The new Athiest Humanities downfall?

[Audie]

Speaking truth as one sees it is "undermining?" Then religion is explictly -- not tacitly -- undermining science, every time it makes a claim that is manifestly untrue but dogmatically assumed to be correct anyway.

Undermining the entire country.
The world is intensely competitive and unsentimental.
A backward society has no chance.

 

[joe1776]

Yeah, that one needs to be taken in context though. Opium was an over the counter drug in the 19th Century, as freely available as whiskey, and not necessarily considered any more harmful. So Marx’s observation wasn’t quite as damning as it may sound to our ears. Though it’s fair to say he wasn’t a fan, he could as easily have used beer and football for an analogy, as opium.

That's true, but which analogy he used is unimportant. The important thing is that Marx's idea was dangerous because of his influence on the Communist agenda.

 

[Nimos]

I see these knee-jerk radicalized atheists routinely asserting that philosophy is meaningless intellectual masturbation.

Im not sure what his stance is on philosophy, if he likes it or not, I would assume that he doesn't really care that much about if that were the case. Yet I fail to see how that is dangerous?

That religion is dishonest, harmful, and should be eliminated.

Extreme forms of religions he is opposed to, don't think there is any doubt about that. But in many cases religions are harmful, and capable of planting bad ideas in people's heads. I don't think there is anyone that would deny that. And clearly he doesn't see any particular value in religions, especially when it comes to knowledge. Obviously this is up for debating, but religion does seem to have a fairly long and bad record history when it comes to being right about things, here im not talking about personally beliefs, but the knowledge which can be found and had been taught throughout history at the basis of religious beliefs.

That morality is subjective and otherwise baseless.

This is also debatable.

If morality is in fact subjective then that is how it is, it is neither good or bad. Simply disagreeing with it, because one prefers that it is not, doesn't exactly change anything if that is not case, that would be to simply fool oneself. So don't really see how that is potentially dangerous either.

And that the reasoning behind all these assertions is that to expend intellectual energy on anything besides the quest to better understand functional physicality is an irrelevant and frivolous pursuit.

Well luckily we live in a world where people can do it, and religion being and still is the dominating approach, nothing prevent them for pursuing this, but one have to wonder, given how long and how little progress religion have made in regards to this for the last 2000+ years, whether anything will come from it. Even after that amount of time, there is no method or evidence put forward of how one should do it.

It's a deeply dehumanizing perspective that, were it held to by people in power, would result is a deeply dehumanizing and inhumane culture.

Almost all atheists (from what I know) are in support of humanism, so I doubt that dehumanizing and inhumane culture is in great support amongst atheists. And funny enough Richard Dawkins were actually awarded the humanist of the year in 1996 by the American Humanist Association, but lost it this year due to a comment he made

Doesn't religions teach that some people are better than others? That those who doesn't follow the religion is worth less than those that does? That those "special" ones gets rewarded while others get punished? Doesn't that sound slightly inhumane?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Undermining the entire country.
The world is intensely competitive and unsentimental.
A backward society has no chance.

Which country is that?
As for the world according to KWED, which is a scientist, biology for humans is all about living in peace, if we could just remove religion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I can, "I don't believe you."

Here are some other ones if you can spot them:
"...
Definitions
Atheism is the comprehensive world view of persons who are free from theism and have freed themselves of supernatural beliefs altogether. It is predicated on ancient Greek Materialism.
Atheism involves the mental attitude that unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.
Materialism declares that the cosmos is devoid of immanent conscious purpose; that it is governed by its own inherent, immutable, and impersonal laws; that there is no supernatural interference in human life; that humankind, finding the resources within themselves, can and must create their own destiny. It teaches that we must prize our life on earth and strive always to improve it. It holds that human beings are capable of creating a social system based on reason and justice. Materialism’s ‘faith’ is in humankind and their ability to transform the world culture by their own efforts. This is a commitment that is, in its very essence, life-asserting. It considers the struggle for progress as a moral obligation that is impossible without noble ideas that inspire us to bold, creative works. Materialism holds that our potential for good and more fulfilling cultural development is, for all practical purposes, unlimited."
Our Vision

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Im not sure what his stance is on philosophy, if he likes it or not, I would assume that he doesn't really care that much about if that were the case. Yet I fail to see how that is dangerous?
...

Because there are limitations to evidence/truth, rationality and realism, you can learn if you study it and which some people don't understand about those words and their in effect methodology.
So if you can't see the limitations, you can in effect end up harming yourself and/or humans. To learn to see those limitations are a part of some practical ethical educations like social workers or rather those who do social pedagogy.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

This is not Atheism, it's just a secular based religion. Just because you are atheist does not mean you are free of supernatural beliefs, it doesn't mean you embrace materialism, it doesn't mean you accept reason over belief, or agree with the scientific method. All it means is that you don't believe in God; that's it! But there are people who have made a lot of money and sold a lot of books promoting their brand of atheism; perhaps this is just another way of making money.

But these things do tend to go together. The person who does not believe in deities is also quite unlikely to believe in other supernatural claims, either. And for a common reason -- the desire to have at least some evidence to support what one is willing to accept as potentially true.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But these things do tend to go together. The person who does not believe in deities is also quite unlikely to believe in other supernatural claims, either. And for a common reason -- the desire to have at least some evidence to support what one is willing to accept as potentially true.

Yeah, as long as you understand this:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

 

[danieldemol]

As with most things, it's a matter of degrees. Many of the points listed are evident in many of the posts here on RF. But not all. And not from all atheists. So do ALL of them have to be present all the time for us to recognize the validity of the observations being made? That would be an absurdly extreme requirement ... that will inevitably be demanded by some, here.

