denounces for no good whatsoever.

    I find atheism to be a device for regaining one's personal power after a debilitating encounter with religious authority.

    It is merely a symptom of a harm done.

    That's my personal view.

  • Open mind
    Open mind

    Terry:

    Hey, for the record, I'm not an Atheist!

    Depends how you define the term.

    If someone asks me in passing at a party and I've got two seconds to plaster a label on myself: I'm agnostic.

    If we've got a few minutes and they REALLY want to get down to the nitty gritty: I'm an atheist.

    Here's a blurb from a Wikipedia article:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

    Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities. [ 1 ] It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. [ 2 ] A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. [ 3 ]

    That last sentence defines my world view as atheist. My brain tells me that CURRENTLY there is no compelling evidence to believe in a higher power. The problem lies, IMO, in that there are conflicting definitions of the word constantly batted around as the above Wikipedia excerpt well domonstrates.

    If the conversation goes a bit further, I will identify myself as a "Wannaba Deist". My heart would love for there to be a higher power, who isn't a jerk and who I will someday be able to comprehend a little better.

    So Terry, if you're in the mood, is there any label you would apply to yourself? (Quick! 5 seconds or less!)

    om

  • Terry
    Terry

    So Terry, if you're in the mood, is there any label you would apply to yourself?

    People like to use a label to marginalize others and frame them inside a strawman.

    That is what is odious about the term "atheist". It has been the strawman gimmick for centuries. Game over before conversation can begin!

    I'm simply a positive skeptic.

    I like to filter what I think through a bullshit detector and see if anything but smell comes out the other side.

    I prefer the rational over the supernatural.

    I prefe logic to mysticism.

    I think "authority" is simply strong opinion with no options for rebuttal.

    Consensus is gang warfare at worst and coercive peer pressure at best.

    If I have to choose between Plato and Aristotle I'll always ditch Plato and side with Aristotle.

    My favorite philosopher is Mortimer J. Adler.

    My favorite author is Cormac McCarthy

    My favorite religious writers are Karen Armstrong and Bart Ehrman.

    I enjoy being wrong because that is the only time I learn anything for sure.

  • notverylikely
    notverylikely

    I find atheism to be a device for regaining one's personal power after a debilitating encounter with religious authority.

    What about people that don't beleive in God ever? Or are you specifically referring to once religious people that become atheist? If so, my question is moot.

    As for me....I don't even see why someone needs an argument for atheism or to believe in god. I say "who cares what you believe as long as you aren't trying to effect my life with it?" Of course, that last bit, about trying to impose standards on others when they don't have the same belief, that's wrong whether one is an atheist, christian, muslim, taoist, or just cranky old neighbor.

  • Terry
    Terry

    As for me....I don't even see why someone needs an argument for atheism or to believe in god. I say "who cares what you believe as long as you aren't trying to effect my life with it?" Of course, that last bit, about trying to impose standards on others when they don't have the same belief, that's wrong whether one is an atheist, christian, muslim, taoist, or just cranky old neighbor.

    Religion is mostly about "what do I have to do/what do you have to do.....in order to communicate/socialize/become accepted by "god" and each other."

    But, at root, it becomes about Thought Crimes!

    That is the weird part.

    Intolerance for what others THINK!

    By extension, it then becomes about intolerance for what people think, say, write and do.

    Then, it becomes about alienation, censorship and expunging the "other".

    Psychologically, projecting god as GOD and putting that Trancendant projection "out there" and making all of us subject to its authority leads

    to identifying ourself with this projection as "agents". As agents we are morally approved to act against the "other."

    A Rube Goldberg device for escaping responsibility for our worse prejudices!

    Atheism can become a twist on the above. By imploding the god projection back into our own self we take the place of the supreme authority and by extension claim exculpatory ordination for our whims at the expense of social fealty.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit