Sharing an observation about atheism here on RF

[Bunyip]

Honestly, I notice a disproportionate amount of belligerence towards theists far more than I see it towards atheists, but I suspect this is an artifact of RF's unusual demography (which has a disproportionate number of atheists). Regardless of theological identification, those with chips on their shoulders and belligerent attitudes towards other ideologies tend to run into problems with the RF rules. The worst of them get themselves banned in short order, provided the staff catch it or other members report it to us.

I guess it must me a question of perspective. I see far more belligerence from believers than from the atheists here.
I also see a great many threads along the lines of "Gosh don't you hate those atheists that do........" which tell bleak tales of terrible interactions with unnamed generic atheists.

 

[Desert Snake]

Has anyone else noticed lately how quite a few threads have gone off topic to take atheism /atheists to task? It seems as if some people can't wait to put an anti-atheism spin on an unrelated topic. And if it isn't anti-atheism, the poster at least wants to put the issue in an atheistic context.

Just wondering.

I don't think so. What can happen, is , when some type of atheism gets introduced via a scientific theory, etc, and then say, I come in with an opposing or different argument, etc, it can 'seem', like an anti-atheism debate is going on, when really, it's just an in-topic debate, that people are attaching atheism or theism to.

sometimes, its that, anyways.

 

[Bunyip]

Personally I think that the reason for this is very simply, there is no ammunition to attack atheism with, and so some feel they must attack atheists.
The position is evidentially and logically unassailable, but the people who take that position sure can be attacked.

 

[Thana]

Has anyone else noticed lately how quite a few threads have gone off topic to take atheism /atheists to task? It seems as if some people can't wait to put an anti-atheism spin on an unrelated topic. And if it isn't anti-atheism, the poster at least wants to put the issue in an atheistic context.

Just wondering.

I think we're all too biased to really know the truth of it.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Has anyone else noticed lately how quite a few threads have gone off topic to take atheism /atheists to task? It seems as if some people can't wait to put an anti-atheism spin on an unrelated topic. And if it isn't anti-atheism, the poster at least wants to put the issue in an atheistic context.

Just wondering.

Not really, but I have noticed a trend to conflate atheism and anti-theism (or New Atheism).
I find it hard to blame theists for that though, to be honest. I think it is a result of the more media vocal atheists effectively beginning to define atheism via their actions.

I suspect me noticing this has more to do with my own worldview than any particular change in global trends, but I'd admit it does sometimes seem it's on the rise to me.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Theists are obviously at an extreme disadvantage in actually producing any direct convincing evidence in any tangible sense outside of personal testimonials. Its hopelessly restricted to intangibles so it's no small wonder the argument are disjointed between emotion and feeling against what is empirical and direct.

Its like some tug o war between ideology and facts as It stands.

 

[Bunyip]

For centuries atheism was suppressed, it was unlawful - and in many places punishable by death. Atheists were not free to speak, they were not free to challenge and their doubts were dismissed as evil, deception, the work of the devil and so on and on and on.

Now , for the first time in millenia atheists can speak. We can discuss, debate and challenge the existing paradigms without fear of arrest, execution and exclusion.

Many believers find this threatening, but I'm afraid they are going to have to get used to it.

Atheists are often interested in exploring and discussing theism, because we were never free to do so in the past.

 

[outhouse]

I have noticed a trend to conflate atheism and anti-theism (or New Atheism).
I find it hard to blame theists for that though,

I hate that as much as any other fanaticism. It detracts from the group as a whole. Its also why Neil Degrasse Tyson wants nothing top do with the term atheism.

Moderation applies to atheist as well as theist.

Some of my best friends are theist, but the very well educated ones who understand moderation.

Were talking about levels of education here, more so then atheist VS theist. There is only a very thin line between well educated theist and atheist.

Where it gets tough is trying to educate those with a closed mind and no education what so ever, dead set in their faith or lack of for the atheist that fall in that category.

