Has atheism made the world a better place?

[Neanderthaland]

I don't think it's even that. You'd never see Hitchens attacking Humanism, and in fact I've read works of his where he strongly defended theological studies.

Do you have a quote from that defense? I'd be interested in seeing it. I of course realize there's different levels, so you have a point. I've mainly seen Sam Harris, and he seems to be of a more extreme empiricism than the rest.

Well, for instance, the first minute of this:
https://youtu.be/uwGYl-mIbb0?t=92

[Imperial Joseon]

To be fair a whole lot of western philosophy, specifically anything remotely derivated from german idealism, deserves to put on a bonfire.

German idealism?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Do you have a quote from that defense? I'd be interested in seeing it. I of course realize there's different levels, so you have a point. I've mainly seen Sam Harris, and he seems to be of a more extreme empiricism than the rest.

Well, for instance, the first minute of this:
https://youtu.be/uwGYl-mIbb0?t=92

Danke.

[Ifreann]

And today's main character of Twitter, noted eugenicist Richard Dawkins.

---

New atheists/nu-atheists have a thing for idolising hard sciences and dismissing everything else. It's obviously not an atheist thing in general.

^ This, I didn't mean atheists in-general. I tried to specify Nu-Atheists (which I capitalize because I think they're more a creed than a lack of belief).

Right, they weren't people who just happened not to believe in God, and it was very often the Abrahamic God they focussed on, but advocates for secularism, rationality, scepticism, evidence based policy making, that kind of thing. And on the face of it these things sound good, but there was considerable ideological bias at play. Anti-feminist, neo-reactionary, outright anti-theist, especially when it came to Islam, loudly "anti-PC". Nu-Atheism was the genesis of pretty much the whole field of YouTube scepticism. Dawkins today going on about "facts aren't dependent on ideology" really does epitomise the attitude of Nu-Atheism. They imagine themselves to be apolitical empiricists, simply following the facts to their logical conclusion, whatever that might be, but somehow they only select the facts that lead them to saying, apropos of nothing, that eugenics would work.

[The New California Republic]

To be fair a whole lot of western philosophy, specifically anything remotely derivated from german idealism, deserves to put on a bonfire.

German idealism?

German idealism was a philosophical movement that emerged in Germany in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. It developed out of the work of Immanuel Kant in the 1780s and 1790s, and was closely linked both with Romanticism and the revolutionary politics of the Enlightenment. The best-known thinkers in the movement, besides Kant, were Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, and the proponents of Jena Romanticism (Friedrich Hölderlin, Novalis, and Karl Wilhelm Friedrich Schlegel). August Ludwig Hülsen, Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi, Gottlob Ernst Schulze, Karl Leonhard Reinhold, Salomon Maimon, Friedrich Schleiermacher, and Arthur Schopenhauer also made major contributions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_idealism

[United Muscovite Nations]

^ This, I didn't mean atheists in-general. I tried to specify Nu-Atheists (which I capitalize because I think they're more a creed than a lack of belief).

Right, they weren't people who just happened not to believe in God, and it was very often the Abrahamic God they focussed on, but advocates for secularism, rationality, scepticism, evidence based policy making, that kind of thing. And on the face of it these things sound good, but there was considerable ideological bias at play. Anti-feminist, neo-reactionary, outright anti-theist, especially when it came to Islam, loudly "anti-PC". Nu-Atheism was the genesis of pretty much the whole field of YouTube scepticism. Dawkins today going on about "facts aren't dependent on ideology" really does epitomise the attitude of Nu-Atheism. They imagine themselves to be apolitical empiricists, simply following the facts to their logical conclusion, whatever that might be, but somehow they only select the facts that lead them to saying, apropos of nothing, that eugenics would work.

Exactly. I made mention of this I think earlier in the thread when I said something like "a lot of modern atheism comes pre-packaged with its own ideology."

[Albrenia]

I'd fall more on the Humanist type side than the Nu-Atheist side I think.

