Atheism

[Timothy Bryce]

First of all, being an anti skeptic who believed every single theist in existence is dangerous, deluded, or stupid is not even close to being relentlessly inquisitive. In fact the guy is known specifically because he DIDN'T question, he pandered to hateful, aggressive atheism and became famous with. That you then share him making a statement that pretty much any low level philosophy class uses as an early paradox example is quite funny. Much more scoff worthy.

You strike me as someone whose knowledge of Hitchens is restricted to a couple of youtube videos.

If you had any insight into his further work, I guarantee that your opinion would be radically different; he was relentlessly inquisitive and that's what he is famous for.

If you'd paid better attention, you'd have noticed that I stated that he was boiling down his messages to "the most basic statements of useful philosophy" due to the fact that they're either ignored or never brought to the attention of people perfectly privileged and capable of grasping them; fairly noble move to make in his last public appearance.

Nice try though.

 

[EbonyBreeCaple]

I believe religion is cultural. It is a discipline you adhere to based on your cultural identity group. Culture is a way of life. I find it quite odd that every culture on earth has a story of creation there by a religion (including atheists who adhere to the big bang or evolution theories) yet according to athiests everybody in the world is wrong except them. I choose to believe in a creator that does not fit any 1 religion. I am in some ways polytheist, I am in some ways monotheistic and I highly doubt the legitamacy of many religions and scientific theories as the sole train of thought on the issue of a life discipline. Its like a mathematical equation. You can come to the same answer through many differing methods. Just as science cannot prove the big bang theory entirely as it is a theory and not a quantifiable fact I dont think athiests can ever disprove the idea of a supernatural creator entirely. They can dismiss it, just like a judge can dismiss evidence for varying reasons. Atheists can adhere to their own discipline and it satisfies them. Just as many people of varying religions benefit from the disciplines their faith brings them. The problem here is people are not merely satisfied with themselves. We expect others to adhere to our beliefs. In a cultural context this is exaggerated as we grow more confident in our beliefs the more they are supported. I think this comes down to ego. Athiests are egotistical as are religious folk unless your religion allows for more than one belief system to be accepted.

 

[Augustus]

The guy was just about to die, leaving behind a legacy of contrarianism and a constant resilience to be relentlessly inquisitive.

In some regards, Hitchens was as 'deluded' as he believed theists to be though. He wasn't relentlessly inquisitive, just a talented polemicist who liked arguing a case.

He was an ardent supporter or the Iraq War based on a utopian and highly irrational belief that Western liberal democracy was universal and would appear magically out of the ruins of Iraq. He continued to argue that the war was correct, even after everything turned to ****.

In this regard, he was did a lot more to facilitate religious fundamentalism than damage it.

 

[LuisDantas]

I really agree with the part I bolded, at least to some extent. That's exactly why I'm against aggressive, closed minded, exclusivist groups like the new atheism founded by Hitchens. It crazy close to dogma it comes sometimes, like not even being able to understand religion is not inherently dangerous, or that even pragmatically it can be beneficial. Hitchens and the like decided they knew the one way, and they had the right ideas, and they were the true skeptics, and everyone else is insane and dangerous. Fundamentalism starter pack right there.

"New atheism founded by Hitchens"?

Do you believe in such a myth?

Atheism is atheism. Hitchens has never been anything more than a single author writing and speaking at a time when the zeistgeist began to realize that there was no point in denying the existence of atheism.

I think you are paying a bit too much attention to sensacionalists and panic-striken accomodated people.

 

[LuisDantas]

Please tell me how my religion is dangerous, and what exactly about it didn't fit with what we know of reality.

How setianism and Thelema are dangerous?

Is that truly what you mean to ask?

And if so, why do you think that is a question that follows from pointing out the merits of the rise of atheism awareness and acceptance?

 

[1137]

How setianism and Thelema are dangerous?

Is that truly what you mean to ask?

And if so, why do you think that is a question that follows from pointing out the merits of the rise of atheism awareness and acceptance?

The user stated that religious ideology is dangerous and irrational. I'm allowed to ask for reasoning to back his claim.

 

[Timothy Bryce]

In some regards, Hitchens was as 'deluded' as he believed theists to be though. He wasn't relentlessly inquisitive, just a talented polemicist who liked arguing a case.

