In the 'aesthetic' critique of atheism I often hear in these debates, there seems to be a notion that atheism robs the world of mystery and a type of beauty — Tom Storm

Ironically, it's just that sort of superficial view that robs the world of its mystery and beauty, reducing it to lazy categories and conceptual jars in which to trap them.

Unless I get a raise I guess. That seems like the sort of thing the profeist pope would say: "I did it for the money — Moliere

:grin:

And yet "Gott mit uns". — 180 Proof

Or maybe more to the point, Deus Vult!

Eek. Still a relevant political phrase, that one, and by thems who really love God's Great Country.

True. Very relevant, here.

I was actually highlighting the fact that your text had "atheist" instead of "theist", not correcting you on the spelling of proselytize. :smile:

Let's try this (I'm genuinely curious). Would this debate be taking place, or be significantly different, if the God at issue is:

"Merely" the Creator of the universe, i.e. one that having done so, does not intervene, is not influenced by worship or prayer--is the First Mover and nothing more;

Immanent--a part of the universe and therefore which can be known only through the universe, not supernatural, but an active, generative force guiding it (Fate or Providence).

Those who think god's favour is dependent on our actions will have quite different attitudes towards what we ought do, to those who suppose god uninvolved.

Again, the issue is ethics rather than metaphysics.

Those who think god's favour is dependent on our actions will have quite different attitudes towards what we ought do, to those who suppose god uninvolved.

Again, the issue is ethics rather than metaphysics. — Banno

I agree with this but can I check the ethics point? What if gaining god's favor ends up involving rituals or leaving presents for god as a sign of respect? Does that count as ethics? Or does it only become an issue, if the ritual impacts upon other's lives in some way?

"merely" the Creator of the universe, i.e. one that having done so, does not intervene, is not influenced by worship or prayer--is the First Mover and nothing more; — Ciceronianus

I'm assuming you mean here a god that can't be pleased by any human actions or gestures? I guess the debate would have no where to go.

What if gaining god's favor ends up involving rituals or leaving presents for god as a sign of respect? Does that count as ethics? — Tom Storm

There'll doubtless be those who hold that others must behave as they do - the core conservative value: do just as I do. Given a chance they will be checking that you offer a cock to Asclepius and will have a nice crop of hemlock just in case.

Merely" the Creator of the universe, i.e. one that having done so, does not intervene, is not influenced by worship or prayer--is the First Mover and nothing more; — Ciceronianus

Is that not deism?

Or does it only become an issue, if the ritual impacts upon other's lives in some way? — Tom Storm

After attempting to express a place for the atheist, I'm now tempted to preach for Epicurus.

Those who think god's favour is dependent on our actions will have quite different attitudes towards what we ought do, to those who suppose god uninvolved. — Banno

I think that's the extent to which I care. As the tetrapharmakos says:

‘God holds no fears, death no worries. Good is easily attainable, evil easily endurable.’

As you might imagine of a script that's been copied from the ancient world, there's more than one way to think about this. ;)

One way to interpret the first part (God holds no fears) is that there are no magical forces which will make your physical life better upon acting in a certain moral way. The Gods, which I'd say Epicurus seemed to believe existed, are Gods precisely because they are already perfectly happy and self-contained.

Given a chance they will be checking that you offer a cock to Asclepius and will have a nice crop of hemlock just in case. — Banno

I'm always mindful about where I put my cock.

The Gods, which I'd say Epicurus seemed to believe existed, are Gods precisely because they are already perfectly happy and self-contained. — Moliere

Nice. If the O.T. is anything to go by Yahweh is a kind of empyrean Trump figure who needs adoration and worship despite an endless series of fuck ups.

If you are generally tolerant of the views of those who have found personal existential meaning and you have no concern trying to proselytize others to your views, it would seem no one should have any reason to object to that kind of person.

The problem arises when people criticize those sorts of people, both the theist and the atheist.

:pray: Amen.

The problem arises when people criticize those sorts of people, both the theist and the atheist. — Hanover

The problem arises when folk do stuff. Criticism is just words. Refusing choice to women, removing books from schools, teaching children that masturbation causes holes in their brains - these are what counts.

The absence of critique leads to mediocrity.

The problem arises when folk do stuff. Criticism is just words. Refusing choice to women, removing books from schools, teaching children that masturbation causes holes in their brains - these are what counts. — Banno

Sure, not just criticism, but imposing views as well. That would hold for theists and non-theists as well. It's not as if every atheist is non-bigoted, open minded, and a believer in increased human rights.

The key difference being that an atheist wouldnt be doing it based off of atheism while the theist is basing it on their theism.
It bears repeating: good people will be good and bad people will be bas but for a good person to be bad you need religion.
This false equivalency between atheism and theism is so tiresome.

Edited for grammar

:fire: :up:

good people will be good and bad people will be bas but for a good person to be bad you need religion. — DingoJones

In order for this to be true, one of two things must also be true.