Eugenics working or not is rather besides to point if it involves sterilising the unwilling or, even worse, killing people to achieve said ends.

[Hanafuridake]

There's still been some pretty nasty stuff done by buddhists. They have this peaceful reputation, but they're just as susceptible to the same violent acts as other religions.

It isn't Buddhism itself calling for the violence though. Violence among Buddhists in southeast Asia is often due to ultranationalism and not teachings of the religion. It's like blaming the teachings of Catholicism for the troubles. The IRA doesn't blow things up in the name of the pope. They do it in the name of reuniting Ireland and the Catholic label is basically just a shorthand for Irish Republican

The Mahavamsa declares that non-Buddhists are not even people and celebrates Dutugamunu's mythical killing of millions of Tamil unbelievers, Nichiren called for all rival sects to be taken out and beheaded for not venerating the Lotus Sutra, the Nirvana Sutra declares that there's no sin killing an icchantika. Buddhism can be absolutely violent, the idea that it isn't is a product of Western infantilization of Asian beliefs.

[Imperial Joseon]

German idealism?

German idealism was a philosophical movement that emerged in Germany in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. It developed out of the work of Immanuel Kant in the 1780s and 1790s, and was closely linked both with Romanticism and the revolutionary politics of the Enlightenment. The best-known thinkers in the movement, besides Kant, were Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, and the proponents of Jena Romanticism (Friedrich Hölderlin, Novalis, and Karl Wilhelm Friedrich Schlegel). August Ludwig Hülsen, Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi, Gottlob Ernst Schulze, Karl Leonhard Reinhold, Salomon Maimon, Friedrich Schleiermacher, and Arthur Schopenhauer also made major contributions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_idealism

Categorical Imperative might be able to compete with religion.

[New Bremerton]

What are Nu-atheists? I haven't met an atheist that hated the humanities but I believe your claim may be true

When I say Nu-Atheists I mean those who were a part of the internet atheist subculture of the 2000's, the kind of people you see on reddit, or acolytes of Sam Harris, et al.

That would be people like me. Wikipedia describes New Atheism as "the view that superstition, religion and irrationalism should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever their influence arises in government, education, and politics". In other words, New Atheism is simply hardline secularism as advocated by a group of atheist intellectuals, including the Four Horsemen (and One Horsewoman) of the Non-Apocalypse: Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett (not too familiar with this guy), and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Unlike passive atheism, New Atheism is actually an ideology of sorts.

but there was considerable ideological bias at play. Anti-feminist, neo-reactionary, outright anti-theist, especially when it came to Islam, loudly "anti-PC". Nu-Atheism was the genesis of pretty much the whole field of YouTube scepticism. Dawkins today going on about "facts aren't dependent on ideology" really does epitomise the attitude of Nu-Atheism. They imagine themselves to be apolitical empiricists, simply following the facts to their logical conclusion, whatever that might be, but somehow they only select the facts that lead them to saying, apropos of nothing, that eugenics would work.

It was through Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens that I came to reject political correctness, Islam and feminism, and switched from demonizing Israel to fiercely defending it. My time spent in Malaysia further reinforced my vehement rejection of anything to do with Islam and the PC cancel culture in the West associated with it, and my now unwavering support for Israel in the face of overwhelming and unrelenting racist and theocratic intolerance. New Atheism played a significant role in shaping my current worldview and contributed, in part, to my political drift from the far-left to the center a few years ago.

[Krasny-Volny]

You’re not alone. John Lennon thought the same thing.

If you see religion as collective physical dogma, a series of rigid doctrines and ideology with their respective adherents, it’s a form of tribalism that really only encourages division, segregation, and strife.

But if you see religion as an essentially spiritual and metaphysical experience rather than a doctrine like a political or social ideology, it can be so much more. It becomes an intensely personal experience individuals possess.

I think most forms of religious doctrine we’d be better without.

I think that religion as genuine spirituality is priceless.

Expand on that. I, being materialist, think that there's nothing spiritual, but wouldn't mind talking about.