 

[Laika]

I guess I would need to see a few examples of that.

http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...of-evolution-on-logical-grounds-alone.179122/

this is the one where I ended up defending theists and creationists right to make philosophical challanges to the scientific consensus. I gave up in the end because it was futile because its hard enough to change one persons view. no single member did anything wrong- but it was the sheer number that near unamiously derided the OP, often with one liners, that derailed the thread. it's a cultural assumption amongst atheists and is knee-jerk reaction that if it was done by a single member would be bullying. imagine trying to defend a proposition from maybe ten people demanding proof on a single thread and you can see why it is a horrible experience for theists. I don't envy them at all because no-one has all the answers in the way that would be required to respond to that kind of avalance.

being frank for a moment: Is there no space to trust and respect other people who we disagree with rather than assume that the ignorance of theists on many questions is a deliberate and willful attempt to undermine the truth and makes them the enemy of reason or science? that is the problem. the alternative is being forced to chose sides, and even though I'm most definetely not a theist, I find myself on "their" side because I accept philosophical challanges to science. the accumulation of "prove it", "science says so" and "atheists don't have a burden of proof" is deeply polarising even if its unintentional.

O the irony.
Nicely laid bait, sir. I shall bite.

really, its an observation, not a trap. but I'll reply none the less.

1. Atheism is the response to theism, or rather, the response to a God belief. That is all atheism is.

No. In the case of Materialism, it is not simply a rejection of a singlur belief in god, but a rejection of a conception of objective reality that makes belief in god possible. This is, to the best of my knowledge, the most radical form of atheism because it says only natural explanations are possible in response to any question. it is not scepticism is religious cliams or lack of belief,it is an outright rejection of them as impossible.

2. Even if all atheists do claim that it is impossible for a God to exist, the BOP sides with the party who makes the initial claim.

As a materialist-atheist is challanging the objective nature of reality and re-defining it, the conflict between theists and (this kind of atheist) has a burden of proof on BOTH sides. the problem is, is that the origin for beliefs in different objective realities involves considerable subjectivity. it makes a positive cliam about the nature of reality that consciousness cannot exist in seperation of matter whilst pretty much the basis for all forms of theism, is that consciousness can and does exist in seperation from matter and acts as the cause or creator of matter.

Nice assertions, I don't think they're quite as accurate as you seem to.

The assumption that our ignorance of the world will necessarily be answered by a naturalistic explanation inspite of evidence is based on philosophical assumptions about the nature of reality not scientific evidence because there is no evidence. the question is why do we favour one explanation to fill the gap over another and that is a point theists can legitimately make.

As a strong atheist I will willingly admit that if I make the initial assertion that God cannot be real, I have a BOP.
If I do not make the initial assertion, I will adhere to no such thing.

hurrah!

Well, for some odd reason, it makes more sense to believe that science has a better chance of proving something than a unsubstantiated belief.
Is it not logical to rely on something that has proven itself repeatedly, rather than something that cannot prove itself once, to explain these gaps?
I don't believe science is always correct about everything, nor do I believe science can discover/uncover everything.
What I do believe, however, is that in comparison to "God did it", science wins every time.
While we're talking about science and philosophy, may I direct you to the Scientific Method?
It is the single most reliable way we have of verifying the validity of something.

I'm going to answer these all in one go, so bear with me. There is no "one" scientific method. Science itself had to be invented and it had to change. What we now call 'science' in an invention of the early 20th century. People have a very different conception of science in the 18th and 19th centuries because it was much more philosophical. The institutionalisation of science means that a certain concept of the scientific method has become established and is not questioned. As I'm a materialist, I'm obviously using a much older conception of science thats still working with philosophy and I'm keeping in mind that Soviet Science used philosophical challanges against the big bang, qauntum mechanics and (most notoriously) genetics. The reason these are rejected is because it is assumed that science is neutral on political and religious questions because it cannot answer these questions. Western science remains attached to the philosophical dualism of Descartes ("I think therefore I am") in which thought takes precedence over reality; philosophically, we therefore struggle with questions whenever consciousness becomes involved because we believe consciousness does not have an objective properties that can be studied. Whether this is in psychology or nueoroscience, we are stumbling over philosophical questions about what is possible to know via the scientific method. Most of the same problems come up in relation to religion which treats consciousness as something that is independent of the brain and can therefore exist as god or the soul. As A materialist I could argue that consciousness is a natural phenemenoa and so can be studied using science and this opens up whole new areas to scientific study. Soviet science is dissmissed as 'scientism' by treating science as an ideology which can explain all pheneomena. The inverse of course is that "our" western science is the "true" science; but how can we know this?

The problem of demarcating what is science and what is pseudo-science is not wholly objective, but is a product of human reasoning with an incomplete knowledge of reality. Our assumptions about what is real gives us expectations of what we will find as scientific knowledge grows, but if that doesn't prove to be the case- the very concept and definition of the scientific method will have to change as it aquires new knowledge about what is real. The Scientific method is not a constant. it itself changes and therefore can and should be debated.