He was an ardent supporter or the Iraq War based on a utopian and highly irrational belief that Western liberal democracy was universal and would appear magically out of the ruins of Iraq. He continued to argue that the war was correct, even after everything turned to ****..

One could definitely make the case that in the early years of this century, he was practically pep-talking along with the neo-cons into endorsing Iraq 2 and completely changing its political and cultural landscape.

I think the reason why he continued to maintain that the "Coalition of the Willing" should stay there even though it has gone complete sideways was precisely because he anticipated that, for better or worse, leaving the situation would create a vacuum for something like ISIS to manifest itself. He practically predicted it; he was banging on about how dangerous radical Islam's intention to restore the Caliphate was and exactly what would happen if we were to pull out prematurely - and he was dead right. And he was dead before it even happened.

For the record: I never supported Iraq 2.

 

[Augustus]

One could definitely make the case that in the early years of this century, he was practically pep-talking along with the neo-cons into endorsing Iraq 2 and completely changing its political and cultural landscape.

I think the reason why he continued to maintain that the "Coalition of the Willing" should stay there even though it has gone complete sideways was precisely because he anticipated that, for better or worse, leaving the situation would create a vacuum for ISIS to manifest itself. He practically predicted it; he was banging on about how dangerous radical Islam's intention to restore the Caliphate was and exactly what would happen if we were to pull out prematurely - and he was dead right.

He always maintained the war was right, not that 'we messed up, but can't leave now'.

The cause of his neo-conservatism/liberal interventionism is something common to 'New Athiests', the belief in the universality of their own values and the idea of melioristic Liberal Progress (which are actually a cultural hangover from Christianity). Even the benevolence of Reason, is just a secularisation of Divine Providence. Reason is morally neutral, can lead to Communism, colonialism, scientific racism, eugenics and the Iraq War or it can lead to tolerant humanism or something else positive.

Anyway, humans are not rational creatures overall and never will be. We are a narrative driven species and easily believe that which supports our narratives. Religions are just a form of narrative that, if they disappeared, would necessarily be replaced with other ones. This is why it is silly to consider religions intrinsically harmful, we can never move beyond our need for stories that give the world meaning, and there will always be diversity in these stories.

Of course some narratives are more harmful than others and are very much deserving of criticism, but there is little point in criticising those who share most of your beliefs just because theirs are founded in gods and religions, and yours are supposedly founded in 'Reason', or believing that those founded in 'Reason' are somehow intrinsically superior.

 

[LuisDantas]

The user stated that religious ideology is dangerous and irrational. I'm allowed to ask for reasoning to back his claim.

If I may, you will probably want to deal with the significant hurdle of clarifying and hopefully agreeing on an understanding of what "religious ideology" means first.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I'm sorry you feel reaching out to a wider variety of opinions is somehow a bad thing, though it explains a TON.

I don't think your getting it.

I made a claim about your experience with atheists, and you've went ahead and just inferred a massive amount (a TON) about who I am. You inferences and wise-sweeping conclusions about me are ridiculously unfounded.

You also realize, though simple deduction, that if I know this is also on Reddit, I am also on Reddit, reading and participating there too. . . A single empirical fact that you have ignored in favor of some wild conclusions with no basis in anything but your own mind.

I could infer that this entire thread of your bears a similar problem, maybe even your entire worldview, and I'd be closer to the truth.

 

[Shad]

Hitchens or 1137?

Hitchen's comment that there are no absolute truths

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I'm sure others here might feel similar, but online religious discussion has led to almost exclusively bad experiences with atheists. Not just here mind you, this is not some sort of meta post. These days in person life hardly allows for me to have this conversations, I'm either with a small group of known friends or on the clock, so as far as I can tell from experience, this is the majority of atheists. Please do correct me if I'm wrong. I'm sure theories on this range from "duh, they're all evil and immoral" to "being anonymous", but I think the answer lies in between.

I do not believe atheism to be some inherently negative or wrong metaphysical view, but I think two things contribute to the overwhelmingly negative experience. First is simply the main authors that are read by atheists. From fringe groups like the church of Satan to the most popular authors like Dawkins, I've seen a tendency to treat theists in some of the worst ways possibly, even calling them mentally ill or deluded as a whole. Let's look at some quotes.

"Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that." - Dawkins

"My real feeling is that anybody who believes in supernatural entities on some level is insane. Whether they believe in The Devil or God, they are abdicating reason. " - Peter Gilmore

In these quotes I see the same type of generalizing, closed minded, hateful and insulting exclusivist tactics engage in by literally all fundamentalist groups. The others are insane, they're dangerous, there are no exceptions to this rule. This is the way groups like the medieval church, the Phelps family, the Islamic state, etc. et al. treat those who disagree with their metaphysical world view. Of course it is not an atheists fault if they have no other sources to go to, just as it's not a child's fault if they're raised unaware of other metaphysical positions. But the question then becomes, "why are the sources like this?"

I certainly think atheism make sense, I can easily see why people would believe that we're all wrong and the universe lacks any deities. But unlike certain religious groups, I do not believe this position somehow leads to negativity, anger, and hate. I believe the problem is that after years of brainwashing, torment, and building resentment, when atheism finally hit the playing field it was more a reaction than a philosophical system. It was not enough to reject gods, there was now a chance to get back at the institutions and ideologies that had treated them poorly. Instead of just considering arguments, it was decided that religious people were deluded fools, all brainwashed and lost, all mentally ill and misled. This is best illustrated by the death of skepticism in "free thinking" atheistic circles, replaced by essentially a new dogma of a universe without god. Materialism must be true because god can't possibly exist, theists must be brainwashed because they couldn't possibly have valid reason to believe, etc. and so on. Even the need to defend one's own position was dropped, in favor of simply mocking and stalling the theist.

No, I do not think this describes all atheists, I have some very good, intelligent, calm and reasonable atheist friend, the kind who will tell you why, and admit when you have a decent point even if in the end it's wrong. But like with religion, this is the minority. I believe that between a limited market and reactionary thought, atheism has become what we know it as (at least with internet atheists). Now maybe I've just had bad experiences, does anyone else agree or disagree? Whether small or large, I believe this mindset is due to the limited resources and reactionary thinking. Saying they're simply godless or have no morals is a cop-out imo, though I know it's probably believed by many. What do you think?

Its been stated a few times already in this thread but I believe the core issue is that people who sweep your religious arguments aside or refuse to give respect to religious ideas strike a deep part of theists. I've had plenty of conversations where theists were very upset with me because I have tore into their religious beliefs. I never tore into them. On occasion I get irritated at the individuals but pretty universally I like to think that I start off each debate as respectfully as I can to the people.

You're exhibit A earlier in the thread is the main reason why I think this. If I stand here and tell you you're religion is bull**** it may be considered a negative experience to you. I don't see it that way. I don't think you are stupid for beliving in a religion. Now I hold some very strong opinions about people who believe in YEC and other unscientific issues but that is a seperate bit.

 

[icehorse]

Athiests are egotistical as are religious folk unless your religion allows for more than one belief system to be accepted.

Most of the atheists I know value what science values, logic, evidence, critical thinking, discovery, parsimony, and so on. Those of us who debate believers do so because at the core of almost all religious belief is a suspension of scientific values. This suspension is often fundamentally dishonest, and dishonesty is not a path to a peaceful world.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Somebody recently has started a thread asking what keeps religious people satisfied. This is a great question to ask which more directly deals with substance than discussing and criticizing beliefs.

"Love covers a multitude of errors" -- a scripture verse that anyone can benefit from, because it is just a true statement. Yes, religious people and religions have problems, yet religious people have accomplished a lot because of that principle. Similarly, tact is something that can make a bad conversationalist look decent.

I agree with Digital Artist, though they are an atheist, you religiously uneducated athiests (even the spelling is annoying). Tact is a skill. It is good for all events. I can understand if beliefs are annoying, but often beliefs are like a false eye on a fish. Think of them as camoflauge. Religion isn't simply a matter of beliefs. It is beliefs enforced for specific reasons, and the reasons are hidden, individual, personal, perhaps multiple. If a person is offending you or appears mired in unhealthy beliefs from your perspective, what are they really hoping will result from their beliefs, and how can you address their real objectives? What is their real need which their belief attempts to fulfill, and are you willing to fill it instead. If not, then you have nothing to trade.