Spiritual experience means a deeply personal metaphysical experience that transcends physical reality.

Christians describe this experience as being born again or saved in the Spirit. For everybody it’s different. Spiritual experiences can occur during meditation or trances, they may entail visions, moments of epiphany, out of body experiences, etc. But the one thing they have in common is that the individual does not have a strictly physical, emotional, or intellectual experience. A spiritual experience is none of those things, but it something else which may have overlapping effects on one’s physical, emotional, and intellectual state.

Spirituality is the foundation of all the world’s major religions. Like I said, many modern Christians say they’re born again. The Quran is the result of Mohammed’s unearthly visions and conversations with spiritual beings. Buddhists pursue enlightenment through deep forms of meditation.

Without the premise of spirituality, religions are nothing more than social ideologies. They are religions precisely because they are spiritual. Religious adherents who disavow spirituality are therefore not truly religious.

[Geneviev]

German idealism?

German idealism was a philosophical movement that emerged in Germany in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. It developed out of the work of Immanuel Kant in the 1780s and 1790s, and was closely linked both with Romanticism and the revolutionary politics of the Enlightenment. The best-known thinkers in the movement, besides Kant, were Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, and the proponents of Jena Romanticism (Friedrich Hölderlin, Novalis, and Karl Wilhelm Friedrich Schlegel). August Ludwig Hülsen, Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi, Gottlob Ernst Schulze, Karl Leonhard Reinhold, Salomon Maimon, Friedrich Schleiermacher, and Arthur Schopenhauer also made major contributions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_idealism

That's probably the first time I've seen my namesake mentioned by anyone. Wikipedia is something.

[Neutraligon]

When I say Nu-Atheists I mean those who were a part of the internet atheist subculture of the 2000's, the kind of people you see on reddit, or acolytes of Sam Harris, et al.

And today's main character of Twitter, noted eugenicist Richard Dawkins.

---

I mean...I know people in general can often question the value of the humanities, but atheists specifically? I've never noticed a link.

New atheists/nu-atheists have a thing for idolising hard sciences and dismissing everything else. It's obviously not an atheist thing in general.

While new atheists tend to support science, as they tend to be sceptics, I have yet to notice dismissing humanities in general. The only humanity they may dismiss is theoloy. I mean, philosophy is a pretty big discussion among atheists as is anthropology, archeology, history, law and politics, and even the arts.

[United Muscovite Nations]

And today's main character of Twitter, noted eugenicist Richard Dawkins.

---

New atheists/nu-atheists have a thing for idolising hard sciences and dismissing everything else. It's obviously not an atheist thing in general.

While new atheists tend to support science, as they tend to be sceptics, I have yet to notice dismissing humanities in general. The only humanity they may dismiss is theoloy. I mean, philosophy is a pretty big discussion among atheists as is anthropology, archeology, history, law and politics, and even the arts.

Tbh a lot of nu-atheists dismiss a lot of the historical consensus and much of philosophy because it's either inconvenient for their talking points or they view it as irrational, respectively.

[Neutraligon]

While new atheists tend to support science, as they tend to be sceptics, I have yet to notice dismissing humanities in general. The only humanity they may dismiss is theoloy. I mean, philosophy is a pretty big discussion among atheists as is anthropology, archeology, history, law and politics, and even the arts.

Tbh a lot of nu-atheists dismiss a lot of the historical consensus and much of philosophy because it's either inconvenient for their talking points or they view it as irrational, respectively.

No they dismiss the philosophy because their own philosophy does not agree with it. As to historical consensus, if you mean the historicity of Jesus, then that would be due to the fact that they have not been presented with evidence from the historians that is enough to convince them.

[Hanafuridake]

To be fair a whole lot of western philosophy, specifically anything remotely derivated from german idealism, deserves to put on a bonfire.

What? Why?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Tbh a lot of nu-atheists dismiss a lot of the historical consensus and much of philosophy because it's either inconvenient for their talking points or they view it as irrational, respectively.

