Too Many Extremes in Disbelief

[Audie]

You’re going to have to take my word for it. Or not, as the case may be.

Not

 

[Audie]

You’re going to have to take my word for it. Or not, as the case may be.

not

 

[Zwing]

I can only answer for myself, and regarding my own beliefs, so I will try, very briefly, to do so below.

I've noticed that, among a large cohort of non-Christians and especially atheists on here, many of them take disbelief to what I would consider an extreme.

I think that disbelief (in deity and/or the divine Jesus) is not an extreme position, but a perfectly rational one. What appears extreme is a position of positive renunciation, which is the claim of antitheism, not of atheism.

Paul…didn't really see Jesus. Please prove it.

According to the Xtian scriptures themselves, he didn’t ever know or even meet Jesus, unless we are to consider the hallucination in the ‘Damascus road’ story to represent ‘a meeting’. I don’t know of any source which suggests that Saul of Tarsus met Jesus.

Jesus didn't exist.

I do not believe as much. We have no reliable proof of his existence, but experience of the world and human society would suggest that there was an historical personage upon whom the Jesus of legend is based.

Sources that never seem to be good enough.

Well… the gospel accounts, not being even close to representing historical accounts, do not amount to reliable source material. Josephus, who did conceive of himself as an historian in the Greek mold, mentions Jesus briefly, but without the detail necessary for any type of evaluation. One would think that if this man truly performed miraculous feats, that there might have been a bit more space dedicated in Josephus’ account.

The minute something is classed as 'religious' it seems far too many people are willing to write it off as a complete waste of space.

Not me at all…not even remotely. While I do not believe in gods, I do think religion to be of immense value to human life, I just think the non-theistic religion, religion based in what we humans can know with some degree of certainty, and which seems founded in truth, which criteria preclude any theistic basis or aspect, is best.

 

[Erebus]

I'll remain provisionally sceptical then. It's not the first time on here that I've heard some claim about atheists that I'd seen no examples of. When I've asked for some actual examples, I've generally got no response. At least you bothered to respond, so thanks for that much.

One thing to keep in mind is that providing examples of posts on RF means you're actively calling somebody out. That's not a good look, especially if the person in question isn't participating in the thread.

I don't know about the specific example you guys are talking about. If you're just after examples of people being outright hostile and dismissive of religion in its entirety though, I'd say reddit and facebook are good places to look.

 

[Audie]

One thing to keep in mind is that providing examples of posts on RF means you're actively calling somebody out. That's not a good look, especially if the person in question isn't participating in the thread.

I don't know about the specific example you guys are talking about. If you're just after examples of people being outright hostile and dismissive of religion in its entirety though, I'd say reddit and facebook are good places to look.

Why is that calling someone out?

Repost as you like anything I say.
I stand behind what I say, and won't say it if I don't mean it.

Meanwhile calling out unknown persons not
even on RF is hardly worth doing.

 

[F1fan]

I agree with this. Among the atheists here there is , as with the religious believers, a range of views. One might place them on a "Dawkins spectrum" ranging from the younger Dawkins, representing the fundamentalists, tilting at windmills and naïve strawman representations of religion, to the older Dawkins, who seems to have realised that being shrill and angry all the time is off-putting, counterproductive and actually a bit intellectually superficial.

Dawkins, of course, was - perhaps still is - one of the Four Horsemen of the New Atheism: New Atheism - Wikipedia. These four have been responsible for a fair amount of the vitriol thrown in the face of religion in recent decades. Their new idea has been to mount a crusade, preaching and evangelising against religion. They even at one point went so far as to produce a video, with consciously religious overtones, designed to engage emotionally with people's natural sense of wonder about the natural world. I found it faintly nauseating. I can't recall what it was called. Your "crusaders" will be the ones that embrace the New Atheism approach.

The attitude of these New Atheists is the antithesis of that of Stephen Jay Gould's concept of Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA). While NOMA has its critics, it seems to me a far more productive way to discuss the interface between science and religion.

Sociologically, I'm not sure whether the New Atheists are a product of the so-called "culture war" or among its architects, but it seems to me they have contributed to making it worse.

I agree with you in an idealistic way. The rational among us want to debate issues as detached and objectively as possible.

