Last night, I was sitting in an Airport in Houston. The CNN show "Out in the Open" was on. They showed the video of the Georgia governor holding a rally on capital steps asking all citizens who believe in prayer to pray.
The host of the show interviewed an atheist who was none to happy about this. This lady went into a tyraid about how these "stupid" people were calling on the spiritual world. She also said, multiple times, she was "sick and tired" of this. When asked what was so wrong about asking people to pray, she said these "idiots" drive the young men to the outskirts of their community so they can have all the young women. This was obviously in reference to the Warren Jeffs group. This woman was not clear in her examples but she did clearly hate everyone who follows any religion. She stated, "there is no afterlife"; she made this statement without any evidence.
Religious extremists aside, why do atheists hate anyone who believes in a higher being, and why do they have to be so militant about it. This has happened a few times on Hatrack. I don't think it is right to show such hatred for people based on their beliefs.
I could not find video of the interview last night. If I find it, I will repost.
[ November 14, 2007, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: brojack17 ]
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:I don't think it is right to show such hatred for people based on their beliefs.
Agreed.
As to why, I think people are generally jerks and will use whatever cause is nearby in order to justify it. I think that woman was motivated by the same thing that motivates religious jerks. People often suck.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think I've seen theists be kind of mean to atheists before. I mean, for starters, they call them atheists. That's like calling women "non-men" or children "non-adults". I mean, the women/non-men thing is debatable, but it's still kind of odd.
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
What Hugo said
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Why does brojack generalize from one fringeperson to all atheists?
Some atheists disdain theists, and, as pooka said it goes both ways.
You might as well ask, "Why do people dislike people who are different from them?"
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
We may have found a soulmate for King of Men. She sounds like Madalyn Murray O'Hair reincarnated and pissed off about it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
JT said what I wanted to say.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
I don't want it to sound like theists are perfect. I grew up in a Southern Baptists church and they are some of the most judgemental people I have ever met. But I have never heard any of the preachers call people "idiots" and "stupid" on TV.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
The question should be "Why do some atheists hate..."
Not trying to be PC, just trying to be accurate. I certainly don't hate people who believe in a higher being.
I get mildly concerned when I see representatives in the government doing things that break the first amendment.
Something you should ask...would they let a reasonable, kind and polite atheist on the news? Doesn't a mean, angry, ignorant atheist get more ratings?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I was not aware that atheists as a whole HATE YOU IF YOU BELIEVE IN GOD RARRH.
The statement is bound to insult in the same way it would insult a religious dude if you made a thread that said "Why do Christians HATE people who choose to be an atheist?"
It's a shoddy generalization, you know?
Posted by Kettricken (Member # 8436) on :
quote: why do atheists hate anyone who believes in a higher being
They don't (or at least the majority don't).
Why are religious people suicide bombers?
They aren't (or at least the majority aren't).
If you want to judge one group by the extremists who share part of their beliefs, then you should be consistent and judge all groups to the same standard.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
El JT, I guess I thought back to an article I had read a few months ago in Wired magazine. In a nutshell, it says the "New Atheists" are not content with letting people believe as they want to. They are to expose theists as idiots.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:But I have never heard any of the preachers call people "idiots" and "stupid" on TV.
You've never heard Sothern Baptists call people those specific things, or never heard them hate other people?
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Umm... most of them don't. Does the fact that Fred Phelps is often on the news, screaming and ranting about how gays are destroying America, mean that all Christians HATE people who don't believe in their particular higher being?
As far as being militant goes... let's turn that around first. Why are religious folks so often "militant" about their beliefs? I mean, you've got Christians bombing abortion clinics, Muslims bombing World Trade Centers, Hindus and Muslims bombing the crap out of each other in India, Catholics and Protestants still occasionally engaging in mutual violence in Northern Ireland. Seems pretty widespread to me, certainly moreso than atheism-driven acts of violence.
Now, I don't actually believe that Christians, or any other religious people, are inherently hateful or militant. But that is, essentially, the logic you are using to label an entire group of people, the vast, vast majority of whom are perfectly nice, tolerant folks, based on the actions of one single extremist- and let's face it, a pretty mild one, at that. That woman is just saying mean things. She's not killing people over her beliefs (or the lack thereof). Heck, she's not even maiming them. You can't consider yourself a real extremist if you aren't even willing to beat people up for disagreeing with you.
Edit: Wow, I started writing this post while there were no responses to the thread, and then got distracted by work for a while. Need to remember to refresh next time. Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Brojack, atheists have stopped being content with letting people believe what they want because there are people who want this nation to become a Christian Theology (some, not many), and there are countries completely under the rule of religion who are killing people for having sex or 'committing witchcraft'. I'm not kidding. These are just two of the more extreme examples.
Many atheists have elected to not just sit back and watch this happen without saying anything.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
Tarrsk, I agree there is extremests in any religious (or non-religious) group. I just mean, why has Atheism taken on this trate only recently.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: Brojack, atheists have stopped being content with letting people believe what they want because there are people who want this nation to become a Christian Theology (some, not many), and there are countries completely under the rule of religion who are killing people for having sex or 'committing witchcraft'. I'm not kidding. These are just two of the more extreme examples.
Many atheists have elected to not just sit back and watch this happen without saying anything.
Javert, I agree with you and I agree with the separation of church (or non-church) and state. This seems to be a little more than that. If I got on TV, as a Christian, and said Jews were stupid or Muslims were idiots, then people would be asking for my head.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:But I have never heard any of the preachers call people "idiots" and "stupid" on TV.
You've never heard Sothern Baptists call people those specific things, or never heard them hate other people?
None that I have ever listened to. If I were in a sermon and the preacher started spewing hate speak, then I would take me and my family out of there immediately.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
I think it's a mixture of increased general acceptance for atheism among the population, and a simultaneous increase in religious influence in government. Those two things may appear to be mutually exclusive, but they're exactly what we are observing: on average, Americans are increasingly tolerant of non-religious belief systems (which isn't to say that they themselves are adopting them), but at the same time, those who remain religious (and contrary to what your preacher might say, this group is by far the majority in this country) are feeling increasingly emboldened about legislating their beliefs into law.
As a result, atheists feel a need to be more vocal about their beliefs in order to counteract what they see as the inappropriate encroachment of religion upon the government. Their wider acceptance, at least among the more socially liberal subset of Americans, is what gives them this voice. It is one that would not have been possible just a few decades ago, when our Presidents were free to make open statements along the lines of "Atheists aren't actually Americans" without any sort of real outcry or political consequences.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kettricken:
quote: why do atheists hate anyone who believes in a higher being
They don't (or at least the majority don't).
Why are religious people suicide bombers?
They aren't (or at least the majority aren't).
If you want to judge one group by the extremists who share part of their beliefs, then you should be consistent and judge all groups to the same standard.
My appologies. I took this lady and the Wired article and should have said "New Atheists". I went back to edit that.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by brojack17:
quote:Originally posted by Javert: Brojack, atheists have stopped being content with letting people believe what they want because there are people who want this nation to become a Christian Theology (some, not many), and there are countries completely under the rule of religion who are killing people for having sex or 'committing witchcraft'. I'm not kidding. These are just two of the more extreme examples.
Many atheists have elected to not just sit back and watch this happen without saying anything.
Javert, I agree with you and I agree with the separation of church (or non-church) and state. This seems to be a little more than that. If I got on TV, as a Christian, and said Jews were stupid or Muslims were idiots, then people would be asking for my head.
Well, perhaps not asking for your head. Fred Phelps does that sort of thing all the time. But there are also people like Ann Coulter, Laura Ingram, Dinesh D'Souza, Kirk Cameron's 'Way of the Master'. All high profile, and all very good at making subtle and not so subtle insults very often.
As for this woman...ok, call for her head. But don't equate her with all atheists. I have no idea who she is, or if she represents anyone other than herself. That's the thing about atheists. We aren't a religion, so every individual can be an atheist for a vastly different reason.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: I think it's a mixture of increased general acceptance for atheism among the population, and a simultaneous increase in religious influence in government. Those two things may appear to be mutually exclusive, but they're exactly what we are observing: on average, Americans are increasingly tolerant of non-religious belief systems (which isn't to say that they themselves are adopting them), but at the same time, those who remain religious (and contrary to what your preacher might say, this group is by far the majority in this country) are feeling increasingly emboldened about legislating their beliefs into law.
As a result, atheists feel a need to be more vocal about their beliefs in order to counteract what they see as the inappropriate encroachment of religion upon the government. Their wider acceptance, at least among the more socially liberal subset of Americans, is what gives them this voice. It is one that would not have been possible just a few decades ago, when our Presidents were free to make open statements along the lines of "Atheists aren't actually Americans" without any sort of real outcry or political consequences.
Can you give examples of how religion is changing the law? There is the moment of silence thing, but I don't think that is necessarily religious. Abortion is still legal. More states are gambling than ever before. The ten commandments are being taken off of public property all across the country.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: Tarrsk, I agree there is extremests in any religious (or non-religious) group. I just mean, why has Atheism taken on this trate only recently.
"recently?"
Look, mang, as long as I have been alive there have been some atheists who act this way and want nothing more than to be giant dicks to people because of their belief in God. This is nothing new.
But notice the Power Word. "Some." as in "some atheists." This is not atheism on the whole. At all. It's wrong to assert otherwise. Atheism hasn't 'taken on this trait' at all, actually, because atheism is not a collective, nor a church. It's a bunch of people who for whatever reason don't believe in a god. These people may or may not be dicks about other people believing in god. On the whole they're likely to not be dicks.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I was not aware that atheists as a whole HATE YOU IF YOU BELIEVE IN GOD RARRH.
The statement is bound to insult in the same way it would insult a religious dude if you made a thread that said "Why do Christians HATE people who choose to be an atheist?"
It's a shoddy generalization, you know?
Again my appologies. I meant to say "New Atheists". Thread title has been edited.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
Sam, Again I will point to the "New Atheists" movement. Since they are calling themselves "New" I would assume it would have had to started "recently". At least since we started walking upright .
Also, would it offend you if I asked you to edit your last post and remove the d-word.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
First of all I am not an Atheist, and have never heard of "New Atheists" before, so I can't say why or if any of them "Hate" believers.
The only reason I could see being upset that the Govenor called on people of faith to pray is if they were doing that praying instead of something that might be a bit more constructive.
I don't mean to imply that Prayer is not constructive, in its own way. I do mean that if they were discussing terrorism, there are things that can be done beyond and besides prayer. God helps those who help themselves, not those who only plead for help.
If the Govenor came out and said, "We'll not worry about being ready for the next Al Queda threat, because we are going to save money and have everyone pray they don't attack us." then I would be greatly upset.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: Sam, Again I will point to the "New Atheists" movement. Since they are calling themselves "New" I would assume it would have had to started "recently". At least since we started walking upright .
Also, would it offend you if I asked you to edit your last post and remove the d-word.
Actually, they aren't calling themselves "new". Their detractors have labeled them as 'new atheists'...I'm not quite sure why. But probably for similar reasons they've labeled us 'militant atheists'.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But I have never heard any of the preachers call people "idiots" and "stupid" on TV.
Really? What about "demons in human flesh" or "evil?" If you're going to tell me that televangelists don't insult people who don't share their faith, I'm going to have to consider you unacceptably biased.
It's also worth noting that not all "New Atheists" -- and I consider myself a "New Atheist" -- hate people who are religious.
The difference between a "New Atheist" and a "non-New" atheist is that the former agrees that religious faith should no longer be the most serious mental delusion that is socially tolerated. This does not mean that New Atheists "hate" the religious; it means that they pity them and want to cure them, in the same way that many religious people pity and seek to cure homosexuals.
Of course, once you pity someone, it's pretty easy to slip from there into thinking that they're your inferior in every way, or even to dehumanizing them and regarding them as an enemy. If some "New" (and even old) atheists fall prey to this, I'd still rather that they be ranting about it on TV than, say, dragging homosexuals behind their trucks.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Again my appologies. I meant to say "New Atheists". Thread title has been edited.
I still think you are overgeneralizing. "New Atheists" generally applies to the more vocal atheists that have sprung up in the last few years, such as Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens. Only a minority of this group expresses anything close to "hateful" speech about religious people. Dawkins and Harris have great disdain for religion, but are not generally unkind toward the religious people.
The "new atheists" are hateful in the same way as the "new blacks" were hateful during the civil rights movement. They are more vocal and assertive, but there's not anything particularly hateful about what they are saying.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: Sam, Again I will point to the "New Atheists" movement. Since they are calling themselves "New" I would assume it would have had to started "recently". At least since we started walking upright .
Also, would it offend you if I asked you to edit your last post and remove the d-word.
Actually, they aren't calling themselves "new". Their detractors have labeled them as 'new atheists'...I'm not quite sure why. But probably for similar reasons they've labeled us 'militant atheists'.
If they didn't coin the phrase, then they have accepted it.
quote:But I have never heard any of the preachers call people "idiots" and "stupid" on TV.
Really? What about "demons in human flesh" or "evil?" If you're going to tell me that televangelists don't insult people who don't share their faith, I'm going to have to consider you unacceptably biased.
It's also worth noting that not all "New Atheists" -- and I consider myself a "New Atheist" -- hate people who are religious.
The difference between a "New Atheist" and a "non-New" atheist is that the former agrees that religious faith should no longer be the most serious mental delusion that is socially tolerated. This does not mean that New Atheists "hate" the religious; it means that they pity them and want to cure them, in the same way that many religious people pity and seek to cure homosexuals.
Of course, once you pity someone, it's pretty easy to slip from there into thinking that they're your inferior in every way, or even to dehumanizing them and regarding them as an enemy. If some "New" (and even old) atheists fall prey to this, I'd still rather that they be ranting about it on TV than, say, dragging homosexuals behind their trucks.
Yes, there are TV evangelists that I do not agree with. Actually, most of them I do not and I completely disagree with them asking for money.
If the New Atheists can not cure the lower than human believers, should they be eradicated? Thinking people are sub-human because of their beliefs is scary. I believe someone about seventy years ago thought that. His name started with an H.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Yay! Godwin's Law makes an appearance!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If the New Atheists can not cure the lower than human believers, should they be erradicated?
You oppose homosexuality, if I recall correctly. If we cannot cure homosexuals, should they be eradicated?
The question's as offensive as you might imagine. And in case you can't guess the answer: no. Anyone who says otherwise has allowed his extremism to dehumanize his opponent.
The latter is especially troubling in an atheist, because a respect for humanity is basically what atheists have. If you're an atheist who isn't also a humanist, I'm not sure how you'd avoid nihilism. Luckily, I don't think that problem's all that common.
[ November 14, 2007, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: This does not mean that New Atheists "hate" the religious; it means that they pity them and want to cure them, in the same way that many religious people pity and seek to cure homosexuals.
Wow. That's not a way of relating to or thinking about people that I would want to take as a model.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Again my appologies. I meant to say "New Atheists". Thread title has been edited.
I still think you are overgeneralizing. "New Atheists" generally applies to the more vocal atheists that have sprung up in the last few years, such as Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens. Only a minority of this group expresses anything close to "hateful" speech about religious people. Dawkins and Harris have great disdain for religion, but are not generally unkind toward the religious people.
The "new atheists" are hateful in the same way as the "new blacks" were hateful during the civil rights movement. They are more vocal and assertive, but there's not anything particularly hateful about what they are saying.
quote:Tolerance of pervasive myth and superstition in modern society is not a virtue. Religious fundamentalism has gone main stream and its toll on education, science, and social progress is disheartening. Wake up people!! We are smart enough now to kill our invisible gods and oppressive beliefs. It is the responsibility of the educated to educate the uneducated, lest we fall prey to the tyranny of ignorance.
The last quote is from the newatheists.org homepage. It doesn't sound like they like me very much. I don't appreciate being called uneducated.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Well, that's rare. You just Godwin'd your own thread.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Yay! Godwin's Law makes an appearance!
Not just Godwin, but Godwin AND a straw man. It's a logical fallacy twofer!
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think Godwin's law just indicates the extremity of strawman logic.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:If they didn't coin the phrase, then they have accepted it.
Who is "they"?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:It is the responsibility of the educated to educate the uneducated, lest we fall prey to the tyranny of ignorance.
This is why the pejorative of choice for idiot atheists is "stupid."
It is much more comforting to believe that you're smarter than everyone than it is to believe that you're missing out on something everyone else gets.
Witness the "brights" movement. Now there's some optimist wishful thinking.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:If the New Atheists can not cure the lower than human believers, should they be erradicated?
You oppose homosexuality, if I recall correctly. If we cannot cure homosexuals, should they be eradicated?
The question's as offensive as you might imagine. And in case you can't guess the answer: no. Anyone who says otherwise has allowed his extremism to dehumanize his opponent.
The latter is especially troubling in an atheism, because a respect for humanity is basically what atheists have. If you're an atheist who isn't also a humanist, I'm not sure how you'd avoid nihilism. Luckily, I don't think that problem's all that common.