 

[icehorse]

Tact is a skill. It is good for all events. I can understand if beliefs are annoying, but often beliefs are like a false eye on a fish.

Can you say more about the context of your comments? We are - after all - having this exchange in the debate forum. So it's one thing to be tactful in day to life, out in the world. It's quite another to ask for tact in the middle of a debate, no?

 

[Cephus]

Yet much of Western Europe did, long before we do, despite having state sponsored churches. Especially Nordic countries which are generally more secular in actuality but with state churches in practice, and have a much longer history of civil rights successes. Ditto with Canada and some other non-European countries.

While they might have state sponsored churches, nobody goes to them. Maybe having official religions is the fastest way to get rid of religion?

As in there is no Seperation of Church and state clause in most European countries.

Not officially, no. But the societies are much more secular than they are here so that's really irrelevant.

Yes, but Dawkins and Hitchens were and are primarily read and successful in America, not in England or Western Europe. The so-called Brights and Atheist+ and other aggressive atheist groups are virtually non-existent in Western Europe. And Dawkins ended up speaking directly to America so much because America is the birthplace and the only stronghold on any relevant scale of Young-Earth creationism. But they haven't actually done anything to curtail the Christian religious movement here in the states. And, as I said, I think they made it worse. Hitchens in particular was, in my opinion, did pretty much nothing to change any minds, and was mostly just preaching to the choir of equally and overly aggressive atheists radicalizing the debates and gumming up the works.

They're pretty non-existent here too. Atheism+ died a well-deserved and horrible death and nobody really took the Bright thing seriously. But religion is failing miserably in America. Virtually every religious group is suffering losses. They're closing churches. Religious schools are going out of business. And the speed at which it's happening is increasing.

Probably why people more like Bill Nye and Neil DeGrasse Tyson became more famous as voices of atheism (even though Neil doesn't identify as an atheist and basically says 'I don't care that we live in a religiously pluralistic society, stop trying to drag me into this silly fight.')

It's really irrelevant what label someone chooses to use, the reality is, Tyson is an atheist because he doesn't believe in gods. He can attach any label to himself that he wishes, but at the end of the day, words have meanings and the word that means what he clearly is, is atheist.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Can you say more about the context of your comments? We are - after all - having this exchange in the debate forum. So it's one thing to be tactful in day to life, out in the world. It's quite another to ask for tact in the middle of a debate, no?

True this is a debate section on the forum, produced out of a crude attempt to contain and isolate tumultous dialogue from beneficial conversation. Sometimes the debates are good, but even debates fall apart without tact. Its often the case that debates get nasty, and by nasty I mean they turn into insult-fests. One says "I don't trust you." The other says "You're an idiot." You'd think that was the end of a conversation, but some will just go back and forth like that forever. Its like the debates in Parliament where nobody expects anybody else to change their minds about anything, completely pointless for most purposes except emotional gratification. At the moment we lack a section for people who want to do that.

 

[icehorse]

True this is a debate section on the forum, produced out of a crude attempt to contain and isolate tumultous dialogue from beneficial conversation. Sometimes the debates are good, but even debates fall apart without tact.

Good points. I guess maybe it's the definition of "tact" and "good debate" that are a bit up in the air for me. If debater A feels that debater B's position holds absolutely no water whatsoever, what's a tactful way to say that?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Good points. I guess maybe it's the definition of "tact" and "good debate" that are a bit up in the air for me. If debater A feels that debater B's position holds absolutely no water whatsoever, what's a tactful way to say that?

That is a marketable skill. I have seen some smoothies talk around something and circle back, earning some repoire in between before swooping in with a paradigm changing statement. So they somehow earn trust before explaining that more education is needed. Its an awesome thing to watch or to have done to you. I do not possess this skill and will sometimes even say that they are uneducated about blah or that blah does not make sense.

 

[Cephus]

Good points. I guess maybe it's the definition of "tact" and "good debate" that are a bit up in the air for me. If debater A feels that debater B's position holds absolutely no water whatsoever, what's a tactful way to say that?

And why be "tactful" when you can be direct? If someone holds a bad belief, they ought to feel bad about it. They ought to be embarrassed enough to change it. How is it doing anyone any good to coddle their feelings such that they don't feel it necessary to make any changes?