The new Athiest Humanities downfall?

[mikkel_the_dane]

But do you believe that you learn morality and ethics through religious teachings?

Where did I mention religion? I said natural science, social science and philosophy. BTW I am an atheist. The question was about Richard Dawkins and philosophy. And the context is humanities, which is more than religion.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

They were not made to be "talked about" or to spark any sort of debate. These points were meant as a vehicle to set lines, present enemies and foster distrust and disgust towards atheists, more particularly New Atheists (that is a sub group of vocal proponent of secularization and opponents of religion in politics and culture of the first decade of the 21st century with at their head a group of philosophers, scientists and authors of which the most well known and popular were Dawkins, Dennet, Harris and Hitchens though others like Pinkers, Attenborough, Myers could also be named). The author of those points wasn't looking for a debate. He was looking to demonize an enemy. That's why so many points, while not based on complete fantasy, are all exaggerated and strawmen.

It's the equivalent of asking someone "how often to you beat your wife?" and then acting surprised and chocked when that person gets offended and refuse to discuss with you (and then use that offended reaction as proof that they have a bad character thus certainly beat their wife; that' of course an ad hominem fallacy). The fact that this person actually beats his wife is irrelevant to their refusal to participate. The question was so offensive and biased that any discussion meant to present domestic violence and demonstrate that indeed that person is an abuser could not take place. For a debate or a discussion to take place, both party must feel like they have a shot at "winning" or at least a chance to be listened to in a honest way. Debate and discussion questions are supposed to be neutral and avoid hyperbole like "the new athiest humanities downfall" (note the multiple spelling error in the title: athiest instead of atheists; humanities instead of humanity's and the failure to capitalize both new and atheist; which add to the entire "sham debate" style of the exercise). The opening argument is supposed to be presented in such a way that someone believe they can engage with it and change your position. That's actually very rarely the case, but for the "game" to take place, it's essential to entertain that illusion. In its current form, the thread isn't so much a debate on the 12 points you have mentioned, but an exercise on proselytism and hatred toward "nasty atheists" in its misty form of "some atheists" and other unnamed vagueness both allowing to make all atheists feel concerned, but none being directly targeted as to avoid an argument.

TL;DR: you are extremely bad at setting discussion and debates; display poor sportsmanship; don't display much talent nor skill at them making you and your thread largely a failure at what you intended it for. Fortunately, it seems to have been undertaken by others for more interesting discussion on the Soviet Union's policy of repression on organized religion.

Sorry I am not a top class academic. The OP does appear to have sparked some discussion and yes, people will see the topic as they choose to.

Personally I try not to make it personal.

Regards Tony

 

[lukethethird]

Why does it matter that Marx was long dead when the Soviet Union was formed?. It is his thought on religion, as nothing more than an opiate for the masses, that should concern us in this thread. Marx, Lenin and Engels inspired the Communist Soviet state which included prohibitions against religion and, although those prohibitions have eased somewhat, they still exist. The poster asked for a dangerous atheist thought. I think Marx's thought qualifies.

they still exist
You got some catching up to do.

 

[Sheldon]

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

Religion is an idea, all ideas are subject to critical scrutiny, as they should be. It's not like there are any consequences threatened by atheists if you don't think as they do, it's not like atheists blow people up, cut off their heads, torture them, just because theists don't share their disbelief.

If an idea can't handle critical scrutiny, then instead of sulking perhaps you ought to consider why that is.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sorry I am not a top class academic. The OP does appear to have sparked some discussion and yes, people will see the topic as they choose to.

Personally I try not to make it personal.

Regards Tony

Some of the claims are indeed problematic. Other are probably a bit to strong. But a few are representative of the 4 mentioned.
Now for all atheists they are not relevant and for all the points they only apply to only a small minority of atheists, who are not a movement.

 

[epronovost]

Why does it matter that Marx was long dead when the Soviet Union was formed?. It is his thought on religion, as nothing more than an opiate for the masses, that should concern us in this thread. Marx, Lenin and Engels inspired the Communist Soviet state which included prohibitions against religion and, although those prohibitions have eased somewhat, they still exist.

There is a number of misconception about the Soviet Union; first it was not a communist State. It was State Socialism. This was enshrined in the official Party line in the 80's. It was to be the beacon toward communism not communism itself. It also renounced its objective of finishing the revolution to instead focusing on keeping itself working as it was and wait for a better time or other circumstances to help "finish" the revolution. There are entire books written by Soviets leaders and academics as to how their own country followed and deviated from Marx's ideals and "the state of the revolution".

Prohibition against organized religion waxed and waned over time. It wasn't linear nor was it the same for all religion. How many or what nature those restriction will also vary. It's also rather fallacious to say that because I believe that religion exist in modern society mostly as a balm and that as our society progresses and flourishes it will disappear though will attempt to slow down that progress to continue its existence that I would agree with any and all policies and methods of repression used to destroy organized religion. That would be like saying that because I dreamed of an end that I will support all the means to it; that's completely false. Plus, it's not like seeing the means couldn't possibly shatter my dream either and radically change my views on things. It makes Marx, no longer a human being with ideas, but ideas with a meatsuit of human. It's a common error in historiography to confuse the men with their ideas.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

But like another here who posts anti atheist screeds, you can give no examples to back the claim.