No they shouldn't. They have the right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. If a same sex relationship is what they need for happiness, more power to them.
I'm not going to stand on a street corner and condemn them. That doesn't mean there aren't people out there that will. And that is wrong.
I'm not getting "respect for humanity" from this new group of atheists. My original question is why now. That has been responded to.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Wow. That's not a way of relating to or thinking about people that I would want to take as a model.
Would you seek to cure someone who was schizophrenic? Or advise someone with severe depression to seek medical help? Would you take someone with a leg injury to a doctor?
-------
quote:I'm not getting "respect for humanity" from this new group of atheists.
If you're not getting "respect for humanity" from Richard Dawkins, you haven't read Richard Dawkins.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:They showed the video of the Georgia governor holding a rally on capital steps asking all citizens who believe in prayer to pray.
It's worth saying that a deity that works like this, who would grant this prayer while denying so many others, isn't exactly a benevolent entity.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: This is why the pejorative of choice for idiot atheists is "stupid."
It is much more comforting to believe that you're smarter than everyone...
(emphasis mine)
Wow. I don't even disagree with the sentiment behind it, but the unintentional irony of this statement is breathtaking.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk:
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Yay! Godwin's Law makes an appearance!
Not just Godwin, but Godwin AND a straw man. It's a logical fallacy twofer!
Ok, how about this.
How long until a new atheists gets tired of the sub-human believers, we'll call them infidels, and decides to hijack a plane and crash it into a church.
There are extremists everywhere and intolerance of others beliefs is wrong. That is not a religious thing and I know I am being judgemental, but don't hate me for my beliefs. I don't hate you for yours.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It's worth saying that a deity that works like this, who would grant this prayer while denying so many others, isn't exactly a benevolent entity.
For some strange definition of benevolent, maybe.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Hey, this applies to me too. I'm aware that I would rather not believe that I'm stupid. I would also rather not believe that I'm evil. Fortunately, I am neither.
--
The name-calling is still quite lame. It also undercuts the claim to humanism - you don't get to claim that you love humanity if you hate the religious streak in it that just won't go away.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:If they didn't coin the phrase, then they have accepted it.
The people who registerred the url and started the website.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:How long until a new atheists gets tired of the sub-human believers, we'll call them infidels, and decides to hijack a plane and crash it into a church.
I think it's highly unlikely. In a very real way, this sort of action is even more antithetical to "New Atheism" than it is to Christianity. That said, like you pointed out, there are wackos everywhere; how long will it be before some Republican hijacks a plane and crashes it into the Times building?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:The name-calling is still quite lame. It also undercuts the claim to humanism - you don't get to claim that you love humanity if you hate the religious streak in it that just won't go away.
If you think that religion is harmful to humanity, despite it's pervasiveness, then disdain for religion is not anti-humanity any more than disdain for cancer, also pervasive and harmful, is not anti-humanity.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:The people who registerred the url and started the website.
Exactly. Could be some guy in his basement. I hardly see that as an indication that any group has broadly accepted the label. It's true that some atheists identify with the label, but it's hardly an organized movement. Atheists are affiliated with each other the same way cat lovers are - sure, there are a few cat magazines and cat clubs here and there, but most just own cats and leave it at that.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by brojack17:
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk:
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Yay! Godwin's Law makes an appearance!
Not just Godwin, but Godwin AND a straw man. It's a logical fallacy twofer!
Ok, how about this.
How long until a new atheists gets tired of the sub-human believers, we'll call them infidels, and decides to hijack a plane and crash it into a church.
When this actually happens, maybe you'll have a case. But it hasn't. No "new atheist" has committed any atrocities, nor done anything more than make condescending remarks on national television. Is that irritating? Sure, if you're religious. Is it bigoted? Of course not- religion, unlike race or sexual oritentaion, is a choice. Dawkins (and, I would wager, the vast majority of "new atheists") condemns the belief, not the believer's worth as a human being.
And even if Dawkins was a bigot, he's one dude (out of maybe five of his ilk who actually ever get on TV). How many outspoken Christians do we have condemning gays and atheists wholesale on TV? I'll give you a hint: it's more than there are in Congress, which in itself is orders of magnitude more than there are New Atheists being interviewed by Tim Russert.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:If you think that religion is harmful to humanity, despite it's pervasiveness, then disdain for religion is not anti-humanity any more than disdain for cancer, also pervasive and harmful, is not anti-humanity.
I think it is. It's like claiming to love humanity but hating their tendency to form social groups, or claiming to love humanity but hating that whole obsession with having children, or claiming to love humanity but hating that the languages keep changing. Religion, in one form or another, has been part of the human experience since we know about human experiences.
Loving humanity means loving humanity, not just the parts that you identify with.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Wow. That's not a way of relating to or thinking about people that I would want to take as a model.
Would you seek to cure someone who was schizophrenic? Or advise someone with severe depression to seek medical help? Would you take someone with a leg injury to a doctor?
-------
quote:I'm not getting "respect for humanity" from this new group of atheists.
If you're not getting "respect for humanity" from Richard Dawkins, you haven't read Richard Dawkins.
Your right, I haven't. I didn't hear about him until the Wired article.
The atheists in this community are the only atheists I know. Or the only ones I know I know. I have a family of six, I coach a robotics team, I go to school, and I work. Usually, the only time I talk religion is with people who believe about the same as I do. When I saw this woman on the show last night and remembered the Wired article, I was curious as to why this new group felt such hatred towards me. So I took this to the only group of people I know who have some atheists on board.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Wow. That's not a way of relating to or thinking about people that I would want to take as a model.
Would you seek to cure someone who was schizophrenic? Or advise someone with severe depression to seek medical help? Would you take someone with a leg injury to a doctor?
My criteria for when to advise someone to seek help for a suspected mental condition, be it depression, OCD, addiction, whatever, is if it is negatively affecting their life and relationships. And I'm not sure I'd use the word "pity" even in those cases. Regardless, that rules out suggesting an involuntary cure for gays or theists.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
How many believers have I advised to seek help here on Hatrack -- or elsewhere?
(I'll answer that question for you: three. And in each case, I did it because it seemed like they were having trouble reconciling their personal beliefs with their religious faith in a way that was causing them serious mental distress.)
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Thinking people are sub-human because of their beliefs is scary. I believe someone about seventy years ago thought that. His name started with an H.
Hitler believed the other races were inferior not because of their beliefs, but because of their genes.
Just saying.
quote:It's worth saying that a deity that works like this, who would grant this prayer while denying so many others, isn't exactly a benevolent entity.
Nah. You'd have to be able to understand God's specific reasons for answering/not answering specific prayers to be able to reach this conclusion.
Good luck with that.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Wow. That's not a way of relating to or thinking about people that I would want to take as a model.
Would you seek to cure someone who was schizophrenic? Or advise someone with severe depression to seek medical help? Would you take someone with a leg injury to a doctor?
I've been thinking about this since the last time we had this talk, and I still don't like the schizophrenic comparison.
If you want to call theism some sort of mental disease, I'd call it 'functional alcoholism', where someone clearly drinks to excess but still manages to live a pretty solid life. Steady job, family, not given to violence or meanness. In a situation like this, the cure is literally probably worse than the disease.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:How long until a new atheists gets tired of the sub-human believers, we'll call them infidels, and decides to hijack a plane and crash it into a church.
I think it's highly unlikely. In a very real way, this sort of action is even more antithetical to "New Atheism" than it is to Christianity. That said, like you pointed out, there are wackos everywhere; how long will it be before some Republican hijacks a plane and crashes it into the Times building?
I liken this to the people who say they don't go to church because when they did, the preacher asked for money and the people were snooty. I have two experiences with new atheism. One in the Wired article and one last night on TV. If they are trying to "educate" me, then they are doing a terrible job of it. They can't attack me and then expect me to say, "your right, I am stupid and sub-human."
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Loving humanity means loving humanity, not just the parts that you identify with.
I hate war too.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:The people who registerred the url and started the website.
Exactly. Could be some guy in his basement. I hardly see that as an indication that any group has broadly accepted the label. It's true that some atheists identify with the label, but it's hardly an organized movement. Atheists are affiliated with each other the same way cat lovers are - sure, there are a few cat magazines and cat clubs here and there, but most just own cats and leave it at that.
Ok, point taken. But doesn't the .org require a legal organization or can anyone get that. What is to stop me from getting a .gov url.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Tom, your behavior (here and in person) is why I was so shocked by the comparison you made. I don't think of you in relation to theists as like the folks I know who pity and want to cure gays, it suprised me that you would equate your beliefs to theirs.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:But doesn't the .org require a legal organization or can anyone get that.
Nope. Anyone can get a .org.
quote:What is to stop me from getting a .gov url.
.gov has restrictions on it, unlike .org
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:They can't attack me and then expect me to say, "your right, I am stupid and sub-human."
I thoroughly agree with this. I think insulting people is a very ineffective way to convince them of the rightness of your position.
quote:If you want to call theism some sort of mental disease, I'd call it 'functional alcoholism', where someone clearly drinks to excess but still manages to live a pretty solid life.
Also conceded. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the net effect of religious belief is up for grabs; we simply don't know whether it's a net gain or a net loss. I think certain types of faith may well be necessary in certain situations, particularly in the early stages of a civilization, and I'm not confident that even now it doesn't serve a useful purpose for some people.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Anyone can get a .org. Bob's and my website is a .org because his nephew had already registered the .com.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Just so everyone knows "stupidity" and "ignorance" are two different things.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Anyone can get a .org. Bob's and my website is a .org because his nephew had already registered the .com.
Ok, so why have the distinction?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: Just so everyone knows "stupidity" and "ignorance" are two different things.
Unfortunately either stupidity OR ignorance may cause you to confuse the two.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: How many believers have I advised to seek help here on Hatrack -- or elsewhere?
(I'll answer that question for you: three. And in each case, I did it because it seemed like they were having trouble reconciling their personal beliefs with their religious faith in a way that was causing them serious mental distress.)
I saw a therapist about my religious problems when I was in my late teens. There can be a lot of factors that seem to overlap at those points. In the end I broke up with my boyfriend and went back to church, because while he was not mormon, he was also involved in underage drinking, which I thought a rational law abiding person shouldn't do. I only thought religion was the problem, but it really wasn't, and when I talked things through with a therapist that became clear.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Ok, so why have the distinction?
There were intentions for the TLDs to be used a specific way, but those intentions were not codified (or they were codified, but then the restrictions were relaxed).
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:It's like claiming to love humanity but hating their tendency to form social groups
I think it is more in tune with claiming to love humanity but hating their tendency to fear and mistreat outsiders. You seem to be slanting your analogies towards things that are positive or at least neutral, but religion is clearly identified as a negative thing in the context we're speaking of.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Originally posted by Javert: Just so everyone knows "stupidity" and "ignorance" are two different things.
Unfortunately either stupidity OR ignorance may cause you to confuse the two.
And most people use the two together.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
brojack, If you know so little about this group, how have you formed such pervasive and persistant negative beliefs about them? And why are you maintaining them against the protest of people who know much more than you?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:it suprised me that you would equate your beliefs to theirs
I'm trying to be fair-minded and accurate in my own self-description. It would be hypocritical of me to say -- or to have said -- that people cannot think of homosexuality as a disease without being biased against homosexuals while still asserting that I (like any "New Atheist") can somehow think of religious faith as a form of mental delusion without thinking less of believers.
I think people think less of other people all the time. The hard part is to remember why that's not considered a virtue.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
MrS, As I mentioned, it is based on the article and this interview. I'm asking this group to help me think otherwise. I know this doesn't include "All Atheists" or "All New Atheists", but this movement does concern me.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by MattP:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Javert: Just so everyone knows "stupidity" and "ignorance" are two different things. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately either stupidity OR ignorance may cause you to confuse the two. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And most people use the two together.
What does that say about most people? Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Homosexuals are routinely insulted by preachers, both TV and otherwise. There was a guy back home who was always on the radio named Jay Cole. His catch phrase for the enemy was "Thieves, liars, adulterers and Ho-mo-sexuals."
To this day gay marriage is illegal because of religious people. Even people on this board oppose it for purely religious reasons. Christians dehumanize people like me daily. It's easy to hate the faithful for the harm their faith does to the innocent. I've been there myself.
But it doesn't help anyone. It just turns it all into a screaming match and makes everyone hate everyone else. Turn the other cheek when you can; stand up for yourself when you must; fight against those who codify their belief into law. Other than that, what they believe in is none of your business and we should all just leave each other in peace.
Sorry if this is disjointed or I repeated what others said. I've been trying to type this up for an hour but that pesky thing called "work" keeps interfering.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by brojack17:
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Originally posted by Javert: Just so everyone knows "stupidity" and "ignorance" are two different things.
Unfortunately either stupidity OR ignorance may cause you to confuse the two.
And most people use the two together.
I don't think that most people do. And those who do are, frankly, wrong. Ignorance is the state of not knowing, not a bad thing in and of itself, because it can be rectified. Stupidity is the state of being incapable of knowing- or much worse, the unwillingness to know.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I'm asking this group to help me think otherwise.
That really doesn't look like what you are doing to me, so I don't think I'll be able to help you.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
They are either stupid and/or ignorant.
Oh no, I am a religious intollerant! Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
On the Georgia prayer thing, I have to wonder what people's reaction would be if the Governor called on people to go out and perform rain dances or some other non-mainstream practice and what would they think of the people who believed that this would work.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Take a quick turn through the interwebs, you'll find lots of self-described atheists pushing what looks a lot like hate onto an amorphous bunch of believers.
Similarly, you'll find a lot of believers spouting similar terms at non-believers.
After hanging on solely at Hatrack for a long, long, time, I finally ventured out to the blogosphere. And it was pretty eye-opening. I'd heard that people weren't civil the way they are here; I had no idea that incivility was lauded in the majority of webish-spots.
It's not like brojack is wrong, necessarily. It feels like the majority of atheists I encounter on the web are of the rant-and-rave variety.
But I haven't run the numbers. And I hope that I'm wrong.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by brojack17:
Religious extremists aside, why do atheists hate anyone who believes in a higher being, and why do they have to be so militant about it. This has happened a few times on Hatrack. I don't think it is right to show such hatred for people based on their beliefs.
When I was in highschool a black man stole my dad's checkbook out of the mailbox and forged checks. Another time in Paris a black guy tried to rob me. Why do black people have to steal from my family? Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:I'm asking this group to help me think otherwise.
That really doesn't look like what you are doing to me, so I don't think I'll be able to help you.
Ok, so how did I offend you. People asked me how I came to my conclusion, I gave that reason. I'm sorry if I offended anyone on this and other threads. I just feel people should be allowed to believe what they want to without being judged for it.
I don't try to "convert" people. If someone asks me about my religion, then I will tell them. I am asking you about your beliefs. If you don't want to enter that discussion, that's ok. We can still play the movie quote game together. Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: On the Georgia prayer thing, I have to wonder what people's reaction would be if the Governor called on people to go out and perform rain dances or some other non-mainstream practice and what would they think of the people who believed that this would work.
If I hadn't heard about the Georgia prayer story at the same time as the reply, I would have thought "wow, that is going to open a you-know-what storm".
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm not offended, brojack. I'm also not an atheist or new atheist. If you've compared groups I belong to the Nazis or suicide bombers, I'm not yet aware of it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I have to wonder what people's reaction would be if the Governor called on people to go out and perform rain dances or some other non-mainstream practice and what would they think of the people who believed that this would work.
I don't have a problem with it.
Should I? Why would you wonder this?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The easiest way to make a group unified is to have an enemy to fight. So some (lonely?) Atheists decide that Religion is the enemy and try to form up ranks against them. Its the same process that some religions use to shore up their ranks to fight dangerous hatefilled atheists.
Neither could survive with out the other.
Each spews hateful words and vile names, build armies of strawmen and march them into oblivion, not to convince the other side. They have given up on that. They do it to pull in the ranks of their own side, to garner donations, support, power and money, position and influence.
What would happen if you threw a crusade and nobody came?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:What would happen if you threw a crusade and nobody came?
This is the best seed for a short-story I've heard today. Oh. My. Goodness.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Squick: You may consider religion to be an evil thing, but you do not speak for nor create the context.
MattP: You're really likening religion to war? Really? All religion? Funeral tokens of cavemen? The interfaith concert I went to last night? The cult of Isis in ancient Rome? Zen gardens? Vows of celibacy and poverty and service? Church-sponsored homeless shelters? Prayers for safety and of thankfulness? Researching ancestors and sealing all of humanity into a chain that lasts after death? Tiny statues of Mary in people's gardens? Pulling out a mat five times a day to pray? All those things are equivelent to war?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't consider religion an evil thing. However, the statement that you are responding to postulates that it perceived as such:
quote:If you think that religion is harmful to humanity, despite it's pervasiveness, then disdain for religion is not anti-humanity any more than disdain for cancer, also pervasive and harmful, is not anti-humanity.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:You're really likening religion to war?
