Atheism is a religion in the way Not Collecting Stamps is a hobby.
I know it's a common apologetic to claim atheists require faith, but most of the atheists I know aren't insisting in a belief, rather they simply do not have one. Unfortunately, the people selling this often get to the ears of believers before atheists can.
And a final late submission that on the surface appears unrelated to my other questions(but I can't lie it actual IS related but would have to be a mind reader to know) what do the Cosmopolitan Globalists think of Magnitsky sanctions?
I don't know if I can make a late question submission but anyways I am going to throw it out there. I will also add this is a bit of a "trick" question as I already know more about it than I suspect all 60 or so Cosmopolitan Globalist writers however, I am always looking for different opinions and perspectives to my own understanding of the facts involved. Anyways here comes the smoke bomb.
What does the CG think of the US Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act(FATCA) and as a follow-up where do you think the line is in terms of those who oppose it in Europe politically for example crossing into outright anti-Americanism and illiberalism. I say this in regards to the fact the US is in the eyes of many the sole upholder of the western Liberal order and the US through multiple political leaders has made clear that FATCA is something very important to Americans living in the United States and non-compliance or outright defiance of it will be considered an "unfriendly" act to much of the American people. A last question, does the CG feel that FATCA helps fight the type of global corruption that people like Vladimir Putin engage in? If it does or does not what other measures should be taken in term of dealing with Putin and his ilk's kleptocracy.
Asking this question is more like dropping a nuclear bomb but anyways here it goes.
For those CG's who have no idea what I am talking about which I suspect is some but not all(In fact I know it is not all) I linked below to a paper just released by a French lawyer who I have worked with from time to time that discusses this issue from a human rights and classical liberalism perspective that I think most CG's will understand.
This is probably way way too much to ask but in the opinion of the CG's are those individuals Laura Snyder, the author criticizes illiberal or authoritarians(such as Max Baucus, Neil Abercrombie, Carl Levin, Leslie Samuels, etc)? Does the fact they are American politicians and public figures make them exempt from charges of illiberalism simply because they are American in light of America's unique historic role? Should the rules we "hold" Russia and China apply also to the United States. What if the vast majority of the American people democratically oppose the liberal standards? Does pure Democracy trump liberal Democracy?
Mar 1, 2021Liked by Rachel motte, Claire Berlinski
"Secularism is a religion too."
So is atheism (I'll elide "militant atheism" as nothing more than a physically dangerous but otherwise minor special case of general atheism). Indeed, the atheist and the religious man both proceed from duals of the same First Principle: one believes there is a God; the other believes there is not. Both positions are the same article of religious faith.
"I don't believe in your God" isn't the same as "There is not a God." Much the same way that pronouncing some one "Not Guilty" in a court isn't the same thing as pronouncing some one "Innocent." Atheism is a statement about a lack of belief, not claiming knowledge about the truth of !P.
Mar 1, 2021Liked by Claire Berlinski, Rachel motte
Thank you to TCG for your thoughtful and insightful answers to my question; I appreciate it greatly. To Ms Motte; sadly I think you’re right. In the United States we live in a budding theocracy. Our new clerisy isn’t comprised of priests ministers, rabbis or imams. The modern day American clerisy clerisy is comprised of journalists, pundits, college professors, technocrats and social media influencers.
I also think Mr. or Ms Anonymous is right; while many members of the clerisy believe they’re atheists, they actually do believe in a deity; they just hate his (or her or it’s) guts.
This all reminds me of a bumper sticker a friend once told me she saw. It went like this:
"I also think Mr. or Ms Anonymous is right; while many members of the clerisy believe they’re atheists, they actually do believe in a deity; they just hate his (or her or it’s) guts."
This is a common argument atheists hear about themselves, but it seems to mostly be traded back and forth between theists. I'm troubled by the confidence that it's repeated with, since it assumes to know the minds of many other people, rather than taking their word for what they believe. It'd be like me assuming many people adhere to certain versions of Christianity because they hate homosexuality, not because they hold an honest belief about some deity.
I am an atheist. I have yet to be presented with a deity that I believe is real. I don't hate something I don't believe in. I could dislike a character in a book. I can dislike the way people revere characters in books. I can even dislike the behavior of certain book clubs. But it doesn't mean I believe in that character's existence. Please stop pretending to know the contents of my mind, it's paternalistic and insulting.
If you'd like an honest dialog about what an atheist thinks, I'd be happy to oblige. The comments and answers to this thread are the reason I tend to be vocal about my lack of belief, because it's clear that the well has been getting poisoned for a very long time.
Atheism is a religion in the way Not Collecting Stamps is a hobby.
I know it's a common apologetic to claim atheists require faith, but most of the atheists I know aren't insisting in a belief, rather they simply do not have one. Unfortunately, the people selling this often get to the ears of believers before atheists can.
Two days?!! Okay.
And a final late submission that on the surface appears unrelated to my other questions(but I can't lie it actual IS related but would have to be a mind reader to know) what do the Cosmopolitan Globalists think of Magnitsky sanctions?
I don't know if I can make a late question submission but anyways I am going to throw it out there. I will also add this is a bit of a "trick" question as I already know more about it than I suspect all 60 or so Cosmopolitan Globalist writers however, I am always looking for different opinions and perspectives to my own understanding of the facts involved. Anyways here comes the smoke bomb.
What does the CG think of the US Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act(FATCA) and as a follow-up where do you think the line is in terms of those who oppose it in Europe politically for example crossing into outright anti-Americanism and illiberalism. I say this in regards to the fact the US is in the eyes of many the sole upholder of the western Liberal order and the US through multiple political leaders has made clear that FATCA is something very important to Americans living in the United States and non-compliance or outright defiance of it will be considered an "unfriendly" act to much of the American people. A last question, does the CG feel that FATCA helps fight the type of global corruption that people like Vladimir Putin engage in? If it does or does not what other measures should be taken in term of dealing with Putin and his ilk's kleptocracy.
Asking this question is more like dropping a nuclear bomb but anyways here it goes.
For those CG's who have no idea what I am talking about which I suspect is some but not all(In fact I know it is not all) I linked below to a paper just released by a French lawyer who I have worked with from time to time that discusses this issue from a human rights and classical liberalism perspective that I think most CG's will understand.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3795480&fbclid=IwAR10eXmPraGW3Wuaa_VgnL7HYObjUBZz3302cglQOsT2rPyxtmy5SS7ibgU
This is probably way way too much to ask but in the opinion of the CG's are those individuals Laura Snyder, the author criticizes illiberal or authoritarians(such as Max Baucus, Neil Abercrombie, Carl Levin, Leslie Samuels, etc)? Does the fact they are American politicians and public figures make them exempt from charges of illiberalism simply because they are American in light of America's unique historic role? Should the rules we "hold" Russia and China apply also to the United States. What if the vast majority of the American people democratically oppose the liberal standards? Does pure Democracy trump liberal Democracy?
"Secularism is a religion too."
So is atheism (I'll elide "militant atheism" as nothing more than a physically dangerous but otherwise minor special case of general atheism). Indeed, the atheist and the religious man both proceed from duals of the same First Principle: one believes there is a God; the other believes there is not. Both positions are the same article of religious faith.
Eric Hines
P There is a God.
!P There is not a God.
"I don't believe in your God" isn't the same as "There is not a God." Much the same way that pronouncing some one "Not Guilty" in a court isn't the same thing as pronouncing some one "Innocent." Atheism is a statement about a lack of belief, not claiming knowledge about the truth of !P.
Thank you to TCG for your thoughtful and insightful answers to my question; I appreciate it greatly. To Ms Motte; sadly I think you’re right. In the United States we live in a budding theocracy. Our new clerisy isn’t comprised of priests ministers, rabbis or imams. The modern day American clerisy clerisy is comprised of journalists, pundits, college professors, technocrats and social media influencers.
I also think Mr. or Ms Anonymous is right; while many members of the clerisy believe they’re atheists, they actually do believe in a deity; they just hate his (or her or it’s) guts.
This all reminds me of a bumper sticker a friend once told me she saw. It went like this:
“God is dead” (Nietzsche)
“Who’s laughing now” (God)
"I also think Mr. or Ms Anonymous is right; while many members of the clerisy believe they’re atheists, they actually do believe in a deity; they just hate his (or her or it’s) guts."
This is a common argument atheists hear about themselves, but it seems to mostly be traded back and forth between theists. I'm troubled by the confidence that it's repeated with, since it assumes to know the minds of many other people, rather than taking their word for what they believe. It'd be like me assuming many people adhere to certain versions of Christianity because they hate homosexuality, not because they hold an honest belief about some deity.
I am an atheist. I have yet to be presented with a deity that I believe is real. I don't hate something I don't believe in. I could dislike a character in a book. I can dislike the way people revere characters in books. I can even dislike the behavior of certain book clubs. But it doesn't mean I believe in that character's existence. Please stop pretending to know the contents of my mind, it's paternalistic and insulting.
If you'd like an honest dialog about what an atheist thinks, I'd be happy to oblige. The comments and answers to this thread are the reason I tend to be vocal about my lack of belief, because it's clear that the well has been getting poisoned for a very long time.