Fundamentalist Atheists

[nazz]

Wow. No, I've never seen any of those. Wasn't even aware that Greenpeace put up billboards.

I don't think they are allowed in America where Greenpeace is seen as the spawn of Satan

 

[Straw Dog]

Anyone else bothered by the existence of what I call either fundamentalist or mainstream atheists? To be honest, these guys and gals annoy me more than almost any other group. I'm talking about these outspoken atheist who'll literally result to fideism in their hate for religion or fallacy to attack religion. Pretty much 99% of r/atheism.

Anyone else see these folks?

I was once one of them and still get a little reactive from time to time, but just because we're kind of jerks doesn't mean that we're totally wrong. So why do many of us seem so hellbent on "attacking" religion?

I think a lot of it has to do with cultural upbringing and current environment. Many of us were raised with a fundamentalist or moderate religious mindset. Just because someone drops a single belief doesn't mean that they've also deconstructed their learned patterns of black and white dogmatic thinking. It takes time to transform the cultural consciousness. During this time of struggle, the atheist may also be surrounded by friends and family members with a different worldview. They may suddenly feel alienated. This could all contribute to a more reactive nature in the mind of the undeveloped rationalist.

 

[technomage]

As far as I can see, they have made a good case for that conclusion.

Probably because you agree with the preconceptions that they front-load into their arguments.

Are you telling us that religion should have the special privilege of being exempt from criticism?

I don't believe we've interacted before, so you may have to go through my posting history to be aware of just how quick I am to apply criticism to religious assertions. Indeed, if youhad any familiarity with my views whatsoever, you would realize that your statement above is a laughably inaccurate understanding of my views.

 

[technomage]

I was once one of them and still get a little reactive from time to time, but just because we're kind of jerks doesn't mean that we're totally wrong. So why do many of us seem so hellbent on "attacking" religion?

I think a lot of it has to do with cultural upbringing and current environment. Many of us were raised with a fundamentalist or moderate religious mindset. Just because someone drops a single belief doesn't mean that they've also deconstructed their learned patterns of black and white dogmatic thinking. It takes time to transform the cultural consciousness. During this time of struggle, the atheist may also be surrounded by friends and family members with a different worldview. They may suddenly feel alienated. This could all contribute to a more reactive nature in the mind of the undeveloped rationalist.

An interesting insight, and I thank you for sharing your personal experiences.

 

[technomage]

I'm not interested in this semantic argument.

Then perhaps you should not have made the assertions that I've been forced to correct.

I'd like you to defend your description of Dawins and Hitchens:

Perhaps I will once these other issues are resolved. However, I will note this.

Keep in mind that in the case of Hitchens, you're talking about someone who chose to test his belief that waterboarding isn't torture by being waterboarded himself... and changed his mind as a result. This does not sound to me like the sort of person you describe.

Red herring. Hitchens' willingness to test that assertion has nothing to do with his fideism on the issues of the non-existence of deity, or on the supposed harmfulness of religion.

 

[Willamena]

I think we're getting sidetracked into a debate over my choice of words. My point is that while I can appreciate an argument that a profanity-laced public billboard should be considered inappropriate, I reject arguments that imply that this message doesn't have a valid place in the marketplace of ideas... even if some people find it offensive.

I've no problem with your choice of words, and I agree that there is nothing wrong with putting atheist ideas out there, as on billboards. My only problem is that the message you made an example of as inoffensive is actually offensive.

That's a funny.

 

[Koldo]

Then perhaps you should not have made the assertions that I've been forced to correct.


Perhaps I will once these other issues are resolved. However, I will note this.


Red herring. Hitchens' willingness to test that assertion has nothing to do with his fideism on the issues of the non-existence of deity, or on the supposed harmfulness of religion.

Such an elusive maneuver of yours.

 

[technomage]

Such an elusive maneuver of yours.

You ain't seen nothing yet.

 

[Koldo]

You ain't seen nothing yet.

I hope I did. I really do.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Perhaps I will once these other issues are resolved. However, I will note this.

And I've noted that you've made assertions that are, so far, unsupported and will weigh them accordingly (i.e. give them no weight at all).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've no problem with your choice of words, and I agree that there is nothing wrong with putting atheist ideas out there, as on billboards. My only problem is that the message you made an example of as inoffensive is actually offensive.

That's a funny.

I never said it was inoffensive; I said there was nothing wrong with it.

 

[technomage]

And I've noted that you've made assertions that are, so far, unsupported and will weigh them accordingly (i.e. give them no weight at all).

Indeed. I have made unsupported assertions (the most primary of which, in this thread, is the assertion that Hutchins and Dawkins are fideists). Are you interested in my support for those assertions, or are your feelings hurt because I kicked your preferred sacred cow?

 

[technomage]

I never said it was inoffensive; I said there was nothing wrong with it.

Oh ... so it is not wrong to cause offense?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That would be unnecessarily rude of me.

You already applied insulting wide-brush generalizations to a large but poorly defined group of people. I think that if you wanted to avoid unnecessary rudeness, you missed your chance.

It's about the intent.

I am atheist. I understand the political dimension of this, particularly in the US. I get that creationists in the school system are generally anti-science and backward-thinking. I support those who challenge these people, and believe that science belongs in schools, and religion belongs in churches. I get stick from theists, especially hindus who don't get where I'm coming from (I practice yoga and meditation, but do not consider bliss states to be proof of a sentient eternal deity such as they propose). I read lots of posts from atheists which are well considered and relevant.