Only to the extent that it's an arguably intrinsic quality of humanity and if it's OK to dislike one such quality without being anti-humanity, then it's possible to think negatively of other aspects without being, by default, anti-humanity.
You are the one that said "Loving humanity means loving humanity, not just the parts that you identify with." I'm just suggesting that someone can dislike portions of what currently constitutes humanity and still love humanity.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: I just feel people should be allowed to believe what they want to without being judged for it.
Actually, I think that judging people on what they believe is one of the few ways to do so fairly. If you believe that blacks are subhuman, for instance, you better believe I'm going to judge you for that. And the judgment is going to result in me thinking rather less of you. Same thing for people who believe in the Judeo-Christian God, but to a lesser extent.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by brojack17:
Religious extremists aside, why do atheists hate anyone who believes in a higher being, and why do they have to be so militant about it. This has happened a few times on Hatrack. I don't think it is right to show such hatred for people based on their beliefs.
When I was in highschool a black man stole my dad's checkbook out of the mailbox and forged checks. Another time in Paris a black guy tried to rob me. Why do black people have to steal from my family?
That is a little different. If you had heard of black people but never interacted with one and then you heard on on TV calling you the "blue eyed devil" and read an article about a black person saying white people are stupid, then I could see the correlation.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
MattP - so, to get this straight, you do NOT equate religion to war but are postulating that if it were bad like war is, then hating it would be okay?
That's two hypothetical steps beyond the useful. Never mind.
As for those who do equate religion to war, then that's a kind of willful ignorance I'm not sure how to combat.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I think he's equating religion to humanity and war to humanity. Both are parts of it. Does that mean we should embrace war, because it is an inseperable part of humanity?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Javert Hugo, this was the proposition you made: "you don't get to claim that you love humanity if you hate the religious streak in it that just won't go away."
I, and apparently others, thought you were using some sort of more general principle to develop this proposition. The more general principle might be written as "If you hate a fundamental part or streak of humanity, then it's wrong to claim that you love humanity." If this principle were true, it would mean that we couldn't condemn anything, including war, that seems to be a fundamental part of humanity. Which seems obviously wrong. So the principle is wrong, and therefore propositions derived from it would be unsubstantiated.
If this wasn't your working principle when you made your claim, could you perhaps clarify. Why *can't* you love humanity while hating its religious streak?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:you do NOT equate religion to war but are postulating that if it were bad like war is, then hating it would be okay?
I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand, but I'll try one more time.
Again, you said "Loving humanity means loving humanity, not just the parts that you identify with."
My response is that this simple sentiment is that it possible to dislike individual attributes of "X" without disliking "X". For instance, I really like my car, but it gets poor gas mileage. I wish it got better gas mileage. I've even made a few modifications to the intake and exhaust systems in an attempt to get better gas mileage. Regardless of this flaw, and my obvious attempt correct it, I like my car. It's *because* I like my car that I've attempted to fix this flaw.
Also, I love my kids. I think that my teenage daughter's tendency to be dismissive of her younger siblings is harmful to the family and to herself. I am also trying to help her overcome these shortcomings. Regardless of those shortcomings, I still love her.
I like myself. I've got a raft of self-identified shortcomings to address. Regardless of those shortcomings, I still like myself.
Does it make sense yet? I was just pointing out that it's possible to be pro-something while being dissatisfied with an aspect of that something. I was not equating religion to war, but since you disagreed about being able to like humanity while disliking religion because religion was part of humanity I picked another part of humanity which was more clearly negative to show that it was possible to reject an aspect of humanity without rejecting humanity itself.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Because you are loving an illusion. You can't separate religion from humanity without a massive retcon of human history.
And thinking about it, I mean that for war as well. War is hell and bad and to be avoided, but clearly aggression and possessiveness and territorial marking and the dehumanization of each other is part of us as well, and I think a true humanist would try to understand the individuals.
Of course, religion itself has so much good and done so much good and is expressed in so many other little ways that if anyone did try to say that religion is as bad as war then I'd question their education.
---
More specifically, a self-proclaimed humanist who hated on religious people precisely for their religious beliefs is lying about something.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:I just feel people should be allowed to believe what they want to without being judged for it.
So you're okay with religious extremism and suicide bombers? Do beliefs only become an issue with you when the people holding those beliefs act upon them(in a negative manner)? Isn't that a bit like trying to put a band aid on a gun shot wound? If suicide bombing is a problem shouldn't we try to remedy it by getting to the root of it? Doesn't that necessitate judging someone's beliefs?
What if our president believed that the future of our country depended on obliterating Mexico? Would you say that he should be allowed to have this belief without being judged for it?
How can you help people with false beliefs if you just ignore them? Or even more fundamentally, how can the truth or falsity of a belief even be determined without conversation between individuals. Can't we judge peoples' beliefs and still have civil dialogue between each other? Are you really advocating the fact that everyone should be free to believe whatever the heck they feel like believing regardless of the validity of that belief and how that belief affects their behavior.
quote:She stated, "there is no afterlife"; she made this statement without any evidence.
also, I found this statement ironic.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
So you can't hate war and be a humanist?
---
quote:Of course, religion itself has so much good and done so much good and is expressed in so many other little ways
War has also done much that is good. It has also (just like religion) done much that is really terrible.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:More specifically, a self-proclaimed humanist who hated on religious people precisely for their religious beliefs is lying about something.
I'm not aware of any self-proclaimed humanists that have expressed hate for religious people in general, but there are probably a number who hate religious belief.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I didn't say and you are misunderstanding. Whether or not it is deliberate I couldn't say.
--
quote:I'm not aware of any self-proclaimed humanists that have expressed hate for religious people in general, but there are probably a number who hate religious belief.
I was referring to the women referenced in the opening post. We don't know if she proclaims herself a humanist, however.
As for hating religious belief, that's back to the beginning. Lame for anyone who calls themselves a humanist. It is too complex to be so maligned.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
kat, What do you think humanism means?
edit: Also, since I am apparently misunderstanding you, could you specify what you mean by this:
quote:Because you are loving an illusion. You can't separate religion from humanity without a massive retcon of human history.
And thinking about it, I mean that for war as well. War is hell and bad and to be avoided, but clearly aggression and possessiveness and territorial marking and the dehumanization of each other is part of us as well, and I think a true humanist would try to understand the individuals.
as it relates to being a humanist and hating religion or hating war?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
But we aren't denying that religion was, and is, a fundamental part of people's lives, anymore than we're denying that war was and is a fundamental part of humanity. So there isn't any sort of illusion.
Instead there's a hope, at least on this humanistic atheist's part, to weed out the negative effects of certain human traits while not condemning the actual traits themselves. Aggression leads to war. That's bad. Let's try to stop wars without stopping aggression (just watch Serenity to see how bad an idea that is ) Likewise, I dislike religion, while not disliking the spiritual characteristics humans posses. And, given the various ways that humanity has come up with to deal with the spiritual, I think I can safely say that theistic religions are not a fundamental trait of humanity.
Edit: this was in response to the following statement by Kate. Clearly, I need to type quicker.
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Because you are loving an illusion. You can't separate religion from humanity without a massive retcon of human history.
And thinking about it, I mean that for war as well. War is hell and bad and to be avoided, but clearly aggression and possessiveness and territorial marking and the dehumanization of each other is part of us as well, and I think a true humanist would try to understand the individuals.
Of course, religion itself has so much good and done so much good and is expressed in so many other little ways that if anyone did try to say that religion is as bad as war then I'd question their education.
---
More specifically, a self-proclaimed humanist who hated on religious people precisely for their religious beliefs is lying about something.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
here's a definition from wikipedia:
quote:Humanism is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities—particularly rationality.[1][2] It is a component of a variety of more specific philosophical systems and is incorporated into several religious schools of thought. Humanism entails a commitment to the search for truth and morality through human means in support of human interests. In focusing on the capacity for self-determination, Humanism rejects the validity of transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on belief without reason, the supernatural, or texts of allegedly divine origin. Humanists endorse universal morality based on the commonality of the human condition, suggesting that solutions to human social and cultural problems cannot be parochial.[3]
and here's a link to the Humanist Manifesto from the American Humanist Association:
quote:Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity...
I acknowledge that while these are broadly accepted definitions of humanism, they aren't necessarily universal definitions. But that can lead down a long discussion of what exactly "humanism" is.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:Likewise, I dislike religion, while not disliking the spiritual characteristics humans posses. And, given the various ways that humanity has come up with to deal with the spiritual, I think I can safely say that theistic religions are not a fundamental trait of humanity.
How are you defining religons then? It looks like you are only referring to theistic organizations. Are those the only things included in your distaste, then?
Is it possible that your dislike has more to do with the power and behavior characteristic of organzations than with the spiritual tendencies and needs and experiences that lead to their formation?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'd pretty emphatically reject that Humanism is necessarily Materialistic or Secular.
I asked because kat at least seemed to be treating it as "loving humanity", which is not a correct definition.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Perhaps I was giving more credit to humanism than it deserved - it was nice to think that a charitable attitude towards humanity was included.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: After hanging on solely at Hatrack for a long, long, time, I finally ventured out to the blogosphere. And it was pretty eye-opening. I'd heard that people weren't civil the way they are here; I had no idea that incivility was lauded in the majority of webish-spots.
Before I joined Hatrack and Ornery, I had not seriously posted on a web forum in over half a year. Awhile ago I joined perspectives.com (basically a large political forum). My initial goal was to expose myself to other opinions and refine my own. Instead, it ended up destroying my free time and making me unhappy. The ignorance and hate of some of the posts was aggravating, yet I was addicted to posting there and didn't stop. I eventually just went "cold turkey". Ornery is much better (though, admittedly, I like Hatrack more).
If you ever have any doubt that Hatrack is civil, just visit perspectives.com and read the political and religious forums.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: It's not like brojack is wrong, necessarily. It feels like the majority of atheists I encounter on the web are of the rant-and-rave variety.
I would guess that this is because those atheists probably feel more motivated to post. I could make an atheism themed blog but it would probably be extremely boring.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
No, I am quite convinced that a God, at least one of the Judeo-Christian type, does not exist. I'm also pretty sure that it's better to have your epistemological underpinnings straight than not, and thus people shouldn't believe in things that don't really exist. I'm not trying to be offense here, although I realize that this stance could be taken as quite offensive. Sorry!
I'm much more okay with religions that are more philosophical in nature, like Buddhism, Taoism, or atheistic Hinduism (not the cultural versions, but the ones developed from original texts). I haven't yet figured out my stance on polytheism - still thinking about it.
To answer the second part of the question, like most atheists, new or old, I'm horrified by a lot of what organized religion has accomplished (mass killing), and find other parts of it good (charitable works).
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:it was nice to think that a charitable attitude towards humanity was included.
You don't see a charitable attitude toward humanity in the definitions posted above? I thought the "aspire to the greater good of humanity" seemed pretty pro-humanity.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider:
quote:I just feel people should be allowed to believe what they want to without being judged for it.
So you're okay with religious extremism and suicide bombers? Do beliefs only become an issue with you when the people holding those beliefs act upon them(in a negative manner)? Isn't that a bit like trying to put a band aid on a gun shot wound? If suicide bombing is a problem shouldn't we try to remedy it by getting to the root of it? Doesn't that necessitate judging someone's beliefs?
What if our president believed that the future of our country depended on obliterating Mexico? Would you say that he should be allowed to have this belief without being judged for it?
How can you help people with false beliefs if you just ignore them? Or even more fundamentally, how can the truth or falsity of a belief even be determined without conversation between individuals. Can't we judge peoples' beliefs and still have civil dialogue between each other? Are you really advocating the fact that everyone should be free to believe whatever the heck they feel like believing regardless of the validity of that belief and how that belief affects their behavior.
quote:She stated, "there is no afterlife"; she made this statement without any evidence.
also, I found this statement ironic.
No. It is not right to force ones belief on another or to take aggression on one group because they do not believe the same as you.
I am trying to have a civil dialogue. I did get offended when I was told some of these new atheists thought I was sub-human. That hate speak sounds a lot like Hitler and Osama bin Laden. I made that connection. In all fairness, it also sounds like the group of people that protest at soldiers funerals because they think God is taking revenge on America.
I know the comment about the afterlife was kinda funny.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:people shouldn't believe in things that don't really exist
This is literally impossible for human beings to do.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: I know the comment about the afterlife was kinda funny.
I think Strider was referring to the irony that the comment "there is an afterlife" is made much more often and without evidence. And not just the existence of an afterlife, but specific claims about that afterlife.
Of course, Strider can correct me if I'm wrong.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Jhai, I'm not offended. I think you're quite wrong, but that isn't offensive to me.
You sound very sure that a negative has been proven. I think you're mistaken about that as well. That doesn't matter, but if it leads to dislike or look down on people, that's bad for everyone.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:it was nice to think that a charitable attitude towards humanity was included.
It does. Why would you think that it doesn't?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: I agree there is extremests in any religious (or non-religious) group. I just mean, why has Atheism taken on this trate only recently.
If you mean trait, then what do you mean by "recently"?
quote: Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.
quote: The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.
quote: The priests of the different religious sects ... dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight, and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subdivision of the duperies on which they live.
Guess who wrote those words. They certainly were not written by KoM Here's a hint there were written about 200 years ago by a guy that many of you may know.
Now compare:
quote: That sect(i.e. the Jews) had presented for the object of their worship, a being of terrific character, cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust.
quote: The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
Now guess which one was written satirically and which one was serious, also which one was written recently.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: I know the comment about the afterlife was kinda funny.
I think Strider was referring to the irony that the comment "there is an afterlife" is made much more often and without evidence. And not just the existence of an afterlife, but specific claims about that afterlife.
Of course, Strider can correct me if I'm wrong.
nope, you got it. Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Jhai, I'm not offended. I think you're quite wrong, but that isn't offensive to me.
You sound very sure that a negative has been proven. I think you're mistaken about that as well. That doesn't matter, but if it leads to dislike or look down on people, that's bad for everyone.
I'm not claiming that a negative has been proven (altho on rereading, it appears that I am). I believe the existence of God is as likely as fairies existing at the bottom of the garden, to misquote Douglas Adams. Obviously, this subject is outside the scope of this thread, but I agree in a large part with Dawkins, if you've read The God Delusion.
And I don't dislike people who are religious, I think they're wrong, and hope they'll change their minds.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Aw, that's too bad. Do you want them to change for themselves or for you? If it's doing them good and makes them happy but you want them to change so your life is easier, then I don't think that's cool.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It is not a question of hate. It is about whether we are to sit silently, smile, and nod, when people say things that are patently absurd, and then (what's worse) use the power of the state to enforce it. Religious people have become used to having their beliefs respected (or at a minimum, having lip service paid to such respect) because that is the nature of the compromise that is freedom of conscience: All religious people agree not to attack each others' beliefs. But that compromise was evolved when all people were religious, and some variety of Christian at that. It is one thing for Protestant and Catholic, to take but one example, to agree-to-disagree and say "All right, we respect each other". It doesn't take too much effort to stretch that into a similar truce with Moslems, Hindus, and whatnot. And this has become so ingrained that people feel extremely weird about it if someone breaks this unwritten rule, even though any number of religious communities do in fact believe that all the others will suffer eternal pain.
But this truce has never been extended to atheists - largely, I admit, because until recently we were so rare as to be invisible. So when we are now numerous enough that we can do a bit of firing back, the theists have to sit up and take notice; and because they are so used to their cozy little truce, honesty feels like hatred.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Amazing that people would take being called stupid as a bad thing.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:What would happen if you threw a crusade and nobody came?
This is the best seed for a short-story I've heard today. Oh. My. Goodness.
Get to work -- I want to read it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You can't separate religion from humanity without a massive retcon of human history.
Why is it necessary to retcon human history to separate religion from humanity going forward?
Atheists aren't denying that human beings have, in the past, been religious.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: [QB]
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: I agree there is extremests in any religious (or non-religious) group. I just mean, why has Atheism taken on this trate only recently.
If you mean trait, then what do you mean by "recently"?
I'm 32. I have not seen nor heard about atheists hating believers before the past year. Also, the name for the unofficial group is "New Atheists". That would make me think that these developments are recent.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Aw, that's too bad. Do you want them to change for themselves or for you? If it's doing them good and makes them happy but you want them to change so your life is easier, then I don't think that's cool.
Even if religion does some people good and makes them happy, I don't think it does humanity good in the long run. And, generally, I think it's more important to consider what is true or not than to just go with whatever makes you happy.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Are you the arbitrer of truth now? To the point that you feel confident and good about destroying personal happiness to serve your judgment?
What's so great about your beliefs again?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Aw, that's too bad. Do you want them to change for themselves or for you? If it's doing them good and makes them happy but you want them to change so your life is easier, then I don't think that's cool.