Sure there are some posters occasionally who post such rhetoric, but the OP brings these claims against 4 specific individuals.

If those 4 or even any among those 4 are not guilty of all the points (3), (11) and (12) the poster of the OP should amend or provide a follow up post to clarify that, otherwise it would appear to be slandering the 4 men in question.

In my opinion.

 

[Altfish]

I'd consider it so since its author assisted in triggering communist societies which weakened religion's powerful influence in several societies. But maybe you were thinking of a different definition of "dangerous."

Yes, I was. Religion can be dangerous

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, I was. Religion can be dangerous

Everything can be dangerous in some sense.

 

[PureX]

Almost all atheists (from what I know) are in support of humanism, so I doubt that dehumanizing and inhumane culture is in great support amongst atheists.

We aren't discussing all atheists. We are discussing a subset of atheistic zealots akin to the subset of theistic zealots that likewise do not represent the whole of theism. These are people who CLAIM to be humanists and may well even believe their own BS, but that reject many of the most important and meaningful aspects and endeavors of humanity because they don't comport with their absurdly exclusive and absolutist assessment of what 'true reality' is. People who think philosophy is nonsense because they can't defend their absurd materialist worldview in the face of the kind of logical dialogue that comes with philosophical engagement. People who hate on religious extremists for engaging in the exact same cult-like, willfully ignorant behavior as they are, themselves.

And funny enough Richard Dawkins were actually awarded the humanist of the year in 1996 by the American Humanist Association, but lost it this year due to a comment he made

And you actually think this means he's a humanist?

Doesn't religions teach that some people are better than others? That those who doesn't follow the religion is worth less than those that does? That those "special" ones gets rewarded while others get punished? Doesn't that sound slightly inhumane?

Is this somehow supposed to be a justification? "They do it too!"

 

[RestlessSoul]

Opium is dreamy.

Has inspired some great literature tbf

 

[RestlessSoul]

That's true, but which analogy he used is unimportant. The important thing is that Marx's idea was dangerous because of his influence on the Communist agenda.

I take your point, but I’m not sure it’s fair to blame Marx for the atrocities of the Soviets. It’s a bit like blaming Nietzsche and Richard Wagner for WWII because they were popular with the Nazis.

 

[Nimos]

Because there are limitations to evidence/truth, rationality and realism, you can learn if you study it and which some people don't understand about those words and their in effect methodology.
So if you can't see the limitations, you can in effect end up harming yourself and/or humans. To learn to see those limitations are a part of some practical ethical educations like social workers or rather those who do social pedagogy.

Can you be more specific, what exactly do you mean, which limitation are you referring to?

 

[Colt]

Haven't you heard it said that herding atheists is like herding cats? It can't be done.

You atheist sure do manage to come together around bashing religion.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Everything can be dangerous in some sense.

Too much of anything is generally dangerous.

Except for love; the world can never have too much of that.

 

[robocop (actually)]

So it hssnt happened to you.

You sound like Saruman.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Can you be more specific, what exactly do you mean, which limitation are you referring to?

You can't do morality and ethics based only on evidence/truth, rationalism and epistemological realism.
My wife works with humans as humans and you have to combine natural science, social science and philosophy to do that.
She uses all 3 in her work and she would end up unable to do her job if she only used evidence/truth, rationalism and epistemological realism.

 

[Nimos]

We aren't discussing all atheists. We are discussing a subset of atheistic zealots akin to the subset of theistic zealots that likewise do not represent the whole of theism. These are people who CLAIM to be humanists and may well even believe their own BS, but that reject many of the most important and meaningful aspects and endeavors of humanity because they don't comport with their absurdly exclusive and absolutist assessment of what 'true reality' is. People who think philosophy is nonsense because they can't defend their absurd materialist worldview in the face of the kind of logical dialogue that comes with philosophical engagement. People who hate on religious extremists for engaging in the exact same cult-like, willfully ignorant behavior as they are, themselves.

I don't really think you are making case here as much as just throwing accusations around. To be a humanist doesn't require one to appreciate philosophy. It seems like you look at people like Richard Dawkins and those like him as individuals with the sole purpose of causing as much harm to others as possible, that they are nothing but liars, which find no joy in life except trying to ruin things for others, or for religious people?

And you actually think this means he's a humanist?

Yes, I do believe he is a humanist as of the definition:

- a rationalist outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters.

Humanism is a rational philosophy informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by compassion. Affirming the dignity of each human being, it supports the maximization of individual liberty and opportunity consonant with social and planetary responsibility. It advocates the extension of participatory democracy and the expansion of the open society, standing for human rights and social justice. Free of supernaturalism, it recognizes human beings as a part of nature and holds that values-be they religious, ethical, social, or political-have their source in human experience and culture. Humanism thus derives the goals of life from human need and interest rather than from theological or ideological abstractions, and asserts that humanity must take responsibility for its own destiny.

I believe that he see and recognize what potential harm some religious teaching can do and that he do not think that this is beneficial for the future of humanity. I don't think he is against all forms or teachings of religion.

Is this somehow supposed to be a justification? "They do it too!"

No, its not a justification. Merely that such thing is not valued by humanists. Yet, you refer to them as wanting inhumane culture and society, when in fact humanism is exactly the opposite. To value all humans as equal and a lot of religious teaching, goes against this, following the idea of "either you are with us or you are against us". That some people are favored above others. It is extremely difficult to encourage humanism and some religious teachings at the same time, which is probably why Richard Dawkins is so against some of the extreme views of religion.