For a good 30 years, I have been trying to make people aware of this change in education and it is futile because people are clueless about what culture has to do with being a democracy, and they are convinced education for technology is essential to our wealth. When Eisenhower put that into place, he warned of the dangers and no one pays attention to the warning, nor do they accept the science of global warming, nor do they know what have is temporary and will come to a terrible end unless there are a few miracles. — Athena

If we look at it from that perspective, then nothing can be done, there is no hope, and no point discussing anything.

Personally, I think we can learn from the Fabians. Take their slogan "Educate, Agitate, Organize", and start educating, organizing, and mobilizing the people. But we can't do that if we can't agree what to educate them about or what we want to achieve.

You said
People got involved in the hope of building a better society but came to regret it.
— Apollodorus

Why did they regret it? — Athena

For example, in the Russian Revolution people got involved in overthrowing the imperial system. But what they got was a new emperor called Stalin who murdered or starved to death millions of innocent people.

What I'm saying is that people can get involved politically without knowing what the end result will be.

That is not how I understanding economics. We can measure everything, and with the right measurements, we can predict the future.

Let me explain myself. I knew a geologist who after years of working in the field became a professor, and he wrote books. It was an academic publisher who published his books and they were used in colleges. The publisher did not market the book in book stores such as Barnes and Noble, so I attempted to persuade economic professors to look at the book and they refused. They had no understanding of what finite reality has to do with economics, not even oil! Their heads were up in the clouds somewhere with economic theories. Like hello, the gold rush led to boom towns, and the boom towns became ghost towns, and that is a complete failure of economic planning. Oil-rich nations tend to be one resource economies and when the oil is gone, they are back to riding camels. They know this and are investing much of their wealth in military power, and they will not sink into poverty passively.

The US would be so screwed if it had not been for fracking ending our dependency on foreign oil. Isreal could not take more and more land from Palestinians without the protection of a large nation and its military build-up. The US needs to secure its access to oil and chose to do so militarily and that makes Israel essential to the US, the economic fallout of all this is huge and I highly doubt there is one economic professor explaining it. Now, what are the philosopher-kings going to do with this information? Which philosophy course explains these concerns are vital to keeping people fed? — Athena

This is from the Investopedia Guide to Economics:

"Economics is generally regarded as a social science, although some critics of the field argue that economics falls short of the definition of a science for a number of reasons, including a lack of testable hypotheses, lack of consensus, and inherent political overtones."

So, first of all, critics point out that economics isn't a science and even less an exact one.

Secondly, even if it was an exact science, it is still interpreted and applied differently by different political factions. Otherwise, all governing political parties would have an identical economic program. But they don't. Different parties stress different sectors of the economy or employ different methods to pursue their policies.

In Soviet Russia there was an overproduction of bricks for the building industry but there was a shortage of shoes, etc. How do we explain that, in a political system following the economics of Marx who was supposed to be an economic genius?

When the British Labour Party came to power in 1945 it introduced nationalization and other Marxist policies, it got billions in loans from America on top of Marshall Plan aid, etc. And it still failed so miserably that it got kicked out after just five years. Its reputation in the field of economics has never recovered since.

As for philosophy, Pythagoras, Plato and other famous Greek philosophers all believed that it should have a practical application in public life. Roman emperors often agreed and tried to style themselves philosophers. If we deny this, then what good is philosophy?

180 Proof's degree in psychology is relevant to this:
Ask psychologists and they'll tel you.
— Apollodorus — InPitzotl

It doesn't answer the question. And it doesn't justify his objection to my suggestion that some atheists may be motivated by a feeling of fear.

Is he saying that atheists can not be motivated by feelings of hope or fear?

Normally, when you hope for something not to happen, you do so out of fear of it happening. Does a degree in psych disprove that? No, therefore it is irrelevant.

If he had said "I've got a degree in psych therefore I know so and so" it would have been a different matter. But he didn't. And I don't believe he could have done. How can a degree in psych enable anyone to assert that atheists never feel hope or fear???

Have you sat on committees that were developing policy or gotten involved with political activist work? When you think something needs to change, how do you go about getting that change? If you are not a good leader capable of uniting followers, you will not succeed and if our leaders do not succeed, we do not succeed.