1) Atheists must do bad less than religious people do. I see no evidence of this.

2) Religious people must be better people than atheists are.

In order for this to be true, one of two things must also be true.

1) Atheists must do bad less than religious people do. I see no evidence of this.

2) Religious people must be better people than atheists are. — T Clark

I don’t see it. Atheists and theists are people, people can be good or bad. The same is true for vegans and non-vegans, farmers and not farmers, etc. people being people.
The difference is that the atheist is not referencing his religious belief system for instruction, the theist is. That is why it is a false equivalency. For example:
You got a bigot against gay people. He is a bigot because of his deep insecurity that he might be gay cuz he got a boner in the boys locker room in highschool and everyone made fun of him. This person could be atheist or theist, it really doesnt matter.
Now you have a non-bigot. They are a non bigot because there was no such incident as a catalyst/reason. This time however, whether or not they are an atheist or theist certainly matters, because the theist can read and learn from religion to be bigoted. The atheist has no such reference he can make to atheism, his atheism cannot be the reason for becoming a bigot.
So it bears repeating, good people do good things, bad people do bad things but for a good person (i don’t hate gay people) to do a bad thing (oh I hate gays now, bible says its a sin) you need religion.
So, Ill fix your statements (sorry, you left out key components in service of your false equivalence)
1) Atheists must do bad based on their atheism less than religious people do bad based on their theism. I see plenty of evidence of this.
2) Religious people must be better people based in their theism than atheists are based on their atheism.

To which my reply would be 1) is correct. 2) is incorrect because nothing is based on atheism.

You might have a point if you were talking about anti-theists, but alas with atheists your point doesnt land at all Im afriad.

I don’t see it. Atheists and theists are people, people can be good or bad. The same is true for vegans and non-vegans, farmers and not farmers, etc. people being people.
The difference is that the atheist is not referencing his religious belief system for instruction, the theist is. — DingoJones

If atheists and theists are both naturally equally good people, and if, in addition to that natural proclivity, theists can be corrupted by their religion, then more theists should behave badly than atheists. I don't see any evidence of that.

Where did you look and how hard? :roll:
As in the example in bigotry towards gays above, you can reference any instance where someone who is otherwise good, commits some immoral thing based solely on their theism. Have you seriously never seen evidence of that?

It bears repeating: good people will be good and bad people will be bas but for a good person to be bad you need religion. — DingoJones

Or some other ideology.

As in the example in bigotry towards gays above, you can reference any instance where someone who is otherwise good, commits some immoral thing based solely on their theism. Have you seriously never seen evidence of that? — DingoJones

Are you saying that theists as a group do more bad things than atheists? I'm skeptical. Can you provide any evidence for that? Individual instances of bad behavior by theists is not legitimate evidence.

The key difference being that an atheist wouldnt be doing it based off of atheism while the theist is basing it on their theism. — DingoJones

Unless the atheist"s lack of morality arises from his atheism, which might characterize some atheists, just as there are some theists whose lack of morality arises from their theism. The equivalency being that neither immorality is inherent in either theism or atheism, but is a characteristic of just certain forms.

Atheistic proselytizing is prevalent. It is typically characterized by attacks on simplified versions of fundamentalist beliefs, equating beliefs with anti-intellectualism, anti-science, and bigotry, with the message being that the light of reason rests with the atheistic ideology and conversion to it will lead to some sort of higher state.

That you have arrived at a reason not to be a Shiite, for example, has very little bearing on the question of the value of theism, but just to a particular form.

Are you saying that theists as a group do more bad things than atheists? — T Clark

No. Im saying theists as a group do more bad things based on their theism than atheists do bad things based on their atheism, and that theism can be the basis for a bad act by a good person.
You keep leaving out the “based of on their theism/atheism” part in service of your false equivalence.
Leaving that bit out is entirely different, because then you are just talking about groups (as opposed to what those groups do according to the groups theistic structure). Once you broaden the scope by talking about groups in that way theism and atheism become a false dichotomy, for we know that they are far from the only moral factors/basis. Thats another discussion Id be willing too have, but its its not the same thing that I am discussing here.

No. Im saying theists as a group do more bad things based on their theism than atheists do bad things based on their atheism, and that theism can be the basis for a bad act by a good person.
You keep leaving out the “based of on their theism/atheism” part in service of your false equivalence. — DingoJones

I'm not "leaving it out." It's not relevant.

Once you broaden the scope by talking about groups in that way theism and atheism become a false dichotomy, for we know that they are far from the only moral factors/basis. — DingoJones

Another reason it's irrelevant.

Or some other ideology. — Janus

Yes, agreed. To be honest I think theism takes some unfair blame for what is just tribalism.

Unless the atheist"s lack of morality arises from his atheism — Hanover

Your case to make.