Atheism

[Geoff-Allen]

Both sides of the debate could afford 2 be more tolerant. WE do tend 2 reserve our fondest thoughts 4 those who agree with us or who are most like us ...

All the best!

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I would say it is absolutely productive to attack irrational beliefs. How else are irrational beliefs going to change? You make the assumption that these are valuable ideas. Certainly they may be to the people who hold them, but objectively? I beg to differ. The goal is not to share, the goal is to correct. The goal is to come to a better understanding of what reality actually is, not how people might wish that it was. Wishful thinking doesn't demonstrably help anyone. In fact, it harms everyone.

You're going to be (and probably already are) largely disappointed by your inability to 'correct' these ideas. In fact I'm willing to bet that your approach only causes those with self-described irrational beliefs to dig their heels in more because that sort of 'conversion' method is about as effective as bible bashing (re: it's not.)

 

[Cephus]

Probably for the same reason I and most atheists refuse to be pinned for the actions of the atheist leadership in the Soviet Union (@1337). Because their beliefs are so radically different from mine that I feel to call me to apologize for their behavior is unjust. I'm not a totalitarian who believes in forced state atheism. Most Muslims don't believe in forced state Islam either.

Because the actions of Stalin and the Soviet Union were not atheist in nature. Stalin acted, not out of atheism, but because of communism. Communism requires absolute adherence to the state, something that religion and other things got in the way of. He cracked down on religion, at least initially, because of that fact. Later on, he used religion openly to control the people. That is simple history. And where do you get the idea that atheists don't speak out against Stalin and communism? Some of the most outspoken critics of the former Soviet Union are atheists.

 

[Cephus]

You're going to be (and probably already are) largely disappointed by your inability to 'correct' these ideas. In fact I'm willing to bet that your approach only causes those with self-described irrational beliefs to dig their heels in more because that sort of 'conversion' method is about as effective as bible bashing (re: it's not.)

Of course, because fanaticism is not open to critical evaluation and logic. I'm not trying to convert individuals, I'm trying to attack bad ideas. What individuals choose to believe is up to them.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Because the actions of Stalin and the Soviet Union were not atheist in nature. Stalin acted, not out of atheism, but because of communism. Communism requires absolute adherence to the state, something that religion and other things got in the way of. He cracked down on religion, at least initially, because of that fact. Later on, he used religion openly to control the people. That is simple history. And where do you get the idea that atheists don't speak out against Stalin and communism? Some of the most outspoken critics of the former Soviet Union are atheists.

Which is no less true of theocratic political tactics looking to eliminate other religious and irreligious modes of government and thought. Which means it's not the religion (or lack thereof) that's the problem, it's the mode of government which decides that unforgiving limitations is the best way to achieve their social ideas. Whoda thunk.

In any case, just like with Muslims, the vast, vast majority of atheists don't bother to, and don't feel the need to, speak out against the former Soviet Union, because they don't feel like it has anything to do with them.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Of course, because fanaticism is not open to critical evaluation and logic. I'm not trying to convert individuals, I'm trying to attack bad ideas. What individuals choose to believe is up to them.

So then you are admittedly just ranting in a cathartic but useless way, not really engaging in anything that could be interpreted as productive or impacting the world around you. And, in fact, probably making things worse because your tactic tends to just solidify the undesirable behavior of others.

 

[1137]

Probably for the same reason I and most atheists refuse to be pinned for the actions of the atheist leadership in the Soviet Union (@1337). Because their beliefs are so radically different from mine that I feel to call me to apologize for their behavior is unjust. I'm not a totalitarian who believes in forced state atheism. Most Muslims don't believe in forced state Islam either.

I only mentioned it to illustrate how asinine it is to pretend something like "all Muslim's are fine with ISIS."

 

[Cephus]

In any case, just like with Muslims, the vast, vast majority of atheists don't bother to, and don't feel the need to, speak out against the former Soviet Union, because they don't feel like it has anything to do with them.

Because now it doesn't, the regime is long since dead and buried. That's not the case with modern Islamic terrorism. Of course, that's just an example, I'm not blaming Muslims for their inaction against radicals, any more than I'm blaming Catholics for their inaction against priestly sex abuse. I'm just noting that people tend to be more forgiving against those that they share religious beliefs in common with.

 

[Cephus]

So then you are admittedly just ranting in a cathartic but useless way, not really engaging in anything that could be interpreted as productive or impacting the world around you. And, in fact, probably making things worse because your tactic tends to just solidify the undesirable behavior of others.

On the contrary, it tends to highlight that behavior for those not part of the fanatical beliefs and point out the rational failures to those who might otherwise be capable of thinking intellectually about them. You can't change the crazies but you can certainly make it plain how crazy the crazies are.

 

[Geoff-Allen]

Maybe tolerance isn't the right word after all? ...

"Let us not speak of tolerance. This negative word implies grudging concessions by smug consciences. Rather, let us speak of mutual understanding and mutual respect."

~ Dominique Pire

Cheers!

 

[ADigitalArtist]

On the contrary, it tends to highlight that behavior for those not part of the fanatical beliefs and point out the rational failures to those who might otherwise be capable of thinking intellectually about them. You can't change the crazies but you can certainly make it plain how crazy the crazies are.

