The Demonization of New Atheism and the Relative Desensitization to Religious Extremism

[PureX]

Oh please, we are fallible enough without such thinking.

Interesting. We are "fallible" compared to what? Perfection? Omniscience? Our ego's image of self?

Atheists, as far as I can ascertain, just tend to look at the evidence, and where others often tend to extrapolate beyond reason.

Beyond who's reason?

I think you've missed the point, here. But I've tried to clarify my post.

 

[Revoltingest]

This is also something that most atheists can't 'handle'. They want to believe in a world that can be identified, precisely, and quantified and measured, and tested, They want truth to be binary: is or is not..,. And so they tend to dismiss, or even disdain the idea of an intuitive, subjectively experienced reality.

Goodness gracious....I think much of the problem with your assertions is that you think
too highly of atheists. By & large, we're subjective & irrational just as are believers.
We only differ on a singular issue, ie, the existence of gods. (Intuition & aesthetics in
particular are qualities I used extensively in engineering. Both guided me in product design.)
Oh, if only we were as rational as you grant we are.
Please lower your expectations of us, lest we continue to disappoint & annoy.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Interesting. We are "fallible" compared to what? Perfection? Omniscience? Our ego's image of self?
Beyond who's reason?

Why any comparison? Or do you want me to quote your whole post?

 

[PureX]

Goodness gracious....I think much of the problem with your assertions is that you think
too highly of atheists. By & large, we're subjective & irrational just as are believers.

I know that. But you fight tooth and nail to deny it most of the time, and disparage theists for it all the time. ("You" being used as a raging generality, here.)

We only differ on a singular issue, ie, the existence of gods. (Intuition & aesthetics in
particular are qualities I used extensively in engineering. Both guided me in product design.)
Oh, if only we were as rational as you grant we are.

No humans are as rational as they think they are. Self-delusion is endemic to the human condition. How could it be otherwise for an intellectual entity that cannot experience reality directly or fully? And so to presume that we can or do rise above this impediment is one of the more common manifestations of that self-delusion. One that most atheists wallow in, ad nauseum.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I know that. But you fight tooth and nail to deny it most of the time, and disparage theists for it all the time. ("You" being used as a raging generality, here.)
No humans are as rational as they think they are. Self-delusion is endemic to the human condition. How could it be otherwise for an intellectual entity that cannot experience reality directly or fully? And so to presume that we can or do rise above this impediment is one of the more common manifestations of that self-delusion. One that most atheists wallow in, ad nauseum.

So you tend to believe in assertions rather than reality?

 

[Revoltingest]

I know that. But you fight tooth and nail to deny it most of the time, and disparage theists for it all the time. ("You" being used as a raging generality, here.)

I'm glad you added the parenthetical comment.

No humans are as rational as they think they are. Self-delusion is endemic to the human condition. How could it be otherwise for an intellectual entity that cannot experience reality directly or fully? And so to presume that we can or do rise above this impediment is one of the more common manifestations of that self-delusion. One that most atheists wallow in, ad nauseum.

Is it really "most atheists", or perhaps does the spotlight fallacy make it appear so?
I notice that the raging anti-religion types are a vocal few.
Try counting the number of posters making all the anti-religion threads.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I'm glad you added the parenthetical comment.

Is it really "most atheists", or perhaps does the spotlight fallacy make it appear so?
I notice that the raging anti-religion types are a vocal few.
Try counting the number of posters making all the anti-religion threads.

I claim a place.

 

[PureX]

So you tend to believe in assertions rather than reality?

Reality is an assertion. It's our individual human mind's imagined and asserted ideal of "what is". And it's very incomplete and inaccurate, though we have no way of knowing just HOW incomplete and inaccurate it is. To deny this, and pretend to ourselves that we are not deluded is both dishonest, and hyper-delusional. "Reason" based on such a delusion can only have a limited and subjective value.

 

[Revoltingest]

I claim a place.

Not even remotely qualified!

 

[PureX]

I'm glad you added the parenthetical comment.

Only fair, as you are not of the type of atheist that this thread is about. Even though you do seem to be modestly trying to defend them.

Is it really "most atheists", or perhaps does the spotlight fallacy make it appear so?

It's always the squeaky wheel that gets the attention. Same for theists. There are many among both camps that are very happy to 'live and let live', but they are not the ones that we notice, because they pose us no particular grief. And I thank them for that! I truly do.

I notice that the raging anti-religion types are a vocal few.

Yes, well, "few" is relative. Just as those raging theists condemning everyone else to hell are only a "few".

Try counting the number of posters making all the anti-religion threads.

Again, that's a relative resolution, as there are many sites on line that cater to such discussion.

 

[Revoltingest]

Only fair, as you are not of the type of atheist that this thread is about. Even though you do seem to be modestly trying to defend them.

I'm "inadequately" defending them....er, us.
I don't defend the atheists who annoy, eg, Bill Maher.
Just trying to keep things objective.

It's always the squeaky wheel that gets the attention. Same for theists. There are many among both camps that are very happy to 'live and let live', but they are not the ones that we notice, because they pose us no particular grief. And I thank them for that! I truly do.
Yes, well, "few" is relative. Just as those raging theists condemning everyone else to hell are only a "few".
Again, that's a relative resolution, as there are many sites on line that cater to such discussion.

You mean that not all theists are like ISIS or Westboro Baptist Church?
The dickens you say!

 

[Mock Turtle]

Reality is an assertion. It's our individual human mind's imagined and asserted ideal of "what is". And it's very incomplete and inaccurate, though we have no way of knowing just HOW incomplete and inaccurate it is. To deny this, and pretend to ourselves that we are not deluded is both dishonest, and hyper-delusional. "Reason" based on such a delusion can only have a limited and subjective value.

It's equally delusional to think there is anything apart from what we experience.

 

[PureX]

It's equally delusional to think there is anything apart from what we experience.

How do you figure that?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Not even remotely qualified!

Deeply hurt.

 

[Mock Turtle]

How do you figure that?

Show me.

 

[Revoltingest]

Deeply hurt.

You must face the fact that your inner troll is under developed.
But there are exercises.

 

[Mock Turtle]

You must face the fact that your inner troll is under developed.
But there are exercises.

I'm working at it.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm working at it.

If you need any tips on offending or annoying people, feel free to ask.
(I'm very experienced at it.)

 

[icehorse]

Technological progress, of course.

Not regarding human nature though, which is the issue in question.

Hmmm. I'd say that psychology, cognitive science, and philosophy (to name a few), represent progress towards understanding human nature more than religion does.

 

[icehorse]

This is also something that most atheists can't 'handle'. They want to believe in a world that can be identified, precisely, and quantified and measured, and tested, They want truth to be binary: is or is not..,. And so they tend to dismiss, or even disdain the idea of an intuitive, subjectively experienced reality. A reality in which the facts are not truth, but relative functionality. A reality in which evidence is subjectively experienced, subjectively defined, and subjectively evaluated. And that what one believes reality is, is what reality is regardless of what anyone else believes it is.

But this is not the world experienced by we humans. And so for all the "humanism" these atheists claim they believe in, they tend to disregard, dismiss and disparage the very things that define us as human, and that make being human such an amazing and unique experience. And I think this causes a lot of dissonance, and frustration and resentment for those who see themselves as "hard core" atheists. They are at war with their own subjective nature.

By the way, there are plenty of hyper-theists that fall into the very same intellectual trap.

I know a lot of atheists, and I don't know any who are anything like what you described. Maybe you have a link?

Again, I think the opposite is true - that atheists tend to appreciate the subjective world more, not less than the religious.