What if someone told you they believed that fairies lived in their garden. That fact makes them very happy, and perhaps they are more likely to care about the environment so that that the fairies can live better.
This belief in fairies makes them happy and does them good. Would you want to disabuse them of their belief?
Maybe you don't. I would. Not to take away something that makes them happy and does good by them. But to show them that there's plenty of real things that can make one happy, and believing in imaginary ones isn't necessary. (I'm using 'real' to mean "things for which there are evidence and are independently verifiable.")
Now, would I force them to stop believing? No. And if after the first time we discussed it they wanted me to not mention it anymore, I would honor that person's wishes. Of course, if they continually brought it up, I would argue my point of view. And if they wanted to force others to believe in it as well...well, I'd have something to say about that and would argue my own side.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Hey, I'm not making anyone change their views. I'm just saying the views are wrong. Just like you would say my view on the existence of a deity is wrong. *shrug* If someone could come up with a good argument against the problem of evil, I'd be all ears.
I'm also not generally in the habit of destroying personal happiness - I just offer arguments about things. If someone believes those arguments, and is then unhappy, I don't think I'm exactly the one to blame. The universe is, maybe. It's not like I'm ruining a kid's Christmas by telling him Santa doesn't exist - if you're able to understand the philosophical back-and-forth on the existence of God, you should be able to handle the truth, whatever that may be.
I don't think I need to defend what is great about the humanistic or atheist belief system. A lot of people have done that, far better than I could within this thread. If you're interested in learning about it, not scoring debate points, I could point you towards some of those resources. Some have been linked to here already.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: I'm 32. I have not seen nor heard about atheists hating believers before the past year. Also, the name for the unofficial group is "New Atheists". That would make me think that these developments are recent.
A) As someone pointed out before, the issue isn't exactly hate, so much as pity B) As someone also pointed out, "New Atheists" is not a term that the group created for itself. While some atheists may have taken the term upon themselves (as some blacks have taken "back" the term nigger and use it among themselves), there is no consensus what the term means or who belongs to the group. C) So you're 32...and.... So is your logic that if you had not learned about Israel until today, the whole Middle Eastern mess would be a recent development as well?
To take the most prominent example, Richard Dawkins has been writing many books on the theme of evolution and has been defending it (and in the process criticizing Christians) for over 30 years. The text may be repackaged in an easier to access form, but the real change is media attention.
It is not that some atheists have taken on this "trait" recently. It is that the media both pro and con has been publicizing it more recently after a certain period of relative silence.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
You know, my aunt goes to church on Sunday by watching a preacher on tv. I don't know much about it, but she's mentioned it a few times. It gives her an outlet, makes her feel better, inspires her to serve where she can, and it doesn't require that she go to a local church which she doesn't want to do because of a horrible experience a few years ago where my uncle left her for the organist.
She, in turn, believes that Mormons are not Christians, all Mormon men are chauvinist, and that the Church is just barely better than a cult.
But she loves me, and my religion makes me very happy, and she respects that, and I do the same for her. I like it that way. My opinions on televengelists don't matter. I'd have to be selfish indeed to want to take that away from her.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
Javert, I agree with you. That is how the world should work. You don't have to agree with me to live next to me and for us to get along.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Brojack, Google "The Atheist Experience". It's a public access show out of Austin, TX that would probably be deemed "new atheism" by many people.
Last month they celebrated their 10th year on the air.
(It's a good show, btw, and a lot of their episodes are on Google Video. And since I'm not affiliated with them in any way, I don't feel too bad about shamelessly plugging them, hehe.)
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: As someone pointed out before, the issue isn't exactly hate, so much as pity
The issue is that pity and hate aren't very far from one another, and neither are exactly positive emotions.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:It is not that some atheists have taken on this "trait" recently. It is that the media both pro and con has been publicizing it more recently after a certain period of relative silence.
I don't think that's accurate. Dawkins himself has said that it is only since 9/11 that he's felt that it was imperative to challenge religious belief qua religious belief. There definitely has been a change in evangelical atheism in the past decade.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
Great point JH.
Mucus, A) It sounds like hate when someone who is clearly human is thought of as sub-human B) Whether they coined the phrase or not. They are not protesting it and it seems they have accepted it. What else do I call them in this thread where I am talking about how atheists are being so much more aggressive towards believers. C) I'm 32. For 31 years I heard nothing about this. Why now. Which was my original question.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:The issue is that pity and hate aren't very far from one another, and neither are exactly positive emotions.
I'm not sure that pity is exactly the right word, or it may just be that there are connotations to the word pity that make it hard to use it precisely.
I think the sentiment of the evangelical atheist is probably similar to that of the evangelical Christian - he thinks that he holds unique knowledge, the sharing of which is important. He hopes if he shares that knowledge in the right way that the people he shares it with will come around to his point of view and that their lives (or the lives of others) will be improved.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote: It sounds like hate when someone who is clearly human is thought of as sub-human
Who said that they were thought of as sub-human?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:They are not protesting it and it seems they have accepted it.
This is not true. I've seen on multiple occasions where one of the more prominent "new atheists" has expressed his displeasure with the term, but he still acknowledges it because he recognizes that by using it people are referring to him or his ilk.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: You know, my aunt goes to church on Sunday by watching a preacher on tv. I don't know much about it, but she's mentioned it a few times. It gives her an outlet, makes her feel better, inspires her to serve where she can, and it doesn't require that she go to a local church which she doesn't want to do because of a horrible experience a few years ago where my uncle left her for the organist.
She, in turn, believes that Mormons are not Christians, all Mormon men are chauvinist, and that the Church is just barely better than a cult.
But she loves me, and my religion makes me very happy, and she respects that, and I do the same for her. I like it that way. My opinions on televengelists don't matter. I'd have to be selfish indeed to want to take that away from her.
I was much happier before knowing the details about some of the suffering in the world, and how easily I could significantly help those in need. Didn't have to give up any of my wants, plus I didn't have to think about those without. Does that make it wrong, or selfish that others brought these facts to my attention, and then convincingly argued that I have a duty to help those in need?
Not exactly analogous, but I don't think it needs to be. Arguing for the truth isn't selfish - it's about giving them something, so that they can more rationally decide what's best for them. Sure, the truth sometimes hurts, but surely happy ignorance isn't a goal we should be shooting for? And, as a note, your aunt could probably get most of those things in a secular manner.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
On page 1 TomDavidson said pity can lead to dehumanizing. I misread this. My mistake. Still, don't pity me. I don't pity those who believe other than I do.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I don't pity those who believe other than I do.
You don't think there is something good that they are missing out on? Does your church do any sort of evangelical outreach or missionary work?
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
Yes they do. I do not. I know I am not following the direction of the bible by not reaching out to others, but I don't feel comfortable doing that. I didn't like working in sales for the same reason. If someone wants to ask me about my beliefs, then I am happy to share.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
brojack:
I want to commend you for the way you've been responding to this thread. You've been very positive, I think.
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:I don't pity those who believe other than I do.
You don't think there is something good that they are missing out on? Does your church do any sort of evangelical outreach or missionary work?
How are you defining pity, MattP?
When I was a missionary, I certainly didn't feel inspired out of pity. Mostly, I felt inspired by a sense of duty to God and love for my fellow human beings.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Scott R: I dunno. I pity people that have severe mental diseases (say schizophrenia) and I think they should get help, or at the least be given the ability to live better. I can't think of a reason why that would necessarily transcend to hate. I don't really see why pity is a negative emotion in this case either.
MrSquickly: There's a difference between "having" the trait (being aggressively atheist) and "publicizing" the trait. Dawkins was referring to the later. It is not so much that his beliefs changed, but he felt there was a greater need to have them heard.
Thats essentially the sentiment towards his "Out" campaign, not to make new atheists as much allow older atheists to come out, get organised, and be heard.
brojack: A) Sub-human? Explain. B) I doubt they have actively accepted it. I'm not even sure if most of the "New Atheists" are even aware of, or have expressed knowledge of this supposed label. C) I have no idea as to why you may be ignorant in one area or another. It would be hard for me to even guess without looking at how you were educated and what books you read/news you access.
All I can say is that I can easily point at many people from Douglas Adams, Isaac Asimov, Dan Dennett, and Richard Dawkins that have been writing much the same sentiments for decades before now, let alone *one year.*
Heck, at this date, even The God Delusion has been out for more than a year.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
It does need to be exactly analogous - you've given quite a loaded comparison there, and then admitted it doesn't apply.
Could you come up with a comparison that is accurate?
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
Scott R, I did get attle mad about the pity dehumanizing thing and made a bad comment about Hitler and bin Laden.
I started this not the flame Atheists, but to ask why.
Thanks for the kind words.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: On page 1 TomDavidson said pity can lead to dehumanizing. I misread this. My mistake. Still, don't pity me. I don't pity those who believe other than I do.
Ah, I think that makes more sense. "Can lead to" is a big difference from "is leading to" and is yet another jump to "always leads to". Thats probably the root of the confusion on that one.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Dawkins himself has said that it is only since 9/11 that he's felt that it was imperative to challenge religious belief qua religious belief.
The trouble with "New Atheism" is that its method of fighting back against religious belief is to create a faith that looks and functions just like religious belief, except which builds itself upon unprovable human assumptions rather than unprovable religious revelation. I don't think there's anything really "New" about it though - the Communists felt pretty much the same way when they had their movement decades ago. I think always has been a sort of split between passive atheism and active atheism.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:C) I'm 32. For 31 years I heard nothing about this. Why now. Which was my original question.
I'm 28 and I learn something new almost every day that I have been ignorant about the majority of my life. The reasons for each specific thing I have been ignorant of are too complex and nuanced to have one broad answer for why I never heard anything about them before. It's the human condition. We know about what we are exposed to and what we choose to pursue ourselves.
Atheism is in no way new. But all the media attention it's getting *is* new. Why is it getting all this media attention? Maybe atheists have been more vocal since 9/11. Maybe religious turmoil has progressed to a point where these issues have been brought into more of a public light. Maybe it's a reaction to the legislative goals of the religious right. Maybe it's the advance of scientific knowledge and understanding of the universe and our place in it and how that relates to our contradicts religious dogma. And with the new possibilities that technology allows, previously hypothetical ethical questions have been brought to the forefront.
Again, there have always been atheists. Science and religion have always been at odds when trying to explain the universe. Why you are hearing about it more now is an amalgamation of many different elements, but I think much of the attention it has been getting recently is largely due to a more vocal reaction by atheists to current events influenced by religious beliefs.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I pity people that have severe mental diseases (say schizophrenia) and I think they should get help, or at the least be given the ability to live better. I can't think of a reason why that would necessarily transcend to hate. I don't really see why pity is a negative emotion in this case either.
I pity the fool...
Still don't see ANY negative connotations to the word "pity?"
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
Mucus,
A)
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: On page 1 TomDavidson said pity can lead to dehumanizing. I misread this. My mistake. Still, don't pity me. I don't pity those who believe other than I do.
C) Would you mind using another word? Ignorant has a negative connotation to it and I take offense to it. My whole reason for this thread was to become more informed as to why some atheists seem to hate me.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:How are you defining pity, MattP?
A pretty literal dictionary definition, such as I just found online.
"a feeling of sympathy and sorrow for the misfortunes of others"
I guess the offense comes from the implication that someone's deeply held views may be a "misfortune." But I don't think this sentiment is any different than how a religious person feels about someone from another religion (or no religion) who does not yet know the real truth which they hold.
As I said, I think pity is a difficult word to use here. Even if technically accurate, it carries a lot of baggage.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Science and religion have always been at odds when trying to explain the universe.
Always is a big word. I don't think you meant to use it here.
Religion and science have only recently (in terms of the history of humankind) been viewed as mutually exclusive.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Dawkins himself has said that it is only since 9/11 that he's felt that it was imperative to challenge religious belief qua religious belief.
The trouble with "New Atheism" is that its method of fighting back against religious belief is to create a faith that looks and functions just like religious belief, except which builds itself upon unprovable human assumptions rather than unprovable religious revelation. I don't think there's anything really "New" about it though - the Communists felt pretty much the same way when they had their movement decades ago. I think always has been a sort of split between passive atheism and active atheism.
What unproven human assumptions is atheism building itself upon?
How is atheism a "faith".
Can we stop pretending that the USSR's atheism had anything to do with it's actions. It was an atheistic totalitarian government. The problem was the totalitarianism, not the atheism.
And before you can respond, I'm sure you or someone will say that "if atheism isn't to blame for Communist Russia then religion isn't to blame for (enter your choice here)."
But that is wrong, because atheism and religion aren't opposites. Atheism is the opposite of theism. Neither has been the cause for any crimes that I'm aware of.
Religion and secular philosophies, however, are both guilty of some bad stuff through the ages.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: It does need to be exactly analogous - you've given quite a loaded comparison there, and then admitted it doesn't apply.
Could you come up with a comparison that is accurate?
It doesn't need to be analogous, because I'm not arguing by analogy. That was simply an example to make the point I related further down more clear. Arguing for the truth, because it is the truth, is not selfish. It's a good thing. Someone who knows the truth can act in a better, more informed manner. If your aunt isn't mentally mature enough to handle the truth, then she's like the child & Santa - but then I'd also say she's not mentally mature enough to do a lot of things we require adults to do.
If you want to be patted on the head like a child, and not have your beliefs challenged, because you're happier with your current worldview, that's nice. It also means that you shouldn't be surprised if you're treated like a child generally. Again, choosing happiness over truth isn't a goal we should be aiming for.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:It is a collection of substantial and thoughtful articles by experts in the field, grouped under ten headings covering everything from the relationship of science and religion to the approaches taken by specific religious traditions, from alchemy to chemistry to materialism to spiritualism. Ferngren (history, Oregon State Univ.) and his coeditors take the stand that the historical relationship between science and religion follows a complex model rather than the popularly understood model of unalterable conflict.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:Someone who knows the truth can act in a better, more informed manner.
You haven't established that your beliefs are the truth.
Are you claiming you can prove a negative now? You are claiming to know the Truth with a capital T and that by spreading this Truth you will bring peace and enlightenment?
Tell me again what makes you different?
"Patted on the head like a child" "Not mentally mature enough"? This is what you think of mutual respect? This is what you think of religion?
The contempt rolls off of you, and it reflects only on your own ignorance, not on the object of your arrogant scorn.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Science and religion have always been at odds when trying to explain the universe.
Always is a big word. I don't think you meant to use it here.
Religion and science have only recently (in terms of the history of humankind) been viewed as mutually exclusive.
Then I'll amend it to say that the scientific method and a religious world view *can* be and mostly *are* at odds with each other. But before the scientific method, I'll still say that religion was mostly at odds with any questioning of the universe that contradicted or threatened religious dogma.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:As in, the last 200 years.
That's clearly not an accurate timeframe. You may want to at least go back to the Enlightenement or Galileo.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
You may want to the same yourself. The popular conception of the railing against Galileo being primarily motivated by religous objections rather than personal politics is wrong.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:The contempt rolls off of you, and it reflects only on your own ignorance, not on the object of your arrogant scorn.
kat, You've been the queen of unacknowledged irony this whole thread, but man, you've just outdone yourself.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:The popular conception of the railing against Galileo being primarily motivated by religous objections rather than personal politics is wrong.
Do you know much about that time? Because it doesn't sound like you do. The Church persecuted not just Galileo, but many other who taught Copernican cosmology. It was clearly identified as a threat to religious belief.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Squicky, you've been doing so well up until now. Don't ruin it.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo:
quote:Someone who knows the truth can act in a better, more informed manner.
You haven't established that your beliefs are the truth.
Are you claiming you can prove a negative now? You are claiming to know the Truth with a capital T and that by spreading this Truth you will bring peace and enlightenment?
Tell me again what makes you different?
As I stated on my second post on page 3, I am not claiming to prove a negative. And no, I'm not claiming to know Truth, and I certainly don't know how to bring peace & enlightenment, or I'd be implementing that plan already.
I do believe I know the truth about the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, just as you believe you know the existence. And I'm willing to argue for my stance, just like Christians (as instructed in the Bible) try to spread their faith. Except that my position isn't built on faith, and I'm perfectly willing to be convinced otherwise, if someone can bring a reasonable argument to the table that solves the problem of evil. Since no one has done that, I'll keep my stance, and try to convince others to take it. If they don't want to believe in my truth, that's fine. At least they'll be better informed, and, thus, be able to act in a better and more reasoned manner.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: You've been the queen of unacknowledged irony this whole thread, but man, you've just outdone yourself.
You haven't.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Squicky, you've been doing so well up until now.
You have not, and despite what you seem to think, people can tell. Stop being nasty and disrespectful.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Do you know much? It was more complex than simply banning all Copernican cosmology, and writing and publication of the original book and then its corrections (with Galileo's agreement) (which, by the way, not a simply censorship but a request that a statement saying, essentially, "We don't know for sure" be added) and then his prosecution was separated by a span of twenty years, and the prosecution was most likely personally motivated by the personal fallout between the pope and Galileo. Go read up on it again on something other than wikipedia.