I can also spot angsty and aggressive zealots who use science to berate those with religious beliefs because their ( the atheist's) position seems logically unassailable to them. Not just here on RF, but generally. They hide their more-logical-than-thou arrogance, and their true intent (display of their assumed intellectual and moral superiority) behind 'facts'.

Where's the line between these two groups for you?

For instance, the FFRF (one of the groups that's been identified in this group as the problem) and the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (another that's often brought up as an example of inappropriate atheist behaviour) were both instrumental in the fight against creationism in schools that you just praised. In fact, the FSM started as a protest against "intelligent design" in science classes.

Correct. I am suggesting that the zealots in question have overweening pride about the superiority of their facts, and wish to make a display of this for egotistical reasons.

Until you give some real-world examples, I can't tell whether you're talking about some irrelevant fringe element or are (IMO) mischaracterizing mainstream atheists.

I also observe that many of them speculate way beyond the data - this is especially prevalent in those who assume that science has explained how replicating molecules result in self-awareness, as a prime example. I would also suggest that it is fundamentalism of a kind to state as if fact that science most certainly will explain everything, including the hypothesised genesis of all that is, and the fact of sentience. Appreciation, and application, of science does not require belief of that kind, and in fact, such belief is faith, not science.

I do not demand that science explain why a glorious moonrise may result in rapture, nor do I expect that it will. Science has no theory covering poetry. Should it ?

Is love of poetry without scientific basis, and therefor ignorance to be eradicated ?

If you're arguing for something like Gould's "non-overlapping magisteria", then hopefully you realize that this doesn't much room for religion... not relevant religion, anyhow.

For the record, I can easily conceive of a scientific explanation for the evolution of religious behavior. (Just as a thought experiment ...) If that turned out to be true, and religion is a powerful adaptation which serves humanity in some crucial way (perhaps because nihilism and depression can easily overwhelm sentient beings for example), it would be ironic indeed if scientific debate was employed to disable that adaptation and render us all less fit to survive. Wouldn't it ?

And I can easily conceive of a scientific explanation for the evolution of cravings for sugar, salt, and fat. Do you think that evolution creates some sort of moral imperative?

Personally, I eschew religion. I also prefer my eggs cooked with runny yolks. As long as no-one is forcing me to cook my yolks hard, I don't care if they do.

That's the thing: AFAICT (since everyone's still being very cagey about specifying who they're referring to), the sort of messages everyone here is complaining about are the ones saying things like "don't force people to cook your yolks hard" and "try out runny yolks - you just might like them."

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Anyone else bothered by the existence of what I call either fundamentalist or mainstream atheists? To be honest, these guys and gals annoy me more than almost any other group. I'm talking about these outspoken atheist who'll literally result to fideism in their hate for religion or fallacy to attack religion. Pretty much 99% of r/atheism.

Anyone else see these folks?

Nearly all the atheists I interact with are educated, intelligent, insightful, and generally tolerant people for whom atheism is one, minor facet of their life. I don't deal with any of the type of atheists you describe. However, this is probably mostly a function of age, as most atheists who are more fervent about atheism and attacking religion, tend to be newer or younger atheists who are often going through the first stages of shedding or rejecting religion, and still have a bone to pick with a culture and society they see as imbalanced. It's a natural stage for many people who transition from one worldview to another, and I don't begrudge them their reactiveness for a period of time, although as someone older and more mature, I do find such behavior personally annoying. But, then again, I find much of what most younger people do annoying, whatever their particular beliefs or worldviews. Most people under 30 just can't help but be annoying.

 

[technomage]

Nearly all the atheists I interact with are educated, intelligent, insightful, and generally tolerant people for whom atheism is one, minor facet of their life. I don't deal with any of the type of atheists you describe. However, this is probably mostly a function of age, as most atheists who are more fervent about atheism and attacking religion, tend to be newer or younger atheists who are often going through the first stages of shedding or rejecting religion, and still have a bone to pick with a culture and society they see as imbalanced. It's a natural stage for many people who transition from one worldview to another, and I don't begrudge them their reactiveness for a period of time, although as someone older and more mature, I do find such behavior personally annoying. But, then again, I find much of what most younger people do annoying, whatever their particular beliefs or worldviews. Most people under 30 just can't help but be annoying.

Well said.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Indeed. I have made unsupported assertions (the most primary of which, in this thread, is the assertion that Hutchins and Dawkins are fideists). Are you interested in my support for those assertions, or are your feelings hurt because I kicked your preferred sacred cow?

I asked you for quotes from Hutchins and Dawkins, but you've declined to provide them.

So I'm still curious to see your support.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Oh ... so it is not wrong to cause offense?

Depends how you're doing it and who you're offending. As Johnny Cash said, it's good to be hated by the right people.

 

[technomage]

Depends how you're doing it and who you're offending. As Johnny Cash said, it's good to be hated by the right people.

Oh, so I can kick someone else's sacred cow, and you're OK with it, but if I kick yours, you see this as problematic?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Oh, so I can kick someone else's sacred cow, and you're OK with it, but if I kick yours, you see this as problematic?

What on Earth are you talking about?