In posting the OP that is the first thing I wanted to avoid. If there are people that can identify with that list, they will know they post replies in the light of those points.

Maybe it can help, maybe it will not, maybe it will make it worse?

Regards Tony

 

[Nimos]

Since I didn't name any individuals, I don't see where you're getting any of this from. I am simply pointing out behaviors that I've seen in keeping with those expressed in the OP. Behaviors that we have ALL seen if we are looking, and are being honest.

I think Dawkins has made himself a name and a good living spewing his opinions and fueling the zealots. Beyond that I don't think this is about Dawkins.

Im not saying that it is, but a lot of what Richard Dawkins and these atheists are fighting for and saying is shared amongst many of us atheists, not all of it. But its not like these people are on the far side and the other atheists in a completely different ball park. So making accusations such as atheists "encourage" the ideas of dehumanization and would support the idea of inhumane cultures, when we are in fact in support of the exact opposite. I find that view interesting and would like more explanation of how exactly you have reached this conclusion. Because to me it seems like you are basing this on feeling offended by their different views rather than actual things that they have done.

For instance that subjective morality is an issue? That Richard Dawkins might not value philosophy as much as you. None of these seems to be valid reasons of why atheisms is dangerous? Lots of atheists support the idea of objective morality, such as Sam Harris, even Richard Dawkins might, I have no clue.

I understand that you are not referring to all atheists, but I did ask you to pick those atheists that you felt were the most extreme and how those could be considered dangerous and you said that it would lead to "inhumane" conditions.

Then why isn't he speaking out about it IN HIS OWN CAMP; where he'd have the most influence?

He does, if you read on his website:

Religious extremism not only interferes with the advance of science but with personal freedoms and human dignity, and not only in places where jihadists hold sway but in America as well, in areas such as access to contraception, LGBTQ rights and women’s equality.

Critical thinking is the real saviour of humankind. My foundation promotes respect for people who hold critical thinking as a cherished personal value and use it in day-to-day life.

The logical counter to religious extremism is people who rely on evidence to make decisions. Yet the voice of secular people is maligned in this country. Forty-five percent of Americans think you have to believe in God to be moral. Secular voices are considered immoral. They are not listened to on that basis.

We must counter this baseless hostility to allow the contributions of secular people in vital national debates to count. Making secular views and people welcome in politics and policy-making will advance human safety, security, health, achievement, prosperity and most of all, science.

He specifically add the word "extremism".

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I don't believe you is bashing religion?

You exhibit the Atheist delusion.

I have, on occasion, said to someone that "I don't believe you." Times, for example, when I've been told "the cheque's in the mail." How is that "religion bashing?

And @cOLTER, what on earth is "the Atheist delusion?"

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Religion is an idea, all ideas are subject to critical scrutiny, as they should be. It's not like there are any consequences threatened by atheists if you don't think as they do, it's not like atheists blow people up, cut off their heads, torture them, just because theists don't share their disbelief.

If an idea can't handle critical scrutiny, then instead of sulking perhaps you ought to consider why that is.

Well, Russian nihilism would be one. But as always it is a part of a broader world view. There is no point in debating atheism, It is always the rest of the world view that matters.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Some of the claims are indeed problematic. Other are probably a bit to strong. But a few are representative of the 4 mentioned.
Now for all atheists they are not relevant and for all the points the only apply to only a small minority of atheists, who are not a movement.

I see that is a sound summary.

Regards Tony

 

[ChristineM]

So what is needed to bring about the unity of the entire human race?

Regards Tony

You can start by not demonising those sections of the human race that you don't like

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Critical thinking is the real saviour of humankind. My foundation promotes respect for people who hold critical thinking as a cherished personal value and use it in day-to-day life.

The logical counter to religious extremism is people who rely on evidence to make decisions. Yet the voice of secular people is maligned in this country. Forty-five percent of Americans think you have to believe in God to be moral. Secular voices are considered immoral. They are not listened to on that basis.

We must counter this baseless hostility to allow the contributions of secular people in vital national debates to count. Making secular views and people welcome in politics and policy-making will advance human safety, security, health, achievement, prosperity and most of all, science.

He specifically add the word "extremism".

Yeah and then he went and abandoned critical thinking, because you can't make on decisions based on evidence in all cases. That show his lack of critical thinking and where he properly should have studied some social science and philosophy.
That is where some non-religious people show their lack of critical thinking.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You can start by not demonising those sections of the human race that you don't like

Or overdo science, evidence, rationality and real. See the post above.

 

[epronovost]

Sorry I am not a top class academic. The OP does appear to have sparked some discussion and yes, people will see the topic as they choose to.

Personally I try not to make it personal.