 

[Bunyip]

http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...of-evolution-on-logical-grounds-alone.179122/

this is the one where I ended up defending theists and creationists right to make philosophical challanges to the scientific consensus. I gave up in the end because it was futile because its hard enough to change one persons view. no single member did anything wrong- but it was the sheer number that near unamiously derided the OP, often with one liners, that derailed the thread. it's a cultural assumption amongst atheists and is knee-jerk reaction that if it was done by a single member would be bullying. imagine trying to defend a proposition from maybe ten people demanding proof on a single thread and you can see why it is a horrible experience for theists. I don't envy them at all because no-one has all the answers in the way that would be required to respond to that kind of avalance.

being frank for a moment: Is there no space to trust and respect other people who we disagree with rather than assume that the ignorance of theists on many questions is a deliberate and willful attempt to undermine the truth and makes them the enemy of reason or science? that is the problem. the alternative is being forced to chose sides, and even though I'm most definetely not a theist, I find myself on "their" side because I accept philosophical challanges to science. the accumulation of "prove it", "science says so" and "atheists don't have a burden of proof" is deeply polarising even if its unintentional.



really, its an observation, not a trap. but I'll reply none the less.

1. Atheism is the response to theism, or rather, the response to a God belief. That is all atheism is.

No. In the case of Materialism, it is not simply a rejection of a singlur belief in god, but a rejection of a conception of objective reality that makes belief in god possible. This is, to the best of my knowledge, the most radical form of atheism because it says only natural explanations are possible in response to any question. it is not scepticism is religious cliams or lack of belief,it is an outright rejection of them as impossible.

No offence, but you are confusing atheism for materialism there. Atheism is as the member said, simply a response to theism.

2. Even if all atheists do claim that it is impossible for a God to exist, the BOP sides with the party who makes the initial claim.

As a materialist-atheist is challanging the objective nature of reality and re-defining it

Well no, atheism is just rejecting belief in God.

, the conflict between theists and (this kind of atheist) has a burden of proof on BOTH sides. the problem is, is that the origin for beliefs in different objective realities involves considerable subjectivity. it makes a positive cliam about the nature of reality that consciousness cannot exist in seperation of matter whilst pretty much the basis for all forms of theism, is that consciousness can and does exist in seperation from matter and acts as the cause or creator of matter.

Nice assertions, I don't think they're quite as accurate as you seem to.

The assumption that our ignorance of the world will necessarily be answered by a naturalistic explanation inspite of evidence is based on philosophical assumptions about the nature of reality not scientific evidence because there is no evidence. the question is why do we favour one explanation to fill the gap over another and that is a point theists can legitimately make.

As a strong atheist I will willingly admit that if I make the initial assertion that God cannot be real, I have a BOP.
If I do not make the initial assertion, I will adhere to no such thing.

hurrah!

Well, for some odd reason, it makes more sense to believe that science has a better chance of proving something than a unsubstantiated belief.
Is it not logical to rely on something that has proven itself repeatedly, rather than something that cannot prove itself once, to explain these gaps?
I don't believe science is always correct about everything, nor do I believe science can discover/uncover everything.
What I do believe, however, is that in comparison to "God did it", science wins every time.
While we're talking about science and philosophy, may I direct you to the Scientific Method?
It is the single most reliable way we have of verifying the validity of something.

I'm going to answer these all in one go, so bear with me. There is no "one" scientific method. Science itself had to be invented and it had to change. What we now call 'science' in an invention of the early 20th century. People have a very different conception of science in the 18th and 19th centuries because it was much more philosophical. The institutionalisation of science means that a certain concept of the scientific method has become established and is not questioned. As I'm a materialist, I'm obviously using a much older conception of science thats still working with philosophy and I'm keeping in mind that Soviet Science used philosophical challanges against the big bang, qauntum mechanics and (most notoriously) genetics. The reason these are rejected is because it is assumed that science is neutral on political and religious questions because it cannot answer these questions. Western science remains attached to the philosophical dualism of Descartes ("I think therefore I am") in which thought takes precedence over reality; philosophically, we therefore struggle with questions whenever consciousness becomes involved because we believe consciousness does not have an objective properties that can be studied. Whether this is in psychology or nueoroscience, we are stumbling over philosophical questions about what is possible to know via the scientific method. Most of the same problems come up in relation to religion which treats consciousness as something that is independent of the brain and can therefore exist as god or the soul. As A materialist I could argue that consciousness is a natural phenemenoa and so can be studied using science and this opens up whole new areas to scientific study. Soviet science is dissmissed as 'scientism' by treating science as an ideology which can explain all pheneomena. The inverse of course is that "our" western science is the "true" science; but how can we know this?