Also, this is a decent thread. Grind your personal axes somewhere else.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Do you know much?
Yes, I do. I don't know if it is still around, but there's actually an in-depth Hatrack thread on this very issue that I was a major participant in.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:What unproven human assumptions is atheism building itself upon?
How is atheism a "faith".
It is built upon a basic prejudice towards the notion that "Whatever can't be proven probably isn't true." You can word this basic idea in many different ways that would alter the meaning slightly, but without some version of that assumption, atheism of any sort collapses into either agnosticism or theism.
And the thing is, there really isn't any proof of that assumption - in fact, things that can't be proven literally turn out to be true every day. But people tend to accept the assumption anyway, because it feels like a good guideline for judging beliefs. Atheism is built pretty much entirely on faith in that particular human assumption.
quote:Atheism is the opposite of theism. Neither has been the cause for any crimes that I'm aware of.
Religion and secular philosophies, however, are both guilty of some bad stuff through the ages.
True, but I think "New Atheism" specifically probably counts as a secular philosophy, or at least a class of secular philosophies. "New Atheism" is more than just "atheism", no?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Squicky, then a more sohpisticated understanding of the affair of Galileo should be coming forth from you.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:in fact, things that can't be proven literally turn out to be true every day.
If they can't be proven, how do you know? And how about some examples?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Since you edited while I was posting...
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo:
quote:Someone who knows the truth can act in a better, more informed manner.
"Patted on the head like a child" "Not mentally mature enough"? This is what you think of mutual respect? This is what you think of religion?
The contempt rolls off of you, and it reflects only on your own ignorance, not on the object of your arrogant scorn.
Those remarks were not made against those who hold religious views, but against those who hold religious views and are unwilling to have those beliefs even challenged by argumentation. I'll quote the relevant passages again, in full context, with some bolding to make the meaning even clearer:
quote:If your aunt isn't mentally mature enough to handle the truth, then she's like the child & Santa - but then I'd also say she's not mentally mature enough to do a lot of things we require adults to do.
quote:If you want to be patted on the head like a child, and not have your beliefs challenged, because you're happier with your current worldview, that's nice.
Note that these are all conditional statements - I don't know your aunt, and I don't know you all that (edit: well) either. Yes, I do have contempt for adults who are unwilling to hear opposing viewpoints that challenge their beliefs, because they're happy as they are. And yes, I do think that being able to handle the truth, whatever it may be, is a requirement of a mature, mentally-healthy adult.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Squicky, then a more sohpisticated understanding of the affair of Galileo should be coming forth from you.
Err...no, it shouldn't. I provided all the things necessary to refute your claim. That it was complex doesn't get rid of the conflcit between science and religion, which, as I said, was explicitly noted in Church documents of the persecution of various other people who taught Copernicism.
Nor does it get rid of the Enlightement, the premire age when Science and Religion were in conflict, which fell completely out of the timeframe you posited.
edit to add the quote
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:in fact, things that can't be proven literally turn out to be true every day.
If they can't be proven, how do you know? And how about some examples?
Ahhh KoM,
I was wondering when you were going to come on board. Have you read up on everthing that has happened so far?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I am trying to have a civil dialogue. I did get offended when I was told some of these new atheists thought I was sub-human. That hate speak sounds a lot like Hitler and Osama bin Laden. I made that connection.
I guess this "New Civil Dialogue" includes casually throwing out pejorative association to, uh, monsters and tyrants. Or, you know, make hypothetical considerations of their upcoming 9/11 attempts.
I know there's plenty of offense you are not intending. That is okay. That is a separate issue. It doesn't have any effect upon the generalizations that are unfair and present within your attempt to analyze 'atheism' as a concrete unit.
Always remember: atheism is a group only in the loosest sense. It is a group that is defined purely by what they don't believe in. Even "New Atheists" cannot be painted with a wide brush, especially when one is trying to assert their emotional impulses, like as in how they "hate" theists.
I can't speak for atheists at all really but I would assume that the action from New Atheism is a reaction to religious encroachments in a secular government. You have more action against that, more vocalism. Does not mean hate!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I don't really see why pity is a negative emotion in this case either.
I pity the fool... Still don't see ANY negative connotations to the word "pity?"
Sure, I see the connotations "in your case". I already accounted for that, which is why I said "in this case" at the end of my example.
brojack: I meant ignorant just by definition, as in a lack of knowledge. Does uneducated or unread work better?
In any case, the important thing is that you understand my meaning. You are uneducated when it comes the the history of these sentiments and how long they have been around.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
brojack, I haven't seen an acknowledgement from you that so-called new atheists don't, by and large HATE people who believe in a higher being. Heck, you still haven't said that they aren't really like Hitler.
Do you still hold these beliefs?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:If they can't be proven, how do you know? And how about some examples?
Well, it looked cloudy today so I thought it might rain. I couldn't prove it, but guessed it would happen anyway. And then it rained.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Squick, you haven't. If you claim that enmity bettween a religion and science was the motivation behind the persecution of Galileo, then you're missing both larger context and specific details.
So...you know so much, how about you provide them?
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:I am trying to have a civil dialogue. I did get offended when I was told some of these new atheists thought I was sub-human. That hate speak sounds a lot like Hitler and Osama bin Laden. I made that connection.
I guess this "New Civil Dialogue" includes casually throwing out pejorative association to, uh, monsters and tyrants. Or, you know, make hypothetical considerations of their upcoming 9/11 attempts.
I know there's plenty of offense you are not intending. That is okay. That is a separate issue. It doesn't have any effect upon the generalizations that are unfair and present within your attempt to analyze 'atheism' as a concrete unit.
Always remember: atheism is a group only in the loosest sense. It is a group that is defined purely by what they don't believe in. Even "New Atheists" cannot be painted with a wide brush, especially when one is trying to assert their emotional impulses, like as in how they "hate" theists.
I can't speak for atheists at all really but I would assume that the action from New Atheism is a reaction to religious encroachments in a secular government. You have more action against that, more vocalism. Does not mean hate!
I posted without thinking and have apologized for that. Dehumanizing someone is bad but I read it as thinking they were sub-human. That offended me and I commented. If, in fact, atheists feel believers are sub-human, then I feel that could lead to discrimination or worse. Both Hitler and bin Laden think/thought other groups of people are/were sub-human and should not be allowed to live.
Again I apologize for reacting to what I thought was a general concept.
Edit: MrS, does this help. I am not trying to generalize atheists.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Tres: I think it's more like "That which lacks evidence and contridicts itself over and over probably isn't true."
It's not simply that the christian god can't be proven, but the complete lack of evidence outside a 2000 year old book. A book with glaring inconsistancies that would have us rolling our eyes if it were a TV show.
That doesn't make atheism a faith. Just as science isn't a faith. And logic isn't a faith.
This is just another obnoxious semantic argument.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Dehumanizing someone is bad
It seems like you think that "New Atheists" as a group dehumanize believers. Would that be an accurate statement? Because I don't think that is true either.
edit: Also, do you think they still HATE?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Again I apologize for reacting to what I thought was a general concept.
I dismissed that. I went out of my way to say that I was not going to make an issue of the whole hitler9/11 thing. What I'm concerned about on the whole is whether you're going to address the whole point where motives are inferred. As hate. Where 'some conversations' get turned into 'all' and the psychology and motives of others are neatly presented to them. It's the exact same issue when a Christian is told that they hold their faith 'because they're stupid!'
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:If they can't be proven, how do you know? And how about some examples?
Well, it looked cloudy today so I thought it might rain. I couldn't prove it, but guessed it would happen anyway. And then it rained.
That theory is falsifiable and is based off of existing evidence.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Tres: I think it's more like "That which lacks evidence and contridicts itself over and over probably isn't true."
Well, no - only certain beliefs about deities contradict themselves. For instance, one might say it is impossible for a God to exist that is both ominpotent and omnibenevolent. But there plenty of religions with gods for which that is not the case.
Athiesm usually goes beyond just saying the Christian God doesn't exist; atheism says NO deity exists, of any sort. The mere concept of a god of any sort does not contradict itself, so you couldn't say atheism is derived from contradictions.
quote:That theory is falsifiable and is based off of existing evidence.
True, but so is theism - although you would have to wait until dead to falsify it, just as I had to wait to see if it would rain. But my theory about rain and theism are both unprovable.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Dehumanizing someone is bad
It seems like you think that "New Atheists" as a group dehumanize believers. Would that be an accurate statement? Because I don't think that is true either.
edit: Also, do you think they still HATE?
I would say the lady on the CNN show last night HATES believers. I also feel the three writers, as well as the author of the article in Wired, HATE believers.
quote:The New Atheists will not let us off the hook simply because we are not doctrinaire believers. They condemn not just belief in God but respect for belief in God. Religion is not only wrong; it's evil. Now that the battle has been joined, there's no excuse for shirking.
. Those were the two sources of atheism I had prior to this thread. Since then, I have learned that "New Atheism" is a made up word. It is not an organization.
I have no issue with atheists believing the way they do. That is their porogative. My issue comes when because of their belief, they look down on me. Mutual respect, even through heated discussion, should be given by both sides. Thanks for everyones input.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: It's not simply that the christian god can't be proven, but the complete lack of evidence outside a 2000 year old book. A book with glaring inconsistancies that would have us rolling our eyes if it were a TV show.
That doesn't make atheism a faith. Just as science isn't a faith. And logic isn't a faith.
This is just another obnoxious semantic argument.
In other obnoxious semantic arguments, though it is usually conveniently grouped in one volume, Scripture is not "a book". It is really a collection of writings, some of which are considerably older than 2000 years, some of which are slightly younger, much of which had their origins in oral tradition. These writings were generally gathered together and "approved" a little over 1600 years ago.
They are also not the only evidence of God (who, BTW can't be disproven either). Human beings believed in God long before they wrote anything down. Faith is not based solely on Scripture. Faith came first. Scripture is a record of that experience of faith.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Atheists don't take for granted that some greater power is behind the scenes of everything, while theists do.
To an atheist, all of the following are just as likely with just as much evidence to support them: God, Allah, Vishnu, Zeus, Dagda, Ananansi, and even the Invisible Pink Unicorn or Flying Spaghetti Monster or any other such thing.
If the premise that there is some greater power is taken on faith, then there is nothing stopping you from believing an infinite number of other things or making up your own stories about reality (e.g. the universe is contained in a marble in an alien's toybox, there are portals from this world to the real world of Aslan in Narnia, we're just living in the Matrix, etc.)
Theists have picked one story and have faith in it, often denying the veracity of any of the other stories (always denying the existence of the IPU or FSM... at least I hope always).
To an atheist, the "stories" are all the same - with the same likelihood of truth.
There is no need to "disprove" the existence of god to an atheist, just as there is no need to "disprove" the existence of the FSM or of Anubis or of Aslan or of Sauron.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:But my theory about rain and theism are both unprovable.
Your theory about rain is a probability, that is, you believe in a certain probability that it will rain, a probability which is certainly provable. A belief in God is usually more than a mere probability of His existence.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:To an atheist, all of the following are just as likely with just as much evidence to support them: God, Allah, Vishnu, Zeus, Dagda, Ananansi, and even the Invisible Pink Unicorn or Flying Spaghetti Monster or any other such thing.
A theist, though, might have more subjective evidence for one of these than for the others.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:A theist, though, might have more subjective evidence for one of these than for the others.
Well sure, but the ancient Greeks had subjective evidence for Olympian gods, too. An atheist doesn't see a distinction.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
He only has true evidence if he has reason to believe what the deity shows/tells him. I sense a circular argument coming on...
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I would say that subjective evidence would probably not be good enough for your average atheist. If someone told me they were "touched by the FSM's noodly appendage" - that's not enough to prove its existence.
And writings of others who believe in something do not quite hold water, either. Otherwise, one could point to any work of historical fiction as being historical fact, or any book of fiction as being nonfiction. The only difference between them, in an atheistic point of view, is that some people believe in a book written by one person and not in a book written by another.
Some people in England's census considered their religion as "Jedi" - but that doesn't mean George Lucas was a prophet.
Theists have the weight of the belief of millions behind their chosen "story" (again in an atheist POV), but in an atheistic sense the phrase "Just because you *want* something to be true doesn't *make* it true" comes into play.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: I would say the lady on the CNN show last night HATES believers. I also feel the three writers, as well as the author of the article in Wired, HATE believers.
What is the name of the lady?
For the record, the three writers are Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett. If you had picked Christopher Hitchens, I could maybe believe your claim that he hates believers.
As it stands, you're going to have to show at least some evidence for your belief.
PS: BTW, hating God (or rather, the fictional character known as God) or hating religion is very different from hating believers. i.e. "Hate the sin, love the sinner" and all that Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Jhai,
quote:He only has true evidence if he has reason to believe what the deity shows/tells him. I sense a circular argument coming on...
Sure, it may rest on circular arguments, but a circular argument isn't necessarily a false one.
FC,
quote:I would say that subjective evidence would probably not be good enough for your average atheist. If someone told me they were "touched by the FSM's noodly appendage" - that's not enough to prove its existence.
Of course it's not enough, nor did I say it should be. Rather, my point was merely that to an individual, his subjective evidence might favor one particular belief over an other.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: [QB]
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I don't really see why pity is a negative emotion in this case either.
I pity the fool... Still don't see ANY negative connotations to the word "pity?"
Sure, I see the connotations "in your case". I already accounted for that, which is why I said "in this case" at the end of my example.
Huh?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Brojack, if you think Dawkins hates believers then you haven't read any of his books. Watch this interview:
The two have collaborated in the past on issues related to the teaching of science in the classroom.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:That theory is falsifiable and is based off of existing evidence.
True, but so is theism - although you would have to wait until dead to falsify it, just as I had to wait to see if it would rain. But my theory about rain and theism are both unprovable.
If theism is wrong then we will never know because we will be dead. Its not falsifiable.
Hypothesis is probably a better term for the rain prediction (my fault). Regardless, it is easily provable. If it rains then your prediction will be proven correct. If not then it will be proven incorrect. A more general theory, such as, "it will generally rain if it is cloudy" can be analyzed using existing evidence.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Sure, it may rest on circular arguments, but a circular argument isn't necessarily a false one.
No, but it's also not a logically coherent one. It has no more value than an unsupported assertion.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus: Jhai,
quote:He only has true evidence if he has reason to believe what the deity shows/tells him. I sense a circular argument coming on...
Sure, it may rest on circular arguments, but a circular argument isn't necessarily a false one.
Uh... A circular argument, also known as the logical fallacy of begging the question, renders an argument invalid. The premises may be true, and the conclusion may be true, but the argument certainly is not "true." You'll get nowhere arguing with an invalid argument; it will never lead to a sound conclusion. Without a valid argument to connect the evidence to the conclusion, all the evidence in the world won't be helpful.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus:
quote:He only has true evidence if he has reason to believe what the deity shows/tells him. I sense a circular argument coming on...
Sure, it may rest on circular arguments, but a circular argument isn't necessarily a false one.
A circular argument is invalid even if the theory it is supposed to be arguing for is correct.
EDIT: Jhai beat me
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
It's okay - MattP beat me.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: I would say the lady on the CNN show last night HATES believers. I also feel the three writers, as well as the author of the article in Wired, HATE believers.
What is the name of the lady?
For the record, the three writers are Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett. If you had picked Christopher Hitchens, I could maybe believe your claim that he hates believers.
As it stands, you're going to have to show at least some evidence for your belief.
PS: BTW, hating God (or rather, the fictional character known as God) or hating religion is very different from hating believers. i.e. "Hate the sin, love the sinner" and all that
I don't know who she was. I tried looking up the interview this morning, but I could not find anything. It was around the same time that Whoopi called in to clear her name about calling George Bush a C*nt. She was the leader of some athiest organization. If I find out, I will let you know.
I don't know how I can prove if these people hate believers. Their words seem to be the only evidence. What do you call it when people refuse to allow people to have their own beliefs without reprocussion.
As of right now, you have not convienced me to change my beliefs to athiesm and I haven't convienced you to change to Christianity (although this was not our intention), but we have learned something about eachother and have done so, for the most part, in a civil manner. Therefore, I can clearly state brojack17 does not hate Mucus and Mucus does not hate brojack17.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:What do you call it when people refuse to allow people to have their own beliefs without reprocussion.
The crusades? Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I understand, camus.
As for the "pity" idea, I don't know if that's really the right word.
I'd imagine that an atheist sees a theist as someone who is willfully deluding themselves or someone who is simply not aware of a delusion.
I wouldn't imagine an atheist would pity children who believe in Santa or the Tooth Fairy, or pity a student who has not yet learned something.
