Are "New Atheists" Too Obsessed With Religion?

[Willamena]

The person. Also, were not talking about everything a person thinks or values.

Fair enough.

But let me ask you: Do you respect those who disagree with you? Even if you don't respect their beliefs?Seems easy enough to me.

I am practicing it right now, but my respect for you as a person is on a par with my respect for what you say and think as a person.

 

[gsa]

It depends, have they earned any respect? Otherwise, why would you?

Everyone is entitled to basic respect, until they demonstrate otherwise.

 

[Cephus]

Everyone is entitled to basic respect, until they demonstrate otherwise.

Very basic, yes. Beyond that, no.

 

[viole]

Duplicate

 

[outhouse]

Well, his claims are unsubstantiated in the strictest sense of that term, since he doesn't really provide much in the way of concrete examples. I don't think the problem is so much that he has nothing good to say, but that he overstates his case and does so from a skewed vantage point.

Fair enough.

I just read a little and each claim made were in huge leaps of imagination.

 

[outhouse]

The so-called New Atheists have an attitude of intellectual superiority.

Well when we do the research, and accept the education and knowledge, then have theist refuse this knowledge out of bias, I can see that being confused with superiority.

 

[viole]

1

There's atheist "churches" popping up these days, even.

I dig the perspective you posted here, because if I were an atheist, I would think conversations about God would be asinine and superfluous. To me, it'd seem like a waste of time. I would think it'd be akin to disproving the tooth fairy, or a unicorn, or some such. Why spend so much time considering, arguing, and talking about something you have no belief in? It'd be like entertaining the idea that middle earth is around somewhere, and I was somehow obligated to disprove elves and hobbits weren't out there somewhere. Really?

I think (honestly due to my own theological bias mind you) people are hung up on it because there is a void in their heart concerning this stuff. Existence, God, who, why, when, where. My brethren often say atheists are just as religious, which is rather antagonizing (but I get the point; some really are). It's more like "religion without divinity" or religion without a god or gods. Similarly why there are conventions, why there are meetings now that they happen to call church (to be tongue in cheek, most likely), best selling novels, authors, bloggers, youtube channels (cult of dusty is hilarious btw), etc. It's like it's own cultural phenom.

It is, in a way, like a new religion, or church, or... lack of a better way to frame it, movement.

I talked to, what I'd consider, a bonafied atheist about the concept of atheist church and he was rather befuddled, but agreed the whole hanging out with people of similar like-mindedness is a cool concept. It's like all the things religions have are kind of cool, socially, but unnecessary for those who literally have no believe about the divine or a higher power.

But I consider him rare. He's not like most atheists I encounter at all.

It's an us-against-them mindset, ultimately. But going back to what I said about the void in one's heart... there is a clear distinction between god-deniers and people who genuinely are atheist (like my aforementioned friend). The guy just doesn't get it. He just shrugs and says he has no reason to believe, maybe if there were proof of anything at all, he might consider it. But he just doesn't see it, so, what's the point? He can't make fiction be reality, so he doesn't seem interested in trying. He's literally an uncrackable shell in that regard. He's just an atheist.

On the other hand, the people I try to talk to like I do with him have more fire and brimstone in their eyes than the most die hard evangelical I've experienced. Maybe not Westboro hatred, but not very far from it.

And that really just makes me wonder.

I am pretty sure that if a hobbit believer would try to control my life and my morals because Frodo told them so, I would do my best to attack and cover his belief with ridicule. As he would rightly deserve, wouldn't you?

However, no Frodo believer ever told me that I have no right about my body or sexual life, so I have no real reason to address them.

But if believers in an eternal entity that allegedely spawned himself to assume ape-like features so that it could sort of die and turn himself into an airborne zombie in order to make me free form an imaginary sickness, ... try to dictate how I should behave or what I should do with my body, because their zombie told them so, then I am perfectly entitled to attack and/or make fun of their beliefs. I mean, why not? They are, indeed, funny. Like the hobbits. LOL.

Ciao

- viole

P.S. I am a "new" atheist. Although I prefer to be called "young" atheist, if you don't mind

 

[gsa]

Fair enough.

I am practicing it right now, but my respect for you as a person is on a par with my respect for what you say and think as a person.

If not respect, then toleration. There are plenty of people that I do not respect, but tolerate. But I can respect people who have certain erroneous beliefs. It just depends on what follows from those beliefs.

Some Christians, for example, are functionally indistinguishable from atheists.

 

[Cephus]

Well when we do the research, and accept the education and knowledge, then have theist refuse this knowledge out of bias, I can see that being confused with superiority.

I've yet to see a claim of superiority come from an atheist, it's always from the theist who thinks that because their opponent is better educated, has more information and a better use of reason than they do, that must mean that their opponent thinks they're superior.

Go figure.

 

[outhouse]

I've yet to see a claim of superiority come from an atheist, it's always from the theist who thinks that because their opponent is better educated, has more information and a better use of reason than they do, that must mean that their opponent thinks they're superior.

Go figure.

That is what I was saying.

But thank you for the added detail

 

[Cephus]

If not respect, then toleration. There are plenty of people that I do not respect, but tolerate. But I can respect people who have certain erroneous beliefs. It just depends on what follows from those beliefs.

I just don't buy that people magically deserve respect, just because they bothered to wake up in the morning. Yes, I am going to give them a minimal amount of "respect", in that I'm going to stop and not run over them with my car, I'm not going to arbitrarily punch them in the face for no reason, etc. That's really not respect, it's basic social graces. What I do not do and will not do is pat people on the head and comfort them for believing absurd things, just because they get some emotional relief for doing so. That's where people need to earn respect, both for themselves and for the beliefs that they hold.