The problem of demarcating what is science and what is pseudo-science is not wholly objective, but is a product of human reasoning with an incomplete knowledge of reality. Our assumptions about what is real gives us expectations of what we will find as scientific knowledge grows, but if that doesn't prove to be the case- the very concept and definition of the scientific method will have to change as it aquires new knowledge about what is real. The Scientific method is not a constant. it itself changes and therefore can and should be debated.

I agree that people arguing for creationism (for example) tend not to be taken seriously, I think however that the debate over the truth of evolution over YEC for example was resolved more than a century ago. Defending a proposition that has been categorically disproven since the mid 19th century (at least) is certainly going to be met with a high degree of skepticism - but I think that is to be expected. I note also that in most of the threads on creationism a great proportion of the reactions from skeptics are those of Christians, Jews, Moslems and other people of faith who reject YEC for the same reasons atheists do.

 

[Laika]

No offence, but you are confusing atheism for materialism there. Atheism is as the member said, simply a response to theism.

Well no, atheism is just rejecting belief in God.

NO. This argument ussually is followed by saying that materialism isn't atheism because materialism is a dogma and implies that sceptics therefore have a monopoly on defining atheism. This doesn't simply say that atheism is "lack of belief" but then goes on to define it only as lack of belief. This saves the "sceptics" from having to deal with theists accusations of materialism, nihilism, communism etc whilst continuing to identify as atheists. the definition of atheism as "lack of belief" then mutautes into "well communists weren't atheists so we don't have to deal with their c**p".

For what it's worth, here's the thread: http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/the-new-atheists-communists-arent-atheists-and-its-wider-social-implications.178499/

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I hate that as much as any other fanaticism. It detracts from the group as a whole. Its also why Neil Degrasse Tyson wants nothing top do with the term atheism.

Moderation applies to atheist as well as theist.

Some of my best friends are theist, but the very well educated ones who understand moderation.

Were talking about levels of education here, more so then atheist VS theist. There is only a very thin line between well educated theist and atheist.

Where it gets tough is trying to educate those with a closed mind and no education what so ever, dead set in their faith or lack of for the atheist that fall in that category.

I'd like to explore this with you one day. The education aspect I mean. What you've written here matches very closely with my personal opinion, but it's one of those 'common sense' opinions I hold that probably requires a bit more tyre kicking (for me).

 

[Deathbydefault]

Bunyip said what i came to say for your initial reply to me.
I will add on that the scientific method, as it is now, is not attached to a philosophy.
It is simply used in the case of 'what is true?'.
And just because something isn't proven true, it doesn't mean it's false.
Just that it's unreliable.

NO. This argument ussually is followed by saying that materialism isn't atheism because materialism is a dogma and implies that sceptics therefore have a monopoly on defining atheism. This doesn't simply say that atheism is "lack of belief" but then goes on to define it only as lack of belief. This saves the "sceptics" from having to deal with theists accusations of materialism, nihilism, communism etc whilst continuing to identify as atheists. the definition of atheism as "lack of belief" then mutautes into "well communists weren't atheists so we don't have to deal with their c**p".

For what it's worth, here's the thread: http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/the-new-atheists-communists-arent-atheists-and-its-wider-social-implications.178499/

You should look up the definition and all that for atheism.
Atheism was created as a direct response to theism, that is all.
You cannot draw a line between atheism and materialism, it's not possible.
Materialism is dependent on the person, not on atheism, and is therefore not a part of atheism.

The same concept goes with theism.
You can only draw a line from theism to God belief, anything else is person dependent.
That includes spirituality and religion.

 

[Laika]

Bunyip said what i came to say for your initial reply to me.
I will add on that the scientific method, as it is now, is not attached to a philosophy.
It is simply used in the case of 'what is true?'.
And just because something isn't proven true, it doesn't mean it's false.
Just that it's unreliable.



You should look up the definition and all that for atheism.
Atheism was created as a direct response to theism, that is all.
You cannot draw a line between atheism and materialism, it's not possible.
Materialism is dependent on the person, not on atheism, and is therefore not a part of atheism.