No they dismiss the philosophy because their own philosophy does not agree with it. As to historical consensus, if you mean the historicity of Jesus, then that would be due to the fact that they have not been presented with evidence from the historians that is enough to convince them.

Or rather that they don't care to look at the evidence, which is freely available everywhere. I've seen many atheists say that the gospels are the only evidence Jesus existed, which is just not true.

[Neutraligon]

No they dismiss the philosophy because their own philosophy does not agree with it. As to historical consensus, if you mean the historicity of Jesus, then that would be due to the fact that they have not been presented with evidence from the historians that is enough to convince them.

Or rather that they don't care to look at the evidence, which is freely available everywhere. I've seen many atheists say that the gospels are the only evidence Jesus existed, which is just not true.

Again incorrect, they have looked at the evidence, and have found it wanting. As to the gospels being the only evidence Jesus existed, no that is not evidence that Jesus existed, as to the the other evidence that I have seen, some was forged, some did not say that Jesus existed, only that there was a group that believed in him, some was not contemporary, etc.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Or rather that they don't care to look at the evidence, which is freely available everywhere. I've seen many atheists say that the gospels are the only evidence Jesus existed, which is just not true.

Again incorrect, they have looked at the evidence, and have found it wanting. As to the gospels being the only evidence Jesus existed, no that is not evidence that Jesus existed, as to the the other evidence that I have seen, some was forged, some did not say that Jesus existed, only that there was a group that believed in him, some was not contemporary, etc.

>written accounts of someone's existence aren't evidence of their existence
>written accounts that people in an area believed in him that are contemporary to the period aren't evidence of their existence
What is evidence of their existence?

[Neutraligon]

Again incorrect, they have looked at the evidence, and have found it wanting. As to the gospels being the only evidence Jesus existed, no that is not evidence that Jesus existed, as to the the other evidence that I have seen, some was forged, some did not say that Jesus existed, only that there was a group that believed in him, some was not contemporary, etc.

>written accounts of someone's existence aren't evidence of their existence
>written accounts that people in an area believed in him that are contemporary to the period aren't evidence of their existence
What is evidence of their existence?

No, written accounts of someone's existence 80 years later are not accurate evidence of their existance. Spiderman has been written about a ton, that does not mean that spiderman actually exists.
Josephus was born after Jesus died would have, and started writing about followers well after Jesus would have died. I would not call him contemporary. I was born in the 80s, does tht make me a contemporary hen talking about things that happened in the 80s if all I had was word of mouth?

An actual grave, a body, writings of people who have no advantage who are contemporary, writing of enemies who where familiar, external contemporary writings that confirm the things written about the person. Agreement at least in part with other existing records of the time. There are a ton of ways that people use to help determine if a figure of myth actually existed, and even then, there are many we still cannot be sure of; an example of this is Pythagorus.

[United Muscovite Nations]

>written accounts of someone's existence aren't evidence of their existence
>written accounts that people in an area believed in him that are contemporary to the period aren't evidence of their existence
What is evidence of their existence?

No, written accounts of someone's existence 80 years later are not accurate evidence of their existance. Spiderman has been written about a ton, that does not mean that spiderman actually exists.
Josephus was born after Jesus died would have, and started writing about followers well after Jesus would have died. I would not call him contemporary. I was born in the 80s, does tht make me a contemporary hen talking about things that happened in the 80s if all I had was word of mouth?

An actual grave, a body, writings of people who have no advantage who are contemporary, writing of enemies who where familiar, external contemporary writings that confirm the things written about the person. Agreement at least in part with other existing records of the time. There are a ton of ways that people use to help determine if a figure of myth actually existed, and even then, there are many we still cannot be sure of.

No one believes Spiderman exists, however.

If you had word of mouth of people who had lived in the 80's, that would be pretty reliable.

So, basically, things that almost no one who lived 2000 years ago has. Hell, by that standard there's no evidence that Socrates existed, and potentially not even evidence that Muhammad existed.