Why did anyone regret the efforts of the Fabian Society? I am pushing the point because you are right about some movements going sour. Perhaps understanding why this happens could lead to avoiding the problem and succeeding instead of failing? — Athena

Yes, I have and I know exactly what it is like. It's a never-ending struggle that most of the time leads either to no results or to the wrong results. That's why Karl Marx gave up on politics and took up economics.

I doubt very much that people regret the efforts of the Fabian Society when the vast majority of people haven't even heard of its existence except perhaps small political circles like within the British Labour Party.

At the end of the day, if people are happy with the education and culture we have at the moment, then there is nothing to worry about. But if not, then something needs to be done. And to do something we need to know who the key players are in education, culture, politics, etc.

I just think that, if we're going to establish a rule by the wise, it ought to be the case that everyone can come to be considered so. — thewonder

Well, try to apply that logic to other areas. Nobody should have a university degree unless everyone can have a university degree. Nobody should be a talented singer or artist unless everyone can be a talented singer or artist, etc., etc.

People are different and we choose those that are best suited for a particular purpose. Otherwise abolish elections, exams, etc., etc.

I also fault economists who ignore our finite reality and create notions of economics that are not well-founded in reality. — Athena

That's exactly my point. Economics isn't an exact science. It can be interpreted and applied in many different ways. So, ultimately, what matters is what you aim to achieve, a truly just society or promote certain business interests that paid for your election campaign?

If Fabians found enough interested people to be effective, more power to them. Did they perhaps have an exclusive society that prevented people from getting involved? — Athena

They didn't have a society preventing people from getting involved. They had one getting people involved without the people realizing what the ultimate objective was. Exactly as in communism. People got involved in the hope of building a better society but came to regret it.

History is full of examples of people getting involved in certain causes and then regretting doing so. Socialism, Fascism, Nazism, they all operate on the same basis.

People got involved in voting for Trump only to regret it afterward. That happens all the time. Politicians are good at manipulating public opinion. That's what they do for a living. You've got to do that because otherwise you don't get elected.

Hitler was elected democratically. Does that mean that Hitlerism was good? The point is not how you get to power but what you do with that power once you get it.

I read that as a pretty reasonable response.[/quote]

I don't. Anyone can have a degree in anything. Stating "I have a degree" isn't an argument in this context.

From the statement "I have a degree" it doesn't logically follow that atheists can't have a hope that there is no God or that they can't have a fear of the idea of God.

I think the big mistake communist made is to eliminate the business people. Philosophy just is not the subject to study for a good economy and if the economy isn't good, nothing will be good. We might want to care more about logic and worry less about being "nice". — Athena

Well, philosophy does include logic. Plus, a philosopher king or whatever we choose to call a ruler would have economic advisers, exactly as existing heads of state do.

I think there is a big difference between having a sound economy and having a country controlled by vested business interests.

But I do agree that communism shot itself in the foot by eliminating the business class. Communist China learned from Russia's mistakes and introduced some capitalist methods but under the strict control of the Communist Party.

It wasn't me who brought up the issue of "degree in cognitive psych". How does it answer the OP question or anything?

And by the way, why do you care what an atheist thinks or how or why he thinks it? — tim wood

To answer the OP question? How else can we determine whether or not the atheist entertains the hope that there is no God? And why does it bother you so much?

It is theoretically possible that some atheist somewhere is scared of a being higher than his/her self. — InPitzotl

Why "some atheist somewhere"? Either (1) you accept the possibility or (2) you don't. If you do, then why object to it? And why try to qualify it? Something isn't right there, don't you think?

Great

I myself find all the meaning of "g/God" contained in the only place and way that it can exist, as an idea. — tim wood

Maybe some atheists are afraid of having the idea of God in their head/mind. That wouldn't be such an unusual proposition. The atheist wants to have the totality of his mental space to himself, therefore he can't tolerate the idea of God. Could this be the case of @180?

The question is "Do atheists hope there is no God?" Are we allowed to find an answer or make suggestions as to what the answer might be? I think we are.

If atheists entertain the hope that there is no God as suggested in the question, what might be the reason for that hope? Could it be fear? I don't see why not.