I never read any of the books by the New Atheists, but have watched debates and discussions as I worked. My take away from their more militant approach is that they were responding to the rise of religious extremism, namely Islamic terrorism and Christian fundamnetalism (that is arguably very strong and influential in the USA). They wanted to fight fire with fire, and their justification was that religious leaders and movements were being allowed to get stronger, and be excused for even their extremist views for the sake of religious freedom. They saw this as a threat to civilization, and while the Taliban and ISIS is understood as a deadly threat many don't consider the fundamentalist Christian as a threat. If we look at climate denial, vaccine denial, rejection of evolution, book banning, condemnation of gays and trans, the influence on republicans that have led to many Supreme Court decisions that are harming women and other citizens, fundamentalism is a real threat. These theists aren't quietly minding their own business praying, and being harrassed by nasty atheists, these movements are deliberately impacting society and law from a religious angle, and they are winning.

I think Dawkins and others have had some benefit in brining awareness, but it seems it has also encouraged the moderates to become more conservative and defiant, and we got Trump and MAGA. This thread illustrates how believers think themselves above reason, and how dare atheists even question what believers hold sacred. Theists can get away with irrational thinking, but atheists who ponder religious ideas critically? That crosses a line. Atheists, critical thinkers, skeptics have a variety of approaches to challenge bielevers, but it is clear that theists are rattled and upset that their status quo is disputed with questions. If believers had answers they would not be so upset.

No doubt many believers mind their own business and pose little threat to civilization, but there is a very strong set of fundamentalist movements that are gaining power and influence, and there needs to be a response.

 

[ratiocinator]

One thing to keep in mind is that providing examples of posts on RF means you're actively calling somebody out.

Not sure I see that. If I post something on a forum, I regard it as being public and I see no problem with it being quoted elsewhere.

I don't know about the specific example you guys are talking about.

I was asking for a specific example. As to what of, I thought I made it clear here:

I have come across people on this forum arguing that the whole of The Bible should be completely disregarded because of references to slavery...

Can you link to one?

It's a very specific claim.

 

[Brickjectivity]

@Rival thanks for the honorable mention!

I sympathize with those who are frustrated with church, and I know what its like to try to deal with religious topics and having not enough background to be precise. There is a lot to know, and I don't expect everyone to be precise or to have the best sources. I just think of a lot of it as an artistic attempt to express dissatisfaction and to try to find someone who can help. If we have pain we cry out, but we all don't go to medical school.

There have been some very disingenuous posts in the past using what I call the 'Hot Potato Method' of making spurious accusations simply to see people react and through such nasty means to learn about religion. "Here catch this you wife beater." Those I don't sympathize with. I also don't like conspiracy theories brought up like they have to be disproven.

 

[Erebus]

Not sure I see that. If I post something on a forum, I regard it as being public and I see no problem with it being quoted elsewhere.


I was asking for a specific example. As to what of, I thought I made it clear here:


It's a very specific claim.

You said it's not the first time you'd seen a claim about atheists and received no examples. I was providing you with one possible reason for that.

Not to worry though. I'll leave you to it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I agree the cadre - the atheist crusaders, is how I think of them - can be a little tiresome. And the complete lack of self awareness can be breath taking.

There are plenty of thoughtful, tolerant atheists here too though, it should be said.

A number of Atheists whom were since ex Christian, sees the positive value of what a theistic religion brings to the table, but not the substance by which the object of divinity is said to be alive and active outside the realm of the imagination.

 

[George-ananda]

The minute something is classed as 'religious' it seems far too many people are willing to write it off as a complete waste of space.

Yes, I believe many develop an anti-Christian view that carries things too far. I try to look at things as fairly as I can.

 

[Zwing]

I think you're deliberately missing the point now, so let me try to make it another way; I have never heard anybody suggest that it would be either possible or desirable, to eradicate from contemporary European (and thereby American) culture, the influence of Classical Greek philosophy, science, or mythology.

I have come across people on this forum arguing that the whole of The Bible should be completely disregarded because of references to slavery, but I have never heard this argument made in respect of Plato's Republic. That example, I think, speaks directly to the title of this thread.

This is because Greek science and philosophy were determined towards the discovery of truth with a null starting point, and Greek myth is studied for what it is…mythos. Even the ancient Greeks realized that Zeus was a fiction, just read “The Clouds” by Aristophanes: “Zeus…what Zeus? There is no Zeus, and I can prove it!”. Judeo-Christian myth, on the other hand is purported to be non-mythical by Christians, and while it is, in fact, mythos which begins with all kinds of presupposition and preconditional premise which is given to mankind by means of “revelation”, yet is claimed to be a search for, or more closely an avenue towards, truth from a position of nullity.

 

[Zwing]

A number of Atheists whom were since ex Christian, sees the positive value of what a theistic religion brings to the table, but not the substance by which the object of divinity is said to be alive and active outside the realm of the imagination.