Yes, there are a ton of ways, and those ways have led the vast majority of historians except for a few who are now regarded as fringe cranks to conclude that there was a historical figure who inspired the Christian religion.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Rejecting the existence of Jesus Christ is pretty silly imo. I fully understand and agree if you reject the notion that he was the son of the Abrahamic god but I feel like there's more than enough evidence to say that yes he probably was a religious teacher in the middle east who was probably put to death.

[Neutraligon]

No, written accounts of someone's existence 80 years later are not accurate evidence of their existance. Spiderman has been written about a ton, that does not mean that spiderman actually exists.
Josephus was born after Jesus died would have, and started writing about followers well after Jesus would have died. I would not call him contemporary. I was born in the 80s, does tht make me a contemporary hen talking about things that happened in the 80s if all I had was word of mouth?

An actual grave, a body, writings of people who have no advantage who are contemporary, writing of enemies who where familiar, external contemporary writings that confirm the things written about the person. Agreement at least in part with other existing records of the time. There are a ton of ways that people use to help determine if a figure of myth actually existed, and even then, there are many we still cannot be sure of.

No one believes Spiderman exists, however.

If you had word of mouth of people who had lived in the 80's, that would be pretty reliable.

So, basically, things that almost no one who lived 2000 years ago has. Hell, by that standard there's no evidence that Socrates existed, and potentially not even evidence that Muhammad existed.

Yes, there are a ton of ways, and those ways have led the vast majority of historians except for a few who are now regarded as fringe cranks to conclude that there was a historical figure who inspired the Christian religion.

Correct, because Spiderman was taught as fiction. Actually no, simple word of mouth is highly unreliable
There where graces 2000, there where plenty of contemporary writing. As to Socrates, yep, there is a debate as to whether the man existed, and if such a man existed, ho much of what is attributed to him is correctly attributed to him. Muhammad has more evidence to him due to him being a warlord and because there is contemporaneous non-Muslim writings about him.

As to your last statement, that in and of itself is debatable. Much of what we know of western history was after all written by Christians. How much did they look into the historicity of Jesus before relatively recently, and how many did so with a mind open to the possibility that he did not exist? Finally, can you claim that Jesus existed, if none of what is written about him in the bible accurately portrays the person names Jeshua who was an endtimes preacher back hen there where hundred of them.

[The Grims]

No, written accounts of someone's existence 80 years later are not accurate evidence of their existance. Spiderman has been written about a ton, that does not mean that spiderman actually exists.
Josephus was born after Jesus died would have, and started writing about followers well after Jesus would have died. I would not call him contemporary. I was born in the 80s, does tht make me a contemporary hen talking about things that happened in the 80s if all I had was word of mouth?

An actual grave, a body, writings of people who have no advantage who are contemporary, writing of enemies who where familiar, external contemporary writings that confirm the things written about the person. Agreement at least in part with other existing records of the time. There are a ton of ways that people use to help determine if a figure of myth actually existed, and even then, there are many we still cannot be sure of.

No one believes Spiderman exists, however.

If you had word of mouth of people who had lived in the 80's, that would be pretty reliable.

So, basically, things that almost no one who lived 2000 years ago has. Hell, by that standard there's no evidence that Socrates existed, and potentially not even evidence that Muhammad existed.

Yes, there are a ton of ways, and those ways have led the vast majority of historians except for a few who are now regarded as fringe cranks to conclude that there was a historical figure who inspired the Christian religion.

Mohammed left a corpse. That is decent supporting evidence of his existence.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Rejecting the existence of Jesus Christ is pretty silly imo. I fully understand and agree if you reject the notion that he was the son of the Abrahamic god but I feel like there's more than enough evidence to say that yes he probably was a religious teacher in the middle east who was probably put to death.

No one questions that Hadrian's wall was built by Hadrian, but there's far less evidence for that than there is for the existence of Christ and the early Christian community.