Regards Tony

You don't need to be a top academic to know the basics of courtesy. I am not a top class academic either, I don't think there is more than 5 "top academics" in the entire forum. Not insulting people or making wild accusations and inflammatory misspelled clickbait titles isn't asking "top academic work".

People will see the topic as they choose to, but your presentation will guide that choice. You aren't powerless, far from there, on the choices and perceptions that other takes toward you or toward what you produce.

If you truly tried not to make it personal, why did you posted such inflammatory, prejudicial and insulting rhetoric? Why are you absolving yourself of any responsibility by saying: "people see the topic as they choose to" instead of recognizing your faults in this entire scenario? It seems to me that your desire to "try not to make it personal" extends only as far as yourself. You don't want it to be about you, but you certainly want to be about others. You want to judge, but not be judged. That's a very natural inclination, one that nobody can honestly claim not to fall into more often then not, but it's still not one that should brushed aside just like that.

 

[Nimos]

That is a good balance response. Thank you.

That is an issue to consider. When you offer things, people will not always use that as you have meant or intended.

The hypocrisy of religion is what paves the way for people to give up God in thought.

Regards Tony

Thank you, I personally have no issue with people having a religious view, believing in God. But there need to be some sort of rationality behind it, I don't respect blind faith, its extremely dangerous in my eyes and completely deprived of any forms of reasoning and critical thinking.

Its simply not going to work to teach or encourage people that the Earth is 6000 years, that its flat and what other things without evidence and solid proof that it is the case. People that want to believe it, no problem, and they can study it as much as they want. But until verified and scientific evidence can be presented for it, it should not be considered an alternative to established knowledge.

 

[Kfox]

Example. Im female. But consider thecother points fairly accurate

They are not accurate when it comes to describing atheists.

 

[Sheldon]

It is his thought on religion, as nothing more than an opiate for the masses, that should concern us in this thread.

Why, his idea was to inspire a fairer society, by creating what he perceived as a fairer economic system, he saw religious belief in an afterlife and reward, as a barrier to action while we are alive.

Marx, Lenin and Engels inspired the Communist Soviet state which included prohibitions against religion and, although those prohibitions have eased somewhat, they still exist.

Firstly they knew that throughout Europe, state religions like Christianity had endorsed the divine right of the Tsars as absolute rulers. The people lived suffered and died in a totalitarian state, and religions endorsed and benefited from this, so it's hardly surprising the revolutionary powers distrusted those religions. They have not "eased somewhat" there has been a massive upturn in religion, and in religious intolerance in the former Soviet countries.

The poster asked for a dangerous atheist thought. I think Marx's thought qualifies.

Except your rationale seems to be it was the root cause behind the state atheism of the former Soviet Union, but it wasn't, and it certainly wasn't what Marx was saying. I think he made a very salient point, that throughout human history, religious promises of a posthumous reward, have stilted people's desire to fight for a fairer existence right here right now. I don't think you've understood what Marx was saying, and it certainly had little if anything to do with the Soviet state ostensibly prohibiting religion. Stalin cynically funded the Russian Orthodox church during WWII, in order to help motivate all the people to fight fascism.

Marxism is an economic ideal that doesn't really work, it has little directly to do with atheism, which is simply a lack of belief in any deity. The suppression of religion had more to do with trying to end the idea of divine right of kings, and of course Stalin's paranoia could not have allowed any organisation to rival the state machine, as he wanted absolute power. Since atheism has no dogma or doctrine and atheists are not an homogenous group in the way Christians were, the rationale quite clearly was that they would be easier to control and manipulate.

Now for the sake of argument let's say all that isn't true, your idea doesn't seem to have any relevance to the accusations levelled at new atheists, as they are not advocating for a communist or a totalitarian state, and though they might hope for a secular government, that only means the separation of church and state, which we still don't have in the UK.

 

[Nimos]

Yeah and then he went and abandoned critical thinking, because you can't make on decisions based on evidence in all cases. That show his lack of critical thinking and where he properly should have studied some social science and philosophy.
That is where some non-religious people show their lack of critical thinking.

Where did he give up critical thinking, just so I know what event or what he said where you think he did this?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Atheism as a movement is a dark and evil force when it attempts to undermine religious faith.

Religion is a dark and evil force when it attempts to badger or force its beliefs upon others. Since 2021 is just about to end, let's look at a few examples just from this year:

On January 3 at least 11 Shia Muslim (Hazara) were killed by gunfire, after being way-laid by armed militant Sunni Muslims.

Just 2 weeks later, on January 21, Islamic state killed at least 32 and wounded 110 others in Baghdad.

Killings continued, in the name of Islam of various sorts, from Nigeria to Mozambique, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda and Mali.

On December 3, an angry mob lynched a Sri Lankan BUddhist named Priyantha Kumara, and set her corpse on fire. His "crime?" Blasphemy, because he was removing Islamic texts plastered on the garment factory walls that he managed.

I've got more, and I can provide examples in the Christian and Hindu world, too.