The same concept goes with theism.
You can only draw a line from theism to God belief, anything else is person dependent.
That includes spirituality and religion.

Science looks very different when you look at it in terms of its historical development to the methodology used in a labroatory. As I'm taking a historical view it is heretical to the everyday approach to science. the problem of what was once accepted as true is shown to be false or as part of an incomplete picture effects the nature of what we can believe and how far we can believe something to be true. the growth of knowledge is not a constant or gradual process but has it's fits are starts (paradigm shifts as Thomas Kunn put it) and this affects how we define what is real and what is possible. people used to think religion was objectively true description of the world and now think its a subjective and private belief. yesterdays magic is today's science. today's science may well be superceeded as we know more about the nature of reality. but inorder for that to happens it requires a willingness to question what is real, what we think is true, why we believe it is so and how we know it.

But I know we're not going to agree, so I'll leave it.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Science looks very different when you look at it in terms of its historical development to the methodology used in a labroatory. As I'm taking a historical view it is heretical to the everyday approach to science. the problem of what was once accepted as true is shown to be false or as part of an incomplete picture effects the nature of what we can believe and how far we can believe something to be true. the growth of knowledge is not a constant or gradual process but has it's fits are starts (paradigm shifts as Thomas Kunn put it) and this affects how we define what is real and what is possible. people used to think religion was objectively true description of the world and now think its a subjective and private belief. yesterdays magic is today's science. today's science may well be superceeded as we know more about the nature of reality. but inorder for that to happens it requires a willingness to question what is real, what we think is true, why we believe it is so and how we know it.

But I know we're not going to agree, so I'll leave it.

You seem to be taking issue with the practices within science, while I am talking about the core.
One of the main parts of science is observing the natural world and finding out how everthing works.
Via the scientific method, we can determine what is and what is not reliable and objectively true.
If we're talking philosophy, it details the facts that can be observed within the reality we perceive as a unit.

Either way, I trust what has supporting evidence that is sufficient to the scientific method.
Whether or not someone else does is up to them.
But I like knowing, not thinking I know.

 

[outhouse]

I'd like to explore this with you one day. The education aspect I mean. What you've written here matches very closely with my personal opinion, but it's one of those 'common sense' opinions I hold that probably requires a bit more tyre kicking (for me).

Agreed.

I was just focusing on a negative side of theism and atheism.

I can see some atheist fighting fanaticism and fundamentalism aggressively as it should be, to stop primitive behavior so well versed in history, the mistakes should not be repeated ad nauseam.

But that, to me is an educated approach, as apposed to the stupidity often witnessed by some atheist.


That is how I would clarify "educated"

 

[atanu]

Has anyone else noticed lately how quite a few threads have gone off topic to take atheism /atheists to task?

I have noticed the reverse much more. "Get some education". "Nonsense" and "I am not convinced" are the most common utterances and they come from only a few people.

 

[atanu]

...
I also see a great many threads along the lines of "Gosh don't you hate those atheists that do........" which tell bleak tales of terrible interactions with unnamed generic atheists.

Can you show this?

 

[outhouse]

the question is why do we favour one explanation to fill the gap over another and that is a point theists can legitimately make.

This is known as an argument from ignorance. Its a fallacy as theist do not have a point.

With historical and biblical education, we see clearly how man and only man defined the deity concepts at will, then redefined them over a thousand year period, AFTER adopting and plagiarizing previous mythology.

There is no mystery at all to how men created the deity concept most call god, from two deities, Its not disputed by anyone credible, it is what happened.

So atheist actually have credible evidence supporting their position. As to where theist have none what so ever.

As a materialist-atheist is challanging the objective nature of reality and re-defining it, the conflict between theists and (this kind of atheist) has a burden of proof on BOTH sides.

No atheist is redefining anything. Science may be but not atheist.

Science has both theist and atheist.

So there is no burden on atheist in any way.

 

[outhouse]

I have noticed the reverse much more. "Get some education". "Nonsense" and "I am not convinced" are the most common utterances and they come from only a few people.

Well that education part is the key to the whole issue.

Does ignorance get in front of crowds and teach, or does it embarrass itself making statements it knows nothing about in error?

You go to school to learn, not to make it obvious how little you know.

REMEMBER this is the debate section, not same faith. Going into a debate leading with ignorance is neither intellectually honest nor intelligent.