Some Christians, for example, are functionally indistinguishable from atheists.

I'd argue that the vast majority of self-identified Christians are, in fact, atheists. They have no serious connection to an actual belief in any God. They claim to believe for social reasons, they go through the religious rituals and observances because they think it makes them look good to the neighbors, but they not only have no clue what it is that they're supposed to believe, they don't actually believe it either.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yes, that's a good point. Though maybe the boundaries are easily blurred here?

For an atheist they absolutely are, I agree. For a secular theist the distinction is vital. Thus in my opinion it behooves atheists like myself to keep it in mind.

 

[Bunyip]

Hmmm ok.
It doesn't come across that way to me, but no worries. I'm only able to share from my own experiences.

It does explain your position though - it seems that you will interpret any form of question as an attack. Which is a pity on a discussion page.

 

[Deidre]

It does explain your position though - it seems that you will interpret any form of question as an attack. Which is a pity on a discussion page.

any form of question? exaggerate much? lol

you put words in people's mouths (virtually in this case)...and then, argue those points. lol I've seen you do it before. It doesn't interest me to fight your words. I was merely sharing experiences of my own, above. you put words in my mouth as if I made those points.

whatever you're into.

 

[Bunyip]

any form of question? exaggerate much? lol

you put words in people's mouths (virtually in this case)...and then, argue those points. lol I've seen you do it before. It doesn't interest me to fight your words. I was merely sharing experiences of my own, above. you put words in my mouth as if I made those points.

whatever you're into.

Dierdre, I put no words Into your mouth, I addressed only what you said your reasons were. I'l have to put you on ignore. You are a remarkably unpleasant character.

 

[Deidre]

This is very interesting, Deidre. You are of course a remarkably respectful person, and has been so very consistently far as I can see.

ditto...you are always very generous to hear all sides.

But what is this about letting beliefs tread upon other people's beliefs? Somehow I suspect that is not exactly what you take care to avoid.

For one thing, beliefs themselves often do clash irreconciliably with those of other people. We might consider taking care with their expression to avoid conflict, but the beliefs themselves simply can't very well be kept compatible. Nor do I think anyone should attempt to restrain or force one's own beliefs simply to remain within the acceptance space of everyone else one interacts with. That would be a form of self-aggression, as I understand it.

Then again, is it even possible to choose your beliefs to such a degree?

True, I think for some (like me and people who were indoctrinated from a young age)...one's beliefs are chosen for them. I know some atheists who were once theists, and it seems that after they left their faith, they might have struggled for a little while, but...then, they never went back. I see your point though and I'm not suggesting anyone on either side should stifle their voices, but I'm not a fan of preaching on either side, either. Atheists may feel they are doing a great service to a theist by showing them truth, and in some cases, a theist might only have his/her eyes opened ...if he/she meets an atheist willing to share that truth. But, to leave faith, it takes the will of one's heart...no one can really 'recruit' anyone to a particular way of thinking. That's more of what I'm driving at, if that makes sense.

Let's say any random two people happen to include one who truly believes in, say, reincarnation and another that flat out finds it impossible. What do you recommend for them to do to avoid this treading upon you speak of?

Well, I guess we always don't need to be sharing our beliefs. My beliefs aren't the sum total of myself. I used to claim my identity in religion, but now that I believe again, I don't want a repeat of that, again. I think the same for an atheist. It's merely the lack of belief, doesn't need to be something worn on a sleeve. And if we wish to communicate about these things, just do so in respectful ways.

Sharing one's religion can be, and often is, nothing short of sublime and blissful. It should be made with the utmost care not to pressure the recipient out of his confort zone, certainly. But it should not be avoided, It is flat out one of the best experiences a human being can go through, when done with enough heart and wisdom.

This, I agree with, Luis. Well put.

Oh, sweet Deidre. How can you say such a thing? That can certainly happen when religion is taught unwisely, by unskilled teachers. But you should not present it as an automatic thing, much as as a necessary part of religion itself.

Yes, I know. I shouldn't speak for others...this was only true in my case. And in other cases, I'm aware of.

If religion has such a trait, then it should be rid off. But by my understanding at least that is not an accurate understanding of what religion is and what it is supposed to be.

Think religion lost its way. What was it ever supposed ...to be? I happen to think the answer isn't a good one, Luis. :/

 

[Willamena]

Well when we do the research, and accept the education and knowledge, then have theist refuse this knowledge out of bias, I can see that being confused with superiority.

Or not.

 

[Willamena]

If not respect, then toleration. There are plenty of people that I do not respect, but tolerate. But I can respect people who have certain erroneous beliefs. It just depends on what follows from those beliefs.

Some Christians, for example, are functionally indistinguishable from atheists.

I'm different. I don't tolerate the people I'm intolerant of.

 

[LuisDantas]

Think religion lost its way. What was it ever supposed ...to be? I happen to think the answer isn't a good one, Luis. :/

It is more than a bit ironic that I often find myself defending religion's validity when sincere theists seem to have given up.

 

[Deidre]

It is more than a bit ironic that I often find myself defending religion's validity when sincere theists seem to have given up.

haha that's funny Hmmm...
It's one of those things I guess, that when one doesn't have a burning desire to debate anymore, is when he/she has nothing more to prove. (theist or atheist)