 

[Whateverist]

Why worry too much about the few, the worst among us

I don’t find it to be a minority position among online atheists, more like the rule though it is always nice to find exceptions. How many do you know who are not rabidly anti religion based only only on their own feeble grasp of religion?

I find no reason to enlist in any faith tradition but had I been raised in one that wasn’t a fundamentalist quagmire I’d be a staunch defender. Even though I see no reason to join them, I do appreciate the insight the best believers find in their way of life. I know no atheists who’ve achieved as much understanding unless they are primarily agnostic and just find the specifics of what believers profess too strained and false without phrasing it in a pointedly allegorical way.

 

[Zwing]

Apologies if I misread you. Yes, there were Christian martyrs. For instance, Robin Lane Fox's book Pagans and Christians (1986) has a clear sharp and informative summary in chapter 9, "Persecution and Martyrdom".

Let us not forget that the Early Christians, especially in Asia Minor after Constantine, martyred as many pagans as were themselves martyred in Rome or elsewhere, though it was less organized than in Rome (the Byzantine Greeks seemed to lack the flair for spectacle that the Italians so relished)…no Colosseum or hungry lions, more along the lines of young Christian monks going on rampages wherein they beat old pagans to death with clubs.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Not sure I see that. If I post something on a forum, I regard it as being public and I see no problem with it being quoted elsewhere.


I was asking for a specific example. As to what of, I thought I made it clear here:


It's a very specific claim.

Yeah, I shan't be trawling through the site looking for old posts; winning arguments, and scoring points off other posters, is not that important to me. I stand by what I said, and you are free to believe or disbelieve me, as you choose.

 

[PureX]

I didn't say anything about dying for a cause validating anything, I merely said that there were Christian martyrs. I saw someone on RF today throwing all martyr stories out as fabrications. Even if what they died for is nonsense, it doesn't mean they weren't martyred. So why throw out all the stories?

I think the poison of mob identity spread by politicians and the media has infected other areas of human thought, like theology. To the point where we now have an 'atheist mob' intent on rejecting and negating ANY idea associated with the theist mob. I see this all the time in discussions involving the mystery origin and possible purpose of existence, where the atheism mob cannot countenance even the slightest hint of a question regarding any existential purpose. They are a thousand percent certain that there is no purpose to existence even though they have no logic or evidence to base that conclusion on, and no scientific way to investigate the question. Doesn't matter. If they think theists are for it, they're determined to be against it in every way possible.

 

[RestlessSoul]

This is because Greek science and philosophy were determined towards the discovery of truth with a null starting point, and Greek myth is studied for what it is…mythos. Even the ancient Greeks realized that Zeus was a fiction, just read “The Clouds” by Aristophanes: “Zeus…what Zeus? There is no Zeus, and I can prove it!”. Judeo-Christian myth, on the other hand is purported to be non-mythical by Christians, and while it is, in fact, mythos which begins with all kinds of presupposition and preconditional premise which is given to mankind by means of “revelation”, yet is claimed to be a search for, or more closely an avenue towards, truth from a position of nullity.

Both classical and Christian traditions have left indelible impressions on European culture and contemporary values, but I suspect what causes Christianity to be singled out for opprobrium, is that there are several million - is it billion, I genuinely don't know? - practicing Christians in the world today. But the distinction is in any case somewhat misleading. Christ was a Hellenised Galilean Jew, and Christianity came to Europe via the Greek world. Non-mythical Christianity, and Bible literalism, appear to be more recent developments

 

[Revoltingest]

I've noticed that, among a large cohort of non-Christians and especially atheists on here, many of them take disbelief to what I would consider an extreme. There are many issues so this will likely be a wide-ranging thread.

The big problem with us atheists is that most are human.
(But some are Scots.) Those animals are prone to extreme
attitudes. We heathens have a big tent, & allow all sorts
of winners & losers to belong.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I know no atheists who’ve achieved as much understanding unless they are primarily agnostic and just find the specifics of what believers profess too strained and false without phrasing it in a pointedly allegorical way.

What about Buddha and Mahavira of the Jains? Buddha did not care to discuss God and Mahavira dismissed it. We had many more in India like that - The Charvaks and the Ajivakas.

I see this all the time in discussions involving the mystery origin and possible purpose of existence, where the atheism mob cannot countenance even the slightest hint of a question regarding any existential purpose.

Why should we believe in mystery origin and possible purpose of existence? We, the atheist, ask just one question: "Do you have any evidence?"
And you want us to believe in so many things - God, son, soul, heaven, hell, judgment, resurrection, deliverance, end of days, miracles!
All without any evidence?!