So, you're saying you're a believer. Believer in what?

Why can't we all calm down a bit? Otherwise we follow in the footsteps of @180 and we don't get anywhere. Total waste of time.

Personally, I think both sides have some valid points to make. Perhaps one side more than the other. But this should be discussed rationally.

Let's grant that an atheist says something. Let's grant that said atheist cannot defend it. What has that to do with whether this atheist is afraid of the thought of there being anything higher than himself? — InPitzotl

We understand that. But it isn't a reason to deny the theoretical possibility that in some cases at least atheism may be motivated by fear of something higher than oneself.

The most prudent thing an atheist could do is to say nothing. Otherwise, he has essentially endorsed another belief system. — 3017amen

Nothing more true than that. Unfortunately, atheists often try to impose their views on others which is quite strange really, but that's what Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, and many others have done, murdering many millions of innocent people in the process:

“A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists” F Engels, “On Authority”, Almanaco Republicano, 1874

However, good translations of foreign texts will usually include an Introduction, Notes on the text and address problems of interpretation. They discuss other interpretations and meanings and give reasons for their own choice. — Amity

No one disputes that. But @Fooloso4 said he reads the dialogues differently every time he reads them and he intends to disregard meanings suggested by Platonists like Plotinus and modern scholars alike.

So who is the designated referee that will send in their own troops to evict people from their homes in an effort to make peace? — Harry Hindu

Russia or France or a coalition of NATO and non-NATO countries? This remains to be discussed and determined. It isn't for me to decide.

Plus, people won't be evicted. Just relocated and in the vast majority of cases there won't even be relocation. Kurds already live in the territories they currently inhabit so it's just a matter of unifying them into a Kurdish state. Dividing Turkey along ethnic lines shouldn't be too hard either. Jews and Arabs in Israel are already largely divided on ethnic lines. etc.

And, as they say, where there is a will, there is a way. It would be a small price to pay for lasting peace, stability, prosperity, progress and civilization in the region and in the world.

You are the one who brought it into the thread.[/quote]

It's been discussed because others questioned the existence of soul or self.

A-theists simply state that they find not only too many problems with g/God stories, but also zero evidence for the real, material existence of any g/God. They may draw from that the conclusion that no such g/God exists, and this an essentially reasonable conclusion. — tim wood

That isn't always the case. Some atheists may start from a feeling of superiority or, as I said, from fear. Not all atheists are the same.

Since when does not proving something isn't true justify that the thing is? — InPitzotl

If you can't prove your own statements why would anyone take them seriously?

Problem of Self is a big topic of its own. It has many arguments and theories on the issues. — Corvus

Nobody disputes that. But that's not what the thread is about.

You have to give proper justification for A. I don't have to prove you didn't. — InPitzotl

I did provide proper justification. My suggestion is implied in the question "Do atheists hope there is no God?"

Why would they hope that? Possibly because they're afraid of a higher power, so fear would be a possible motivation. And you haven't proved that this isn't the case. You're wasting your time.

I heard through the grapevine that the moderators are considering banning him. No matter, it's pretty much a telltale sign that when someone has no other arguments, they resort to ad hominem, hence: — 3017amen

I don't think he should be banned. They were trying to ban me by accusing me of being a "Nazi" for making critical observations about the Left. But I do think he's got some serious issues there. It isn't unheard off for those with certain issues to take up the study of psychology. Perhaps in an attempt to self-treat themselves? Maybe he can tell us more himself if he can muster the courage.

Actually, (A) is jumping to conclusions. — InPitzotl

Not at all. It wasn't a "conclusion", it was a suggestion that I thought was already implied in the question - as already indicated.

Just because you're labeling something (A), (B), (C), doesn't make your conclusion valid. Anyone can do that.

Speaking as a non-religious Jew living in the US, I am very glad that I am living in a place & time where the worst thing likely to happen to me is some social awkwardness. But around the world there are literally millions of people who - given the opportunity - would have no compunction about killing me and my family simply because of the religion of my grandparents. — EricH

I see what you mean and you are perfectly correct. Christians can feel the same in Muslim or Hindu countries.

But I think in a Jewish context it is more likely to be more related to culture or racism, not religion. I don't know if you're familiar with Moses Hess. He wrote:

"The Germans hate less the Jews' religion than they hate their race, they object less to the Jews' particular religion than to their particular noses. Neither religion nor baptism, neither Enlightenment nor Emancipation, will open the gates of social life to the Jews" - Rome and Jerusalem

That was back in 1862 and he was right.

The only solutions are to wait until one side annihilates the other or we wait several generations until religion is abandonded and relegated to myth like all the other religions before it. — Harry Hindu

Religions may well disappear of their own accord some day. But in the meantime the road to peace seems to be to separate them and keep them apart. That was the solution with the partition of India and it worked quite well. So, separation seems to be a sound principle on which to build a practicable road to peace. The same principle is applied in marital conflict, boxing matches and military conflict.

I hate to say it, but also a lot of atheists some of which are on this board ( hate to call out 180 but if it quacks like a duck ...well you get the idea) get quite emotional about their belief system. — 3017amen

I think "quite emotional" is an understatement. People like @180 sound like a kettle that is permanently on the boil. But seeing that he's got a "graduate degree in cognitive psych" perhaps he's the right person to explain himself. Or maybe not.

And Einstein was totally correct. I think he had Marx in mind. Marx had a grudge against religion and dubbed it "opium of the masses" because he wanted the masses to feed on his own opium of "historical materialism" and worship at the altar of "class-dictatorship of the proletariat".

When you die, it evaporates forever too. — Corvus

That's exactly what you don't know. The OP is about how believers in reincarnation justify it in philosophical/rational terms as opposed to purely religious/faith-based arguments. It doesn't ask non-believers to "disprove" it.

Another point I would like to add is that, immaterial objects such as souls cannot be used with concept such as existence. The word "exist" only applies to material objects. Using "exist" with immaterial mental properties is a categorical mistake. Mental properties don't exit. They process and emerge. — Corvus

I think you've copied that from Wikipedia or some other materialist source. The sense of self doesn't "process and emerge". Ii's always there.

I've a graduate degree in cognitive psych. Stay in your lane, D-Ker. — 180 Proof

Yeah, when you run out of arguments you start using threats and abusive language. Sounds about right. If you've got a degree in "cognitive psych" then why can't you explain atheists' fear of religion?

If you really tried to implement it, even though I think you mean well, it could potentially start a world war, although I am sure that could happen anyway. — Jack Cummins

Why should anyone "start a world war" if all parties come to an agreement through diplomatic and religious understanding?

I think it's the other way round. World war is more likely if the region is not stabilized. Turkey and Iran have been threatening with war for years and they have been involved in military operations across the region already. Inaction on the part of the international community will only encourage them to become more aggressive.

Plato's own Greek terms were often varied and indeterminate. Plato deliberately did not employ precise or just consistent meanings throughout his works or even within the same dialogue.

Why? Perhaps his philosophy was a work in progress with many problems and hypothesized solutions still open in his mind. — magritte

Perhaps. I think another reason was that philosophical or spiritual teachings were transmitted orally. But that doesn't eliminate the problem of terminology and meaning.

I'm just not sure. Returning Istanbul to Greece. — Banno

Constantinople was Greek for thousands of years. It had a large Greek population until recently and was only renamed "Istanbul" in 1930 under Ataturk's national-socialist regime. Territories occupied by the Nazis were returned to their original owners. It shouldn't be a problem.

I've known quite a few principled nonbelievers online and offline over the decades and none have resembled your disingenuous caricature — 180 Proof

I don't know why you're always jumping to conclusions. Maybe you should just relax and think about things a bit first.

I was merely highlighting or bringing into sharper focus what was already implied in the question. IMO that ought to be obvious.

People do tend to be reluctant to admit their own fears but that doesn't mean that those fears don't exist. Ask psychologists and they'll tel you.

I think @Fooloso4 is right to reject the use of what can only be considered anachronistic, unnecessary and unhelpful terminology. — Janus

Sure. But that raises the difficulty as to what constitutes non-anachronistic, necessary and helpful terminology. Are we going to start using Plato's own Greek terms? And how do we decide on their precise meaning when it has already been determined that the dialogues can, and maybe should, be interpreted in many different ways?