Though I can see the "pity" emotion toward someone who is refusing to learn something, to what the atheist perceives as their detriment.
For instance, I have pitied students of mine who refused to learn math that had parents who reinforced their resistance by saying that math wasn't worth anything anyway. If an atheist were to see a theist in that light, I could understand the usage of "pity".
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:A circular argument, also known as the logical fallacy of begging the question, renders an argument invalid. The premises may be true, and the conclusion may be true, but the argument certainly is not "true." You'll get nowhere arguing with an invalid argument; it will never lead to a sound conclusion. Without a valid argument to connect the evidence to the conclusion, all the evidence in the world won't be helpful.
True, you could never use such an argument to convince someone else of a belief. Likewise, pointing out that someone's belief seems circular in reasoning does not in itself prove the premise or the conclusion to be wrong, just that it can't be proven to someone else. And I think that's how I feel about many religious/spiritual ideas; certain ideas may be useful to individuals, but it gets more difficult when they are applied to other people.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
No, I don't think you understand what an invalid argument means. It means that there is NO logical connection between the premises and the conclusion. Unless you've completely thrown logic out of your thought process, you can't convince yourself through a circular argument (once you realized it was circular). Here's an example of an invalid circular argument, from Descartes' Meditations (although not his famous one):
1. God has all perfections 2. Existence is a perfection 3. Therefore, God has existence
The argument is circular because the first premise requires God to exist (in order to actually posses all the perfections) - which is the conclusion. Once you recognize that this is an invalid argument, you can't use it to convince yourself through reason that God exists. You may have other reasons for believing God exists, or you may just take it on blind faith, but this argument will never allow you or anyone else to reason from the premises to the conclusion.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Scott R: I'll elaborate and rephrase. You initially noted that hate and pity are close and may lead to each other hence your distaste for atheists pitying theists. Also, you mentioned that neither are positive emotions. I responded that I pity people suffering from schizophrenia. However, I see no way in which my pity would expand to hatred of the whole group. I could however see ways in which it would lead to compassion and aid. I used the words "in this case" specifically to note that while there are cases where pity is negative, it is not in this case.
Furthermore, this is the parallel that Dawkins used for "The God Delusion". How do we treat mental disorders? We use education and awareness. Do we hate people with mental disorders or want to kill them? No. Do we want to eventually have a word free of mental disorders? Yes. Do we physically harm people to free them of mental disorders? No (unless they pose an immediate danger to themselves or others)
You then mentioned that Mr. T used the word pity in a negative way. This in no way contradicts my previous statement about schizophrenia, its specifically a different case.
brojack:
quote: Their words seem to be the only evidence. What do you call it when people refuse to allow people to have their own beliefs without reprocussion.
If their words are the only repercussion, I would call it a debate? An argument?
The important thing I was asking though: show us the words that you are specifically referring to. Maybe you were missing context when you made your judgement.
FlyingCow:
That description seems pretty close to where I'm at. Out of curiosity, what other atheist positions would you contrast that with?
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
Ok, debate or argument then. I think there is, in many cases, an utter disrespect for those who believe.
BTW, the transcript from last nights show is on-line now. You find it here or read it below.
The ladies name is Ellen Johnson, and she is the president of American Atheists. She doesn't come across that well here. Although, I don't completely disagree with her. Maybe the governor should have had the prayer vigil at a park or church. But then again, protesters can use the steps of the capital, so why not.
quote: (COMMERCIAL BREAK) SANCHEZ: Welcome back. Here's another one. Tonight, that's him by the way, Georgia Governor Sonny Purdue. He's being ridiculed for holding a prayer vigil on the steps of the state capitol. Now, what the governor's praying for is rain. From the heavens. For his state. That is stricken with a serious drought. Here's what he said. Here's how it went.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. SONNY PURDUE, (R) GA: I'm here today to appeal to you, and to all georgians and all people who believe in the power of prayer, to ask God to shower our state, our region, our nation, with the blessings of water.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Now, a group of demonstrators turned out to protest Purdue's appeal to God on state property. Joining me now is somebody who sympathizes with these protesters. Ellen Johnson, president of American Atheists. How could you possibly be offended by somebody's wanting to pray? What's wrong with that.
ELLEN JOHNSON, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN ATHEIST: Well, it's not his wanting to pray. It's aside from the serious constitutional problem here, you cannot use the power and prestige of the governor's office to engage in prayer rituals and conjure the spirit world. You can't do that. But I know that a lot of people look at this and say, oh, it's just those wacky Bible Belters, they do it in Oklahoma, they do it in Georgia, Alabama. Okay, it is -- but it's more than just those wacky Bible Belters. I am so up to here with these idiot religious people in America doing things -- it's not just this.
SANCHEZ: But here's any problem with your argument right away. The fact that you're using word wacky, what's so wacky about believing in a supreme being? Whether it's Jesus or whoever?
JOHNSON: The fact that you have to even ask the question. It's not just that. Across America, we have idiotic Christian polygamists driving their sons to the edge of town in the middle of the night and dropping them off. They're called the lost boys.
SANCHEZ: OK, hold on.
JOHNSON: We have Christian scientists ...
SANCHEZ: You're going to all the worst -- yes, there are bad people involved in religion. But that doesn't take away the fact that there's something really good and moral about me sitting down with my family every night and saying a prayer. And you can't take that away from me.
JOHNSON: No, this guy, this guy is conjuring the spirit world. I am so sick and tired of politicians ...
SANCHEZ: It's not the spirit world. First of all, he's outside the building. And he says, people invited were Jews, Christians, Muslims and Hindus. So anybody who wants to help ...
JOHNSON: It's 2007 and we're conjuring the spirit world? This is a Bronze Age mentality. I am sick and tired of politicians with this -- clamoring over each other to prove to the American public that they have the worst Bronze Age mentality.
SANCHEZ: You know what the problem is with this? This is where the loony left goes too far and chases away anybody who's in Middle America, who might have some perspective on things ...
JOHNSON: They're praying for rain and we're loony?
SANCHEZ: No, it's the idea that nobody has a right to believe in something just because you don't believe in it.
JOHNSON: You have the right to.
SANCHEZ: Respect their right to believe in this. That's all they're saying.
JOHNSON: I am just sick and tired of politicians acting like this idiot. There is no life after death. We weren't poofed into existence in some mythological Garden of Eden. And there are no miracles. There's no life after death.
SANCHEZ: You're just down on the whole thing and it is insulting to you, that this governor would do that, I get it.
JOHNSON: I'm sick and tired of politicians acting like intelligence is the equivalent of a four-letter word. Even presidential politicians.
SANCHEZ: Ellen Johnson, president of American Atheists, we appreciate your perspective and that's why we have it on.
JOHNSON: Thank you.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Athiesm usually goes beyond just saying the Christian God doesn't exist; atheism says NO deity exists, of any sort. The mere concept of a god of any sort does not contradict itself, so you couldn't say atheism is derived from contradictions.
Wrong.
Atheists might go beyond and say that no god or gods exist. Atheism, however, is the lack of a belief in a god. Not the belief in no god.
I don't believe in a god. I've seen no good evidence to support a god. The day I see good evidence, I will follow where it leads.
Atheism, in general, is the default belief. That is, when presented with a claim, the default is to not believe it unless there is evidence for it. Just to be clear, the default isn't "that claim is false!" The default is "I won't believe that claim until there's good enough evidence."
I think I may have repeated myself several times. Sorry about that.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
From the Wired article:
quote:...as Dawkins writes in The God Delusion, "As long as we accept the principle that religious faith must be respected simply because it is religious faith, it is hard to withhold respect from the faith of Osama bin Laden and the suicide bombers."
Note that he's rejecting respect for the beliefs, not the believers. That's what I see Johnson doing as well, although she is a bit more virulent then is necessary.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: The ladies name is Ellen Johnson, and she is the president of American Atheists. She doesn't come across that well here. Although, I don't completely disagree with her. Maybe the governor should have had the prayer vigil at a park or church. But then again, protesters can use the steps of the capital, so why not.
Yeah, not a fan of Ellen Johnson, but she does make some good points.
I think another issue, Brojack, is that this is the governor who is leading this. Despite the fact that he's a private citizen, he also represents the government, and this can be seen as the promotion of religion by the government.
And while I wouldn't use the same language that Johnson used, I do find it kind of silly. It reminds me of a news story a month or two ago about a jet breaking down in India (I think it was India) and the crew sacrificed a goat to help get it working again.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
There is a difference between having respect for someones beliefs and respect for someones beliefs that infringe on the rights of others. My moment of silence or prayer vigil is not bringing physical harm and/or death to others.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: I think another issue, Brojack, is that this is the governor who is leading this. Despite the fact that he's a private citizen, he also represents the government, and this can be seen as the promotion of religion by the government.
I do agree with you. We have a law that seperates church and state, therefore, the governor should not have done that. I think the Rabbi's, Clerics, Priests, and Preachers could have had the prayer vigil in the exact same location (with a permit) and the governor could have attended and not much would have been said.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:But then again, protesters can use the steps of the capital, so why not.
Did the governor go through the same permit application and approval process required for protesters? Is he really acting as a citizen here, or is he taking advantage of his office?
Posted by Zenox (Member # 8987) on :
There is no evidence that there is not a god, so shouldn't these "new atheists" hate themselves for fervently believing something through the faith. How is having faith in the lack of a god any different from having faith in god?
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: Brojack, if you think Dawkins hates believers then you haven't read any of his books. Watch this interview:
The two have collaborated in the past on issues related to the teaching of science in the classroom.
Interesting. I would consider reading his book, but it will probably be next summer before I can get to it. My only concern is how the book comes across. Does it state a belief and his counter-point-of-view or is it "Christians are stupid because..."?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zenox: There is no evidence that there is not a god, so shouldn't these "new atheists" hate themselves for fervently believing something through the faith. How is having faith in the lack of a god any different from having faith in god?
There's also no evidence that there are no leprechauns.
Should I hate myself for not believing in them either?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:I do agree with you. We have a law that seperates church and state, therefore, the governor should not have done that. I think the Rabbi's, Clerics, Priests, and Preachers could have had the prayer vigil in the exact same location (with a permit) and the governor could have attended and not much would have been said.
Well there you go. I would not have a problem with that at all.
I agree with what Ellen Johnson was upset about, but I think she went about addressing those concerns in not only a non-productive way, but in a way harmful to her cause by being so nasty. She should have stuck to the issues instead of attacking beliefs.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:But then again, protesters can use the steps of the capital, so why not.
Did the governor go through the same permit application and approval process required for protesters? Is he really acting as a citizen here, or is he taking advantage of his office?
That I don't know. If he used his office, then that is bad. I think the others should have arranged everything and he could have attended.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Welcome to the party, Zenox. First, the burden of proof typically lies with person asserting the evidence of something. You tell me that unicorns exist, I ask you to prove it. It's not my job to prove that unicorns don't exist. If it were, there would be an infinite number of things that I would have to disprove.
Second, very few atheists will claim that there is 100% certainty that there is no God, although they often say something of a similar nature (as I did in this thread). This is because it is impossible to prove a negative. What one means by "there is not God" is simply that the probability of the existence of God is infinitesimally small. It's equivalent to the probability of there being fairies at the bottom of the garden. I don't believe in the fairies, even though I can't prove their nonexistence, and I don't believe in God either.
There's no faith going on here - as I have said a couple of times in this thread, I'm perfectly willing to accept the existence of a God, if someone will show me some decent proof. In the case of the Judeo-Christian God, I want a good solution to the problem of evil.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider:
quote:I do agree with you. We have a law that seperates church and state, therefore, the governor should not have done that. I think the Rabbi's, Clerics, Priests, and Preachers could have had the prayer vigil in the exact same location (with a permit) and the governor could have attended and not much would have been said.
Well there you go. I would not have a problem with that at all.
I agree with what Ellen Johnson was upset about, but I think she went about addressing those concerns in not only a non-productive way, but in a way harmful to her cause by being so nasty. She should have stuck to the issues instead of attacking beliefs.
Which was the reason I decided to post. She knew she was only going to have a minute and she came across as a hate monger. That made me think of the Wired article and post my original question... why the hatred?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: Which was the reason I decided to post. She knew she was only going to have a minute and she came across as a hate monger. That made me think of the Wired article and post my original question... why the hatred?
You'd have to ask Ellen Johnson. Thing is, there are innumerable reasons a person becomes an atheist. Sometimes the person really is angry at religion and that's what started them down the path. I would say that that's a minority of atheists, but it's there, and perhaps Johnson is one of them.
Or she thinks it's cool to be inflammatory. Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zenox: There is no evidence that there is not a god, so shouldn't these "new atheists" hate themselves for fervently believing something through the faith. How is having faith in the lack of a god any different from having faith in god?
You can do better than that...
The burden of proof in this case is solely on those who claim that God exists. This is better illustrated through an analogy. How is having believing that Santa doesn't exist any different from having faith that he does? If I claimed that a teapot was orbiting around the sun in the asteroid belt, could you disprove it? Does that mean our claims have equal merit?
Occam's razor can also be applied. Unless you can establish that God is required for some observable phenomenon in this universe then He can safely be eliminated from any theory without issue.
Posted by Zenox (Member # 8987) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Welcome to the party, Zenox. First, the burden of proof typically lies with person asserting the evidence of something. You tell me that unicorns exist, I ask you to prove it. It's not my job to prove that unicorns don't exist. If it were, there would be an infinite number of things that I would have to disprove.
Second, very few atheists will claim that there is 100% certainty that there is no God, although they often say something of a similar nature (as I did in this thread). This is because it is impossible to prove a negative. What one means by "there is not God" is simply that the probability of the existence of God is infinitesimally small. It's equivalent to the probability of there being fairies at the bottom of the garden. I don't believe in the fairies, even though I can't prove their nonexistence, and I don't believe in God either.
There's no faith going on here - as I have said a couple of times in this thread, I'm perfectly willing to accept the existence of a God, if someone will show me some decent proof. In the case of the Judeo-Christian God, I want a good solution to the problem of evil.
Thanks. I agree with you on all these points, they are more or less my views. But this does not really seem to be the case here - instead, this person is so rigid in her disbelief that it seems the same to me as those who are also as rigid in their belief. Opposite ends of the spectrum, but at the same extreme, and both ends taking for granted what the "new atheist" end appears to criticize.
Edit: I agree with the other views raised by other people. I am not saying that I agree with what I said - on the contrary, the logic I used for my previous comment was in the same system of the person in question, and I happen to disagree with her. If one is going to hate others for believing something without evidence, then I would certainly hope he/she would have evidence of his/her own. While it may be reasonable to assume, as the burden of evidence is on those who claim god exists, it is not reasonable to go to the extreme that she did. Hence, my statement.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: Which was the reason I decided to post. She knew she was only going to have a minute and she came across as a hate monger. That made me think of the Wired article and post my original question... why the hatred?
You'd have to ask Ellen Johnson. Thing is, there are innumerable reasons a person becomes an atheist. Sometimes the person really is angry at religion and that's what started them down the path. I would say that that's a minority of atheists, but it's there, and perhaps Johnson is one of them.
Or she thinks it's cool to be inflammatory.
I have found she is the minority here today. Thanks for restoring my faith in humanity. Ok, I know it's poor word choice. Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zenox: Thanks. I agree with you on all these points, they are more or less my views. But this does not really seem to be the case here - instead, this person is so rigid in her disbelief that it seems the same to me as those who are also as rigid in their belief. Opposite ends of the spectrum, but at the same extreme, and both ends taking for granted what the "new atheist" end appears to criticize.
We also have to question if she really meant what she was saying. Not trying to defend her, but I can understand how hard it is to respond to absolute claims (There is a god, Prayer works, There is an afterlife) with non-absolute counter arguments.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
How does it hurt her if people do believe in prayer? I can see the issue of the governor organizing the vigil, but she seemed to have the problem with prayer and God. She is the only person who brought up the afterlife.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: I have found she is the minority here today. Thanks for restoring my faith in humanity. Ok, I know it's poor word choice.
No worries.
Now, if you want a really cool president of an atheist organization, check out Margaret Downey. Definitely not angry or inflammatory (at least I never found her to be), and a seriously delightful woman.
Posted by Zenox (Member # 8987) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Zenox: Thanks. I agree with you on all these points, they are more or less my views. But this does not really seem to be the case here - instead, this person is so rigid in her disbelief that it seems the same to me as those who are also as rigid in their belief. Opposite ends of the spectrum, but at the same extreme, and both ends taking for granted what the "new atheist" end appears to criticize.
We also have to question if she really meant what she was saying. Not trying to defend her, but I can understand how hard it is to respond to absolute claims (There is a god, Prayer works, There is an afterlife) with non-absolute counter arguments.