Who are you making it plain to exactly?

 

[Timothy Bryce]

Who are you making it plain to exactly?

I would assume people capable of rational thought who carry and express irrational beliefs.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I would assume people capable of rational thought who carry and express irrational beliefs.

With 'you have lunatic emotional beliefs I refuse to coddle'? I think it's pretty well demonstrated how that approach doesn't really work to convince anyone, rational or irrational beliefs.

 

[Timothy Bryce]

Coming from someone who has been a staunch, hardline atheist for long periods in my young life, I have to say that experiences with theists of all kinds have frustrated and irritated me - particularly when considering the context that such an overwhelming majority of the population apparently identify with some kind of religion.

Richard Dawkins and the late, great Christopher Hitchens were/have been doing "god's work" to put it in ironic terms by revealing the obvious fallacies and danger of theism to the forefront of spiritual discussion. Most of it is obnoxious garbage that is being shoveled all over the world's political and intellectual spheres.

We've reached a point in history where religion deserves to be treated with ridicule and scorn after 6000+ years of it being privileged as some kind of necessity, which is rubbish. It now need to be expunged severely.

 

[icehorse]

Probably because neither attacking someone's beliefs or their person is productive. Neither leads to an equitable exchange of ideas, neither will spark any sort of progression or mutual understanding, and both are just a self-indulgent venting which, while may be cathartic, does very little in the larger sense. I have tonnes of criticism of various beliefs, both theistic and non-theistic, but leading with 'you have lunatic emotional beliefs I refuse to coddle' isn't helpful for anyone.
And I'm speaking as a very vocal atheist on this forum.

I count myself as a member of the "anti-theist" camp (there's a clue under the horse picture).

I'd like to start off by pushing back on your first sentence. Too often people strongly identify with their beliefs. It's easy to conclude that people are - to some degree - their beliefs. But I think this is really a limiting perspective. I think that if 7 or 8 billion of us are going to survive together on this planet - which is our only option, we have to figure out ways of criticizing beliefs without getting everyone's knickers in a twist.

It's almost 2017 people, the great skill for this age is to unlearn old stuff and then learn new stuff. Speaking personally, I have to do this constantly in my profession. Many of the "well known truths" of five years ago are now outdated and inefficient.

 

[Timothy Bryce]

With 'you have lunatic emotional beliefs I refuse to coddle'? I think it's pretty well demonstrated how that approach doesn't really work to convince anyone, rational or irrational beliefs.

Meh - at least it gets a rise out of such people and is more effective in bringing it to one's attention. There's an alternative route: it's just far less effective; this is something that needs to be attacked viciously now.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I count myself as a member of the "anti-theist" camp (there's a clue under the horse picture).

I'd like to start off by pushing back on your first sentence. Too often people strongly identify with their beliefs. It's easy to conclude that people are - to some degree - their beliefs. But I think this is really a limiting perspective. I think that if 7 or 8 billion of us are going to survive together on this planet - which is our only option, we have to figure out ways of criticizing beliefs without getting everyone's knickers in a twist.

It's almost 2017 people, the great skill for this age is to unlearn old stuff and then learn new stuff. Speaking personally, I have to do this constantly in my profession. Many of the "well known truths" of five years ago are now outdated and inefficient.

I'm not talking about conflating one's beliefs with one's person though. I'm talking about how 'Your beliefs are stupid and irrational' is as poor a communication, teaching, learning, et all tool as 'YOU are stupid and irrational.' You can still understand the difference between the two statements and understand that the two will have similarly little effect. So that all you're doing is either preaching to the choir, or just venting at the people you disagree with in a nonconstructive way.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Meh - at least it gets a rise out of such people and is more effective in bringing it to one's attention. There's an alternative route: it's just far left effective; this is something that needs to be attacked viciously now.

I disagree with both of those statements. Both because I think getting a rise out of someone just for the sake of getting your idea attention is the sort of juvenile reddit sort of way to do nothing but troll. Second because 'far left solutions' to extremism never actually fixed anything, and made things worse besides.

 

[icehorse]

I'm not talking about conflating one's beliefs with one's person though. I'm talking about how 'Your beliefs are stupid and irrational' is as poor a communication, teaching, learning, et all tool as 'YOU are stupid and irrational.' You can still understand the difference between the two statements and understand that the two will have similarly little effect. So that all you're doing is either preaching to the choir, or just venting at the people you disagree with in a nonconstructive way.

In debates with believers I *usually* encounter a basic, underlying dishonesty. I freely admit that like everyone, I'm a slave to bias. I freely admit that I rely on a philosophical axiom - that I cannot prove - in order to construct my morals. Believers are seldom willing to admit that their faith cannot be defended logically. Just that small admission would be a big step.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

In debates with believers I *usually* encounter a basic, underlying dishonesty. I freely admit that like everyone, I'm a slave to bias. I freely admit that I rely on a philosophical axiom - that I cannot prove - in order to construct my morals. Believers are seldom willing to admit that their faith cannot be defended logically. Just that small admission would be a big step.

Be that as it may, you won't get them to admit it by telling them 'your beliefs are unjustifiable and you should just admit you have no logical reason to believe it.' If anything, it's just going to make them dig their heels in more.