/atheism/ - Atheism

Maybe the root of both scientism and religion is another misconception: that empirical knowledge is somehow special. It is more commonly agreed upon, but that's it.

>>11254

What is a better way to get knowledge?

>>11257

The problem with the way that question is phrased is that it suggests all knowable things as potentially knowable in the same way.

>>11254 post does not suggest that there is a better episteme than empiricism to achieve what empiricism has achieved. The post is instead skeptical of whether the achievements of empiricism demonstrate it to be better or even comparable to other epistemes.

>>1786

>but believe that indeed ALL human thought must come from these.

overarching generalisation.

you can be very fond of science, be an atheist, reject other claims of knowledge other than evidence and reason and still be open for the possibility of some other kind of knowledge we still don't know about.

Russell, Popper, Chomsky, Feynman. Many atheists are comfortable with our knowledge being incomplete and our methods possibly intrinsically limited. There's no value in religious claims and assertions regarding these ultimate questions. Unbelief is always better than a probably false belief.

>Enlightenment thinkers were convinced that there was no limit to what science could do.

[citation needed]

>Thus, a new religion came forth which we all know as deism.

First of all, strictly speaking deism doesn't imply religion. A religion needs a complex belief system, social practice, tradition. A deist or pantheist, or even a bare theist doesn't need to follow a religion.

Second, your historical account seems reversed to my understanding. The popularity of deism came before the popularity of atheism. The Enlightenment thinkers were for the most part deists and christians. atheists weren't that common at the time. It seems natural to me that religion was eroded gradually and therefore deism came before atheism.

>>1800

>Holds that a set of human rights can be said to truly exist

in order to be a deist or theist you need to believe in the existence of a god. to be strict the existence of objective rights is a different topic.

Also, while I don't think values are actual components of reality, I think ethics, at least in principle, could as well be as objectively assessed as any other scientific concept like water or health.

>Holds that political policies can be determined entirely by reason alone

same as above. there's no way to determine what health actually is because it very well may be just a bunch of organisms changing from one form to another, and atom structure going in and out forming and destroying individuals in the process. however you can come up with good operational definitions of health, and once you stick to one definition you can evaluate medical treatments in this case, or policies and behavior in the others.

>>1811

Alan Turing's naive understanding of early quantum mechanics made him believe in the survival of the mind after death. He was a firm atheist nonetheless. We atheist like to think that other atheists share our own superstitions or lack of them, political affiliations, etc. But in fact the semantics of the word "atheist" don't imply anything else other than the lack of belief in the existence of deities. Are you suggesting that some of the people who don't believe in god but believe in other bullshit stop correctly using the term atheist to describe themselves?

>>1842

>>Atheist and no religion are separate categories

actually they are. Irreligion, agnosticism and atheism are non-disjoint, yet different sets. What I don't like in these studies is that those categories are assumed to be mutually exclusive or something. I would describe myself as atheist, agnostic and irreligious and I think I have very good semantic reasons to use all those words at the same time.

>>3379

>>3381

this

>>3386

>implying religions or wishful philosophy are as good as science.

>implying any know religion claims hold water at all.

the fact that no method is absolute doesn't mean all methods are correct. anybody with minimal knowledge of history would agree that faith is constantly loosing ground to evidence, because their claims do not even attempt to be honest.

>>11270

>>11254

>…suggests that all knowable things are potentially knowable in the same way.

>The post is instead skeptical of whether the achievements of empiricism demonstrate it to be better or even comparable to other epistemes.

right in pointing out. But even so, none of the other known epistemologies seem to work. I'll start taking them seriously when they show some progress and utility. I'm sorry if I am missing the truth or standing on the wrong side. Science is the best I can do

>>11257

>>11270

>>11284

I said that empirical knowledge is not special. One reason for this is that you non-empirical knowledge is obviously necessary for science: reason, for analysing experiments, intuition, for coming up with theories. Another reason is that knowledge not assuming sensory experience beforehand is also important: interpreting sensory data (learning to see), repeating complex movements (writing), and other body coordination knowledge.

>>11286

I have to disagree. I do think empirical knowledge is the only way to get facts about the real world. Logic, mathematics and what not are axiomatic systems. But if we want to see how the world really works we have to go out and look. This is why I don't put too much stock into arguments for or against god. At the end of the day those are words, no matter how good an arguments is, how perfect it might sound it can't open a window into absolute reality. Empirical confirmation the only way to truly know.

>hello, random stranger I've never met, let me tell you what you actually believe and let me explain why I know what you believe better than you do