It is hard to argue against such claims, as they are based on faith, not rationality. But the way to do it is not descending to the same level of irrationality.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
Over seven hours of discussion and more than 230 posts, and we never got too heated and PJ didn't shut us down. Good job everyone.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: How does it hurt her if people do believe in prayer? I can see the issue of the governor organizing the vigil, but she seemed to have the problem with prayer and God. She is the only person who brought up the afterlife.
I think you could make the argument that belief in prayer could hurt society. If everyone believed that prayer worked all the time, people would stop doing and just pray. Unlikely to ever happen, especially to that extreme, but the argument could be made.
She might have meant "supernatural" when she said "afterlife". Not sure.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zenox: It is hard to argue against such claims, as they are based on faith, not rationality. But the way to do it is not descending to the same level of irrationality.
I agree. I just thought somebody should try to defend her, at least a little bit. Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I wish the Governor would have brought a bull to sacrifice to the alter of Odin so that he would allow it to rain again. It's just the lack of equality of different faiths I find upsetting.
He could have thrown some teenagers into a cenote too, just to be fair. I mean, there are a lot better ways to get rain than by praying. If you aren't willing to back it up with action, why would the Lords of Heaven bother to listen?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:What do you call it when people refuse to allow people to have their own beliefs without reprocussion.
The crusades?
The Cultural Revolution? Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I wish the Governor would have brought a bull to sacrifice to the alter of Odin so that he would allow it to rain again. It's just the lack of equality of different faiths I find upsetting.
He could have thrown some teenagers into a cenote too, just to be fair. I mean, there are a lot better ways to get rain than by praying. If you aren't willing to back it up with action, why would the Lords of Heaven bother to listen?
Well, I'm hoping Odin is operating a pirate radio station and still gets reception. If you can't sacrifice a fatted calf and get instant feedback (and reading of entrails), then what the heck good is religion anymore?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Personally, I'm not atheistic, but instead agnostic.
In short, I plead ignorance.
I have not experienced a god, therefore I cannot say that a god exists.
This is not to say that there is no god - there very well may be - I just don't have enough to go on to believe that.
I've always seen atheism as a worldview that does not include the possibility or existence of a god.
I'm not quite that far down the spectrum, as I do accept the possibility. Then again, I also accept the possibility of faeries, ghosts, paranormal activity, and other such things.
I don't believe in them, but that doesn't mean they aren't out there. I'm pretty open that way.
I guess I believe that there is something unknown (unknowable?) that religion is trying its best to capture (poorly) in human terms. The scriptures are, to me, literature like any other historic text (not unlike Homer, I suppose) that touch on this idea.
People who rant and rave on one side or the other frustrate me - though I admit I find fundamentalist theists far more irritating/dangerous than zealous atheists.
This, of course, allows me to read C.S.Lewis and Philip Pullman with equal amounts of eye-rolling. Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Personally, I'm not atheistic, but instead agnostic.
In short, I plead ignorance.
I have not experienced a god, therefore I cannot say that a god exists.
This is not to say that there is no god - there very well may be - I just don't have enough to go on to believe that.
I've always seen atheism as a worldview that does not include the possibility or existence of a god.
I'm not quite that far down the spectrum, as I do accept the possibility. Then again, I also accept the possibility of faeries, ghosts, paranormal activity, and other such things.
I don't believe in them, but that doesn't mean they aren't out there. I'm pretty open that way.
I guess I believe that there is something unknown (unknowable?) that religion is trying its best to capture (poorly) in human terms. The scriptures are, to me, literature like any other historic text (not unlike Homer, I suppose) that touch on this idea.
People who rant and rave on one side or the other frustrate me - though I admit I find fundamentalist theists far more irritating/dangerous than zealous atheists.
This, of course, allows me to read C.S.Lewis and Philip Pullman with equal amounts of eye-rolling.
Hate to ruin your day FlyingCow, but you're an atheist.
One of us...one of us....one of us...
But seriously. Atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive. If you don't know or don't think we can know there is a god, you're an agnostic. If you don't believe that a god exists, you're an atheist.
Which makes me a super-amazing agnostic atheist. Welcome to the club.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote: Personally, I'm not atheistic, but instead agnostic.
:resists posting long (and probably boring to most) explanation why atheism and agnosticism are not polar opposites:
edit: and good thing since Javert summed it up so nicely.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: edit: and good thing since Javert summed it up so nicely.
It's what I'm here for. Posted by Zenox (Member # 8987) on :
Hmm... I agree with Flying Cow's definition that Atheism is an absolute rejection of the possibility of an existence of god. Which is why I consider myself agnostic... though I do doubt in the existence of god, I am open to the possibility. So I'm atheist-agnostic? Whatever, there doesn't have to be an exact definition for it.
I like Javert's way of defining them. By his definition, I am atheist and agnostic. I don't believe that a god exists, and I also don't think it is possible to know where or not there is a god.
So there. The kind of person who is the subject of this article seems to fit under a different classification. How exactly to classify that type of person, I'm not quite sure. Perhaps I only disagree with atheism when it is taken in the way this person did.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Can the belief that it is impossible to know whether or not there is a god be reasonably justified/defended?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Yes.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Heh...okay. Well, I was hoping for a little more elaboration.
My question is a completely honest one. My gut tells me this that at this moment, we can't make that kind of assumption, that we simply don't know.
But many intelligent people, theists and atheists alike, apparently believe it is impossible to know. I'd like to know how they justify that belief.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: But many intelligent people, theists and atheists alike, apparently believe it is impossible to know. I'd like to know how they justify that belief.
It depends on the god, and what the believers claim that the god can or cannot do.
Take it on a deity by deity basis.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: But many intelligent people, theists and atheists alike, apparently believe it is impossible to know. I'd like to know how they justify that belief.
From my perspective as an atheist I would say that if a God exists then it most likely does not interfere in the universe because such interference is not required to explain any modern phenomenon and would violate the laws of physics. However, I cannot reduce the theory any further than that. As it stands that theory can not be proven or disproven because a God that does not participate in our universe can clearly not be observed by any means.
Posted by Zenox (Member # 8987) on :
There is no evidence that a god exists. Therefore, either god covers evidence, leaves no evidence, or god doesn't exist. Or we have not found any evidence. From evidence, it is impossible to determine his existence. Nor has any other way been found to prove his existence. Making it impossible to know. This justifies agnosticism.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: But many intelligent people, theists and atheists alike, apparently believe it is impossible to know. I'd like to know how they justify that belief.
It depends on the god, and what the believers claim that the god can or cannot do.
Take it on a deity by deity basis.
Gotcha. Contradictions in specific definitions of what God is. Like those in Euthyphro.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: But many intelligent people, theists and atheists alike, apparently believe it is impossible to know. I'd like to know how they justify that belief.
From my perspective as an atheist I would say that if a God exists then it most likely does not interfere in the universe because such interference is not required to explain any modern phenomenon and would violate the laws of physics. However, I cannot reduce the theory any further than that. As it stands that theory can not be proven or disproven because a God that does not participate in our universe can clearly not be observed by any means.
I like that a lot. Pretty much what I think my gut was trying to tell me.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:
Now, if you want a really cool president of an atheist organization, check out Margaret Downey. Definitely not angry or inflammatory (at least I never found her to be), and a seriously delightful woman.
Man...I wish I could agree with you Javert. She really rubbed me the wrong way at the convention the other month. But I agree she's not at the same level as this other lady at all.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider:
quote:
Now, if you want a really cool president of an atheist organization, check out Margaret Downey. Definitely not angry or inflammatory (at least I never found her to be), and a seriously delightful woman.
Man...I wish I could agree with you Javert. She really rubbed me the wrong way at the convention the other month. But I agree she's not at the same level as this other lady at all.
Well, only going on my limited experience with her. I also seem to be able to get along with and like a lot of people that rub others the wrong way. Not sure how that works, heh.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote: If you don't know or don't think we can know there is a god, you're an agnostic.
That's me in a nutshell.
I don't know, and I don't think it's possible to know. I don't reject it out of hand and say "there is not" - but I don't have a specific god I can point to and say "there is".
There are too many parallel stories throughout the history of comparitive religion, from too disparate geographical areas, to say that all those stories are not rooted in something.
Do I think that any of the religions to date have figured out that "something"? No. Do I think we'll ever find out that "something"? Probably not, no.
I was raised Catholic and consider myself fully recovered. I delved into hardcore "there can be no god in a civilized, rational world" atheism and found it flat, then innoculated myself with about a year's worth of homebrewed wicca. I still have some fondness for the god/goddess dichotomy and the spiritual energy of nature, even though I don't believe in them, per se. They do still occupy a warm place in my heart, though - as do Ender, Frodo, etc.
I guess I still hold to the "And if it harm none, do as ye will" philosophy - but I also hold to "thou shalt not (murder)" without being Catholic anymore, either.
I don't reject the idea of a god, nor do I feel that just because something is unproven/unprovable that it automatically means it doesn't exist (e.g. love). I also don't embrace the idea of deity, nor do I feel that there just *has* to be a deity because of subjective evidence.
I don't know, and nothing in my life has moved me in one direction or the other.
I can empathize with moderates on both sides of the aisle, though extremists in either direction bother me (and I try to avoid them).
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
So Threads, would you be closer to the Clockmaker Hypothesis of Deism? I toyed around with that for a while, too, actually.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote: If you don't know or don't think we can know there is a god, you're an agnostic.
I don't absolutely know there is a god, but I have faith that there is and act accordingly (go to church, etc.) because that belief seems to fit the evidence the best. Does that make me agnostic or theist?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Jhai, I don't think anything I said contradicts what you said. In other words, I think we're arguing past each other.
FC, I think your last post on page 5 and the post above describes well my feelings on the matter, specifically this part:
quote:I guess I believe that there is something unknown (unknowable?) that religion is trying its best to capture (poorly) in human terms. The scriptures are, to me, literature like any other historic text (not unlike Homer, I suppose) that touch on this idea.
I'm hesitant to label this something as a god, but I do think it's something worth pursuing. If nothing else, at least we learn more about ourselves in the process.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:There is no evidence that a god exists.
Yes, there is. This evidence may lack certain characteristics and this lack makes it extremely inconclusive, but there is plenty of evidence that can be used to make a case for the existence of a god. That case may not be strong or compelling, but that doesn't mean that no evidence exists.
---
As an aside, how many people got or expect to get formal training in epistemology?
It seems to me like it is this incredibly important subject that is largely neglected in our educational system.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:There is no evidence that a god exists.
Yes, there is. This evidence may lack certain characteristics and this lack makes it extremely inconclusive, but there is plenty of evidence that can be used to make a case for the existence of a god. That case may not be strong or compelling, but that doesn't mean that no evidence exists.
I'd have to agree. There's evidence. Just not good evidence, especially when you consider the extraordinary nature of the claims made.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Squicky, most people don't actually care about epistemology, and think that you're crazy when you tell them their argument has a logical fallacy in it.
They don't know that it is an automatic "loss" as far as an argument goes, and don't appreciate you saying it. The worst I ever had to deal with was when I caught my brother in one, and called him on it, and I was the one accused of not being compassionate...
(I'm not saying this is a good thing, but I don't know that teaching epistemology in schools would make it any better, the amount of willful ignorance in this world is staggering)
[ November 15, 2007, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
That would depend on what qualifies as "good evidence" and what qualifies as "extraordinary". I would think that much of the evidence for god is pretty good (eyewitness accounts, personal experience, etc.) and that the claims made are somewhat extraordinary, but I really can't think of any explanations for our existence that aren't pretty extraordinary-sounding.
quote:As an aside, how many people got or expect to get formal training in epistemology?
*raises hand* Hooray for epistemology!
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: That would depend on what qualifies as "good evidence" and what qualifies as "extraordinary". I would think that much of the evidence for god is pretty good (eyewitness accounts, personal experience, etc.) and that the claims made are somewhat extraordinary, but I really can't think of any explanations for our existence that aren't pretty extraordinary-sounding.
A great riff on evidence is in Carl Sagan's "The Dragon in my Garage", and I think it might apply to this conversation.
Yes, I'm a dork.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I got epistemology - but I was a philosophy major. I don't think most people get the grounding they need in epistemology (or, really, philosophy in general). I'd be a lot happier if science majors had to take a philosophy of science course, all students had to take a REAL ethics course & a critical thinking/reading/writing/arguing course, etc. While I'm dreaming, lit majors should be exposed to some good old analytical philosophy, psychology and economics majors should have real stats courses, and comm majors shouldn't exist...
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
And while we're at it, philosophy and religion majors should have to take at least one advanced math course.
I will never forget someone going on and on about "quantum mechanics means . . ." in a theology class and when I commented that I didn't think anyone should be allowed to talk about what quantum mechanics "means" unless they'd had at least one caluculus class and someone else asked, and I quote, "What does math have to do with quantum mechanics?" Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote: If you don't know or don't think we can know there is a god, you're an agnostic.
I don't absolutely know there is a god, but I have faith that there is and act accordingly (go to church, etc.) because that belief seems to fit the evidence the best. Does that make me agnostic or theist?
Both. Theism/atheism says something about belief. Agnosticism says something about knowledge (or lack of knowledge) - hence the Greek root "gnosis". If you don't know, then you're agnostic. Period.
Of course, this likely describes all of us (obviously I can't know that no one knows), which makes the term pretty useless. But there you go.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
From my perspective as an atheist I would say that if a God exists then it most likely does not interfere in the universe because such interference is not required to explain any modern phenomenon and would violate the laws of physics.
I wonder if we should suspend judgment on this until we can examine the brain at a sufficiently detailed level to see whether the electrons, quarks, or whatnot are moving randomly or according to some "rational" pattern.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega M.:
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
From my perspective as an atheist I would say that if a God exists then it most likely does not interfere in the universe because such interference is not required to explain any modern phenomenon and would violate the laws of physics.
I wonder if we should suspend judgment on this until we can examine the brain at a sufficiently detailed level to see whether the electrons, quarks, or whatnot are moving randomly or according to some "rational" pattern.
Of course. But while we suspend judgment, the default position is to not believe. If and when the evidence appears, then we can go ahead and believe.
IMHO.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I wonder if we should suspend judgment on this until we can examine the brain at a sufficiently detailed level to see whether the electrons, quarks, or whatnot are moving randomly or according to some "rational" pattern.
What does it mean to suspend judgment? Do you start going to church every other Sunday? To paraphrase Dawkins, is God's existence a 50/50 proposition or is it reasonable to determine a probability greater or lower than that and act accordingly?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: So Threads, would you be closer to the Clockmaker Hypothesis of Deism? I toyed around with that for a while, too, actually.
I don't believe it so I guess no. The Clockmaker Hypothesis is impossible to prove or disprove assuming we constrain ourselves to the natural universe so I don't find the theory terribly meaningful.
EDIT: By "contrain ourselves to the natural universe" I mean that the Clockmaker Hypothesis cannot be proven while we are alive. It can only be proven if it is true and there is an afterlife that would show that it is true. It cannot be proven or disproven while we live.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega M.:
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
From my perspective as an atheist I would say that if a God exists then it most likely does not interfere in the universe because such interference is not required to explain any modern phenomenon and would violate the laws of physics.
I wonder if we should suspend judgment on this until we can examine the brain at a sufficiently detailed level to see whether the electrons, quarks, or whatnot are moving randomly or according to some "rational" pattern.
The only reason to suspend judgement would be if we did not know enough. We do know that such interference would violate the laws of the universe that we think exist, so my initial claim is supported assuming that the existing theories are correct. For example, God could be interfering in the universe through so-called quantum randomness. However, this would violate the theory that quantum randomness is pure randomness. It is also dubious because such interference would probably be noticed in experiments that test quantum mechanics. The idea that God is able to manipulate the universe through quantum randomness while at the same time ensuring that the randomness appears random (ie: fits all statistical tests for randomness) is highly dubious.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:However, this would violate the theory that quantum randomness is pure randomness.
Also, while individual "events" are random, they are predictable in the aggregate, in the same way that you can predict that out of 100 coin tosses, you'll get pretty darn close to 50 heads.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:From my perspective as an atheist I would say that if a God exists then it most likely does not interfere in the universe because such interference is not required to explain any modern phenomenon and would violate the laws of physics.
That isn't how science works, though. If scientists discover a phenomenon that is inconsistent with the current understanding of the laws of physics, the scientists don't conclude "God must be doing it." Instead, they would alter the laws of physics so the new phenomenon is no longer inconsistent with it. They would revise the model. At worst, they'd have to add a new force, or table the phenomenon for future explanation.
The reason why God is not required in any scientific models is because the scientific method limits and defines itself in such a way that, by definition, it never needs God as an explanation. If God were the one making gravity happen, or making the Strong Force happen, or making neurons behave randomly, science by definition could not discover it.
quote:But while we suspend judgment, the default position is to not believe.
There's that assumption again...
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:But while we suspend judgment, the default position is to not believe.
There's that assumption again...
You disagree? You think that, when we don't have enough evidence to prove something, we should go ahead and just believe it anyway?
Remember, saying "I don't believe this" is not the same as saying "This is wrong".
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:You disagree? You think that, when we don't have enough evidence to prove something, we should go ahead and just believe it anyway?
I think hope sometimes plays a role in what a person's default position of belief is. Granted, hope isn't really the best reason to start believing in things, but it isn't always a bad thing either.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:You think that, when we don't have enough evidence to prove something, we should go ahead and just believe it anyway?
I think that when there is absolutely no evidence to prove something exists, it is equally wise to believe either it does or does not exist - there is no default. And if there is some evidence, but not enough to prove something exists or does not exist, I think it is best to believe whichever thing seems more likely given the limited evidence you do have.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:You think that, when we don't have enough evidence to prove something, we should go ahead and just believe it anyway?
I think that when there is absolutely no evidence to prove something exists, it is equally wise to believe either it does or does not exist - there is no default.
You're wrong.
And I say that so absolutely because I am making the assumption that you don't believe in everything.
Concerning things that have no evidence for them, I would bet that you tend to not believe them, with the most notable exception being your religious beliefs.
And it is certainly not wise to go around believing things for which there is no evidence. There is no evidence that gravity will stop working if I take a step off this cliff. There is no evidence that leprechauns exist. There is no evidence that if I flap my arms I will acquire the proper lift to become airborne.
It is never wise to do believe something when you have no evidence for it. It might be neutral, but certainly not wise.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, and I will retract the statement.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:And I say that so absolutely because I am making the assumption that you don't believe in everything.
That's because almost everything has some sort of evidence that suggests either it does or does not exist.
For example, the evidence that gravity will keep working is the fact that it has always kept working in the past, and the fact that I believe the future will be like the past. The evidence that leprechauns don't exist is that, as I understand it, they are supposed to have magic powers that would contradict laws of science I believe in. The evidence that flapping my arms won't make me fly is that it would also violate laws of physics I believe in.
None of the above proves anything. But it is evidence - and evidence, even slight evidence, tips the scale.
quote:It is never wise to do believe something when you have no evidence for it. It might be neutral, but certainly not wise.
Do you believe the world will exist tomorrow?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:From my perspective as an atheist I would say that if a God exists then it most likely does not interfere in the universe because such interference is not required to explain any modern phenomenon and would violate the laws of physics.
That isn't how science works, though. If scientists discover a phenomenon that is inconsistent with the current understanding of the laws of physics, the scientists don't conclude "God must be doing it." Instead, they would alter the laws of physics so the new phenomenon is no longer inconsistent with it. They would revise the model. At worst, they'd have to add a new force, or table the phenomenon for future explanation.
The reason why God is not required in any scientific models is because the scientific method limits and defines itself in such a way that, by definition, it never needs God as an explanation. If God were the one making gravity happen, or making the Strong Force happen, or making neurons behave randomly, science by definition could not discover it.
Your last statement is correct but I'm not sure how it's meaningful. If God were doing such things it would be impossible for us to show (aside from God literally telling us or something like that).
Also, remember that science is about disproving theories, not proving them. Theories gain credibility as attempts to disprove them fail. For example, when testing the laws of physics scientists are not looking for examples that support them but rather examples that break them.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:And I say that so absolutely because I am making the assumption that you don't believe in everything.
That's because almost everything has some sort of evidence that suggests either it does or does not exist.
For example, the evidence that gravity will keep working is the fact that it has always kept working in the past, and the fact that I believe the future will be like the past. The evidence that leprechauns don't exist is that, as I understand it, they are supposed to have magic powers that would contradict laws of science I believe in. The evidence that flapping my arms won't make me fly is that it would also violate laws of physics I believe in.
None of the above is proof of anything. But it is evidence - and evidence, even slight evidence, tips the scale.
quote:It is never wise to do believe something when you have no evidence for it. It might be neutral, but certainly not wise.
Do you believe the world will exist tomorrow?
But with your stance, and given the assumption that you believe in a God outside of the known natural universe, you'll still end up believing in an infinite number of things, all of which exist outside the known natural universe. That doesn't sound like a very satisfying epistemological system.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:It is never wise to do believe something when you have no evidence for it. It might be neutral, but certainly not wise.
Do you believe the world will exist tomorrow?
Yes and I have tons of evidence to support that belief. The only events we know of that could destroy the earth before tomorrow would be freak cosmological disasters that, given existing evidence, have a near zero probability of occuring ("near zero" as in zero for all intents and purposes).
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: There is no evidence that if I flap my arms I will acquire the proper lift to become airborne.
Pretty much every three year old I know has tested this one.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
The Harry Potter books are compelling evidence that with enough practice, I'll be able to fly on a broom. I'm still trying, but once day I'll make it.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Javert: There is no evidence that if I flap my arms I will acquire the proper lift to become airborne.
Pretty much every three year old I know has tested this one.
As have I.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Of course, he was 21 when he tried.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Seems like Tres thinks it is equally wise to believe the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists as it is to believe it doesn't exist - seeing as there is an absence of evidence, and all. Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: Of course, he was 21 when he tried.
How dare you!!
...
...
...I'll have you know I was 18, thank you very much.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:The reason why God is not required in any scientific models is because the scientific method limits and defines itself in such a way that, by definition, it never needs God as an explanation. If God were the one making gravity happen, or making the Strong Force happen, or making neurons behave randomly, science by definition could not discover it.
This only works with constant forces or "random" events with a predictable distribution. If God is just a value or a formula, then what's the point of calling it "God" instead of just writing down that value or formula?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:But with your stance, and given the assumption that you believe in a God outside of the known natural universe, you'll still end up believing in an infinite number of things, all of which exist outside the known natural universe. That doesn't sound like a very satisfying epistemological system.
Actually, it would be more accurate to say that with my stance, I believe there are an infinite number of potential things outside the known universe for which it is equally reasonable for me to believe they exist as it is for me to believe they don't exist. I don't see why that is problem, since all of those things (being outside the known universe) don't effect me in any way. To tell you the truth, I don't even think about them. I have no reason to doubt that there might be an infinite number of other universes out there with all sorts of bizarre things going on, but because they impact me in no way, they don't even cross my mind - I don't really hold any beliefs one way or another about them.
quote:Seems like Tres thinks it is equally wise to believe the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists as it is to believe it doesn't exist - seeing as there is an absence of evidence, and all.
Do you have a reason why I should think otherwise? Is there a reason to think someone who believes in an Invisible Pink Unicorn that effects nothing and leaves no evidence behind is going to suffer in some way that people who don't believe in such a thing would not?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Well, generally in life, less complicated is easier for the brain to manage.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
From Wikipedia:
Mild agnosticism — the view that the existence or nonexistence of God or gods is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if more evidence is available. A mild agnostic would say "I don't know, but maybe you do."
This term/definition describes my beliefs best. I personally reject any claim of absolute truth, including the popular agnostic belief that we'll NEVER know the answer. That in itself is claiming certainty of something.
I don't know if God exists or not, but I might know someday. I won't say it's impossible for us to ever find out. How can I know the future?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Saephon: From Wikipedia:
Mild agnosticism — the view that the existence or nonexistence of God or gods is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if more evidence is available. A mild agnostic would say "I don't know, but maybe you do."
This term/definition describes my beliefs best. I personally reject any claim of absolute truth, including the popular agnostic belief that we'll NEVER know the answer. That in itself is claiming certainty of something.
I don't know if God exists or not, but I might know someday. I won't say it's impossible for us to ever find out. How can I know the future?
Now, would you say that you believe in a god, or don't believe in a god?
Sorry...I'm harassing the agnostics, aren't I? Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I believe it's possible not to have an answer for that question.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: I believe it's possible not to have an answer for that question.
And I would disagree. Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
Innat GWEAT?!
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
This is actually interesting to me, Javert.
Say the question was: "Do you believe you will be alive at the age of 90?"
I could say yes, though that could be seen by some as being optimistic.
I could say no, though that could be seen by some as being pessimistic.
I could say that based on my health and family history that there is a statistical likelihood that I will not, but that is by no means a belief one way or the other but more of an educated guess that ignores a great many significant factors.
Or I could simply say that I don't know, and I don't feel it is possible to know. I could even add the "right now" modifier, leading one to believe that I could have some experiencee (living to 90, or dying prior) that would answer the question for me. (though, with something like the existence of a god, that answer may need to come after death... in which case there's a definite likelihood that there could be no answer at all, anyway).
I could say I "hope" to be alive at 90, too, but that's not belief but instead just a wish - something that would be nice.
So, with the "Do you believe in a god or not believe in a god?" question, (which, by the way, ignores concepts such as "gods" or "enlightened spirits" or other non-deity, or demi-deity entities), I can say two things:
1. I don't know 2. I hope there's something beyond what I have experienced within a rigid scientific world - be it a deity or otherwise - because that would be kind of neat to see/experience.
I'm not really compelled to believe or to not believe. Quite frankly, I don't give the idea of deity (or lack thereof) much thought most days.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: This is actually interesting to me, Javert.
Say the question was: "Do you believe you will be alive at the age of 90?"
I could say yes, though that could be seen by some as being optimistic.
I could say no, though that could be seen by some as being pessimistic.
I could say that based on my health and family history that there is a statistical likelihood that I will not, but that is by no means a belief one way or the other but more of an educated guess that ignores a great many significant factors.
Or I could simply say that I don't know, and I don't feel it is possible to know. I could even add the "right now" modifier, leading one to believe that I could have some experiencee (living to 90, or dying prior) that would answer the question for me. (though, with something like the existence of a god, that answer may need to come after death... in which case there's a definite likelihood that there could be no answer at all, anyway).
I could say I "hope" to be alive at 90, too, but that's not belief but instead just a wish - something that would be nice.
So, with the "Do you believe in a god or not believe in a god?" question, (which, by the way, ignores concepts such as "gods" or "enlightened spirits" or other non-deity, or demi-deity entities), I can say two things:
1. I don't know 2. I hope there's something beyond what I have experienced within a rigid scientific world - be it a deity or otherwise - because that would be kind of neat to see/experience.
I'm not really compelled to believe or to not believe. Quite frankly, I don't give the idea of deity (or lack thereof) much thought most days.
My issue is that you're not answering the question that is being asked.
If I ask you if a god, or gods, or the supernatural exists, saying that you don't know is an answer.
However, I'm not asking that. I'm asking what you believe. And my argument is that, if you don't actively believe in any of those things, it means you don't believe in any of those things. So, by definition, you would be an atheist.
Unless you actually claim to not know what you believe, which I would find confusing but not necessarily impossible.
I'm not saying you're not an agnostic. I'm just saying that saying you're an agnostic is not an answer to the question I asked.
But if you just don't want to be called an atheist, I can respect that. Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
quote:What possible reason (or justice or fairness) can there by for a perfect and loving God to play hide and seek with humanity? It is predictable, even to an imperfect human mind, that large numbers of people would go looking in the wrong places. Why would not a God, of the type advanced in most of the major religions, simply address us each, personally, tell us the major moral truths, and judge us based upon whether we follow what we would thus know rather than on our imperfect speculation?
(see comment 5 of this Stanley Fish article)
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I think part of the difficulty in this discussion is that everyone has slightly different definitions of atheism and agnosticism from one another.
If we apply a category system that is slightly more robust like:
quote: 1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.' 2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.' 3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.' 4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.' 5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.' 6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.' 7. Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'
Dawkins notes that he would be "surprised to meet many people in category 7". Dawkins calls himself "about a 6.8."
Then I would be in category 6. Going through the last two pages quickly, I would guess (and these are really guesses, I don't mind being corrected): Javert is in category 6. FlyingCow is probably in category 5. Tresopax is probably in category 2.
Off the top of my head, I do not think there are any category 7s around.
An example of a category 1 may be Tatiana in the first page of "Do you believe in an afterlife?" when se says that she believes in the afterlife as she believes in Puerto Rico (assuming she believes in God as fervently as she believes in the afterlife).
I'm scratching my head for examples of 3 and 4, unless FlyingCow is actually in category 4 and not 5.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Mucus, you can even break it down into a smaller set of options than what Dawkins has.
1. Gnostic theist: Knows and believes there is a god.
2. Agnostic theist: Believes in god but doesn't know and/or understands that we can't know.
3. Gnostic atheist: Knows and believes there is no god.
4. Agnostic atheist: Believes there is no god but doesn't know and/or understands that we can't know.
I think almost all of us would fall into 2 and 4.
(And to clarify, I'm using 'god' to substitute for 'god, gods, or the supernatural'.)
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I see what you're getting at Javert. You just have a far broader definition of atheist than I do.
Under your definition, I am an atheist. Under my definition, I'm not.
My definition of "atheist" is the dictionary definition: "one who believes that there is no deity" (per Miriam Webster Dictionary).
Not one who doesn't believe in a deity, but one who believes "there is no deity".
I can't say I do believe that.
If your definition is a broader "anyone who doesn't believe in a higher being" than I fit that description, though that's not the definition of the word as I've always understood it.
I've always seen it as three parts: 1. Those who believe in a deity or deities 2. Those who don't specifically believe in any deity or deities but also don't rule out their possibility. Effectively, those who commit to neither extreme and feel it is impossible to know one way or the other. 3. Those who believe there is no deity or are no deities.
You seem to group 2 and 3 together as atheist, while I've always just defined atheist as 3.
As I've said already, I believe there are things in this world that we can't explain and commonalities between many religions from disparate regions that make them hard to dismiss out of hand. Does that make me a theist? I don't feel it does, but you may.
I also don't adhere to any religion or pray to any specific theistic entity or entities. Does that make me an atheist? I don't feel it does, but you may.
Would someone who believes in totem spirits of trees and animals but no supreme being(s) be considered an atheist? What about those who believe in ancestor spirits who watch over them, but no supreme deity. Are they atheists?
I don't believe there are just two buckets. There is a gray area in the middle.
My polar division would go from (leaving out many divisions, obviously):
- Belief in one true god and active rejection of all other beliefs - Belief in one true god - Belief in one true god who has many forms - Belief in more than one deity - Belief in several spirits/totems/etc - Belief in a supernatural power (nature, the force, etc) that is beyond human reach that has no particular form - Acknowledgement that there are things beyond human understanding, but no particular belief in any one thing - Unsurity whether there is or is not a deity or supernatural force - Reasonable doubt that anything beyond human experience exists, but openness to the possibility - Belief only in what has been empirically observed, but openness to things that may not yet have been observed - Belief only in what can be scientifically proven - Active and outspoken rejection of all that cannot be proven
I don't believe the issue is as black and white as you wish to make it. There is gray.
Though, you can call gray "not white" or "not black" depending on your own point of view. Which is why I'm often on the "other side" of discussions with theists and atheists alike, while also often being embraced by both sides.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
I'm not trying to judge, I'm just defining things by what I have always thought of as the standard definition of an atheist. And it also seems to be the definition most atheists I have met use.
I think I identify as "atheist" because it covers what I am the best, and it is usually the most easily understood. And yet there still is misunderstanding.
And yes, as far as my definition of atheism is concerned, someone who believes in spirits could still be an atheist. If I understand Buddhism correctly, I would even venture to say that most Buddhists are technically atheists.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
I agree, it's probably a case of us having different definitions.
Javert, I think the reason FlyingCow and I have trouble answering your question is because the most vocal atheists we have seen or heard are the ones who believe there is no God, and claim to know it to be true. It's easy to shy away from being classified an atheist when most of the people you converse with consider that to mean "I believe there is no God." Because that wouldn't be true of me. I may not believe in God, but I also do not believe that there is no God. Tricky, but true imo. x_x
Sooo......perhaps it may be an incorrect usage of the dictionary definition; I'm not sure. I've seen dictionary definitions that support my notion. But my point is, many people who fall into my category of belief use the word agnostic to describe themselves because it tends to express something truer than the word atheist does. That may vary by region or simply by the individual people you know, but at least around here, everyone knows what I mean when I say I'm agnostic. If I say I'm atheist, and then go on to explain that I'm not sure if there's a God or not, they become confused.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
To me, an atheist is just someone who lives as if there is no god - they make no provisions for what he may or may not desire of them because he is a non-factor in their lives.
My experience is similar to Javert's in that most atheists I know do not express active disbelief, they just don't believe.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Yeah, I tend to go with what the majority of people who take on the title call it, rather than the dictionary.
Part of that has to do with once coming across an old dictionary that had "devil worship" in the atheist definition.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I think the popular "There is no God" definition of atheism is largely because of the "history is written by the victors" nature of things. For many religious people, the term atheist is as much a slur as it is a descriptive label.
When one sees something as in opposition to themselves, they tend to exaggerate that opposition. It's not hard to see how the popular conception of atheism, given that most of the population is theistic, is that atheism is in opposition to their beliefs rather than just the absence of them.
The difference between "I don't believe" and "I disbelieve" is important but subtle. Unfortunately, Joe Public is *not* good with subtlety.
That felt like sort of a ