I used to consider myself a positive (or gnostic) atheist for decades and I don't recall ever having "faith" in either "scientific materialism" or "logical positivism". The phrase "atheistic faiths" is patently oxymoronic. Besides, a 'working assumption' (e.g. scientific materialism) is not synonymous with 'faith in mysteries' (or miracles or magic or supernatural entities). Apples and oranges. Your incoherent preface, sir, discourages me from even watching your video. :confused:

The phrase "atheistic faiths" is patently oxymoronic. Besides, a 'working assumption' (e.g. scientific materialism) is not synonymous with 'faith in mysteries' (or miracles or magic or supernatural entities). — 180 Proof

:up:

In the beginning of your video, you state (something equivalent to) that because there is so much "muchness" within our known Universe, that the human species is (essentially) inferior or unimportant; I couldn't disagree more. However, you also (later within the same video) imply that the human species (or, human consciousness) has the potential to occupy that much "muchness", there is where you are (IMO) on the correct path to understanding our species. And our purpose; evolution through choices made.

While I am an atheist, I am also a optimistic Gnostic-type of person. Whereas most Gnostics are rather pessimistic about this reality. Ultimately the use of tools such as magick and technologies are a matter of choice. If a person chooses to shut themselves off from their own potentials, so be it. It's when they attempt to limit others in their own individual pursuit(s) of actualization, that a line has clearly been crossed.

Most philosophers are slaves to the successes of the few who dare and (more importantly) do.

I'd also like to add that the so-called "New Age" and "Atheism" are not perpendicular to each other. I'm of the opinion that magick should be taught in public schools.

I'd also like to add that the so-called "New Age" and "Atheism" are not perpendicular to each other. I'm of the opinion that magick should be taught in public schools. — Bret Bernhoft

I recognize your freedom to say so, of course, but in my view 'magick' is in the same family of ways of thinking that the Enlightenment reacted against. Anything esoteric is suspect.

It'd be fine to teach about all religions in public schools, but I don't think it'd be wise or proper to teach it as binding or true. I suspect you wouldn't want bible-thumpers teaching biology, for similar reasons.

I used to consider myself a positive (or gnostic) atheist for decades and I don't recall ever having "faith" in either "scientific materialism" or "logical positivism". The phrase "atheistic faiths" is patently oxymoronic. Besides, a 'working assumption' (e.g. scientific materialism) is not synonymous with 'faith in mysteries' (or miracles or magic or supernatural entities). Apples and oranges. Your incoherent preface, sir, discourages me from watching your video. :confused: — 180 Proof

Can religions be working assumptions and is it prudent/wise to believe in God (re Pascal's wager)?

It'd be fine to teach about all religions in public schools, but I don't think it'd be wise or proper to teach it as binding or true. I suspect you wouldn't want bible-thumpers teaching biology, for similar reasons.
2h — Pie

:100: :up:

I'm of the opinion that magick should be taught in public schools. — Bret Bernhoft

We are in 21th century already. Those pagans doctrine should not be allowed in schools. It is primitive and it goes against all the basic knowledge the world needs to find solutions to our problems.

is it prudent/wise to believe in God (re Pascal's wager)? — Agent Smith

I think not but I respect all those who have faith in him. This is where the gap between science/philosophy and religion starts. While logical positivism is based on proofs and scientific evidences, religion depends on your own belief.
I am agree with @180 Proof and I also think the OP is contradictory. There is not "atheistic faith" because atheism is against this sacred and religious act. Putting "faith" and "atheist" in the same group has no sense

Richard Dawkins, staunch atheist, also labeled not-so-lovingly as a militant atheist claims to be 7 on 1 to 10 scale of how certain he is that God doesn't exist. He leads his life under the assumption God is fiction. In other words, he's agnostic in re beliefs but atheistic in re deeds. That requires some faith, wouldn't you agree?

Ask the religious. They don't "believe in goober" for the sake of argument / discussion. :roll:

I can't speak for Dawkins, only for my own 'godlessness – theory & practice': memento mori and memento vivere, respectively.

Ask the religious. They "believe in goober" for the sake of argument / discussion. :roll: — 180 Proof

:ok:

Putting "faith" and "atheist" in the same group has no sense. — javi2541997

:up:

That requires some faith, wouldn't you agree? — Agent Smith

No. Faith requires the belief in something that actually exists or at least exists in your thoughts.
I think Richard Dawkins is a sceptical. His scepticism is not related to faith. He says that in such scale he doesn’t believe in God and it is a fiction. So, no there is not faith towards Dawkins opinion

In any case, IMO, Dawkins embarrasses himself with such unnuanced and shallow misreadings of philosophy as well as (biblical) theology, and is not taken very seriously outside of evolutionary biology. — 180 Proof

I stand by this excerpt of an old post, but I'm open to any reasonable defense of Dawkins as 'thinker' (not as scientist).

Faith isn't just believing without reason. That should suffice.



Richard Dawkins, yeah, he does bring out the difference between scientist & philosopher!

Ideas aside, if I may offer a brief critique of the video presentation, it's far too long and rambling for what substance it offers, though I can't say that with much certainty because I could only bear to watch about a fifth of it. Also, the powerpoint-like images presented, which must have taken a lot of work, were more distracting than enhancing.

atheistic faiths (faith in no god) or scientific materialism and logical positivism. — intrapersona

This is a common rhetorical device used by evangelical apologists all the time - 'You atheists have faith in reason/science.' Seems an inadequate approach and a gimmick. It's also an example of the tu quoquo fallacy, or an appeal to hypocrisy.

Most atheists I know do not have faith in science or anything else. Faith is the excuse you give for believing something when you have no good reason to believe it. An atheist who privileges science generally sees it as the most reliable method for determining what is true or not, developing tentative models, using the best available evidence at the time. Science therefore is fallibilistic and changes when new facts emerge - which is the opposite of how faith functions.

Atheists do not always subscribe to materialism. Some are into New Age ideas, reincarnation and idealism. Atheism generally holds that there is no good reason to believe in any gods. It does not say there are no gods (a positive claim). That's all there need be to it. There is no faith in 'no god' just as you or others do not have faith in 'no Loch Ness Monster'. As an atheist myself, I am simply unconvinced that there are god/s.

When challenged by a "true believer" to say what i "believe in", since I reject their "One True God", I often just quote Isaac Asimov: "I believe in evidence." :fire:

I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.

I'd not heard this Asimov quote before, it's a good one. :up:

Life is evidence of the divine. Nothing about the spark of life is reflected in atheism. It's just a dearth of rational thought masquerading as science.

Nothing about the spark of life is reflected in atheism. — neonspectraltoast

How do you know there is such a "spark"?

You might misunderstand the subject of magick and/or Paganism?

Life is evidence of the divine. Nothing about the spark of life is reflected in atheism. It's just a dearth of rational thought masquerading as science. — neonspectraltoast

Cool. Three bald assertions which don't seem to hold up very well. But they do sound like functional rhetoric. :wink: You seem aggrieved.

Life is evidence of the divine - where's the evidence for this? And what do you mean by divine - Christian, Islamic, Zoroastrian, Hindu? And how did you rule out the other gods and systems?

Nothing about the spark of life is reflected in atheism. What spark of life is this? And what do you know about atheism, which is just a view about a single claim. Atheists are just as capable of love and a sense of the numinous as any fundamentalist or New Ager.

It's just a dearth of rational thought masquerading as science. Actually the dearth of rational thought is faith. That's the very point of faith, isn't it? When you say masquerading as science - which version of 'science' to you subscribe to? Intelligent design?

You might misunderstand the subject of magick and/or Paganism? — Bret Bernhoft

I guess... (?)

I'm of the opinion that magick should be taught in public schools. — Bret Bernhoft

Why?

In my opinion, "magick" is nothing more than a set of practical tools for living a more fulfilling life. No different than gym class or mathematics. It is important to note that magick isn't the entire picture, but offering classes in magick would be a nice way of returning humanity to a more balanced state of harmony with our universe.

Atheists are just as capable of love and a sense of the numinous as any fundamentalist or New Ager. — Tom Storm

:up:

theism generally holds that there is no good reason to believe in any gods. It does not say there are no gods (a positive claim). That's all there need be to it. There is no faith in 'no god' just as you or others do not have faith in 'no Loch Ness Monster'. — Tom Storm

:up:

I take 'faith' as a failed metaphor in this case. It's like what's wanted is some synonym for position or relatively settled belief...but that wouldn't fulfill the purpose making both positions (seem) equally justified or rational.

And the sociological-pedagogical evidence for the efficacy of these "practical tools" is what exactly?

:up: I translate "faith" as making a fetish/idol of ...

I translate "faith" as making a fetish/idol of ... — 180 Proof

:up:

I'm of the opinion that magick should be taught in public schools. — Bret Bernhoft

The word "Magick" was coined by Aleister Crowley as he developed his religion of Thelema. It means true magic in the archaic sense and not parlour tricks. How would you teach a topic for which there is no evidence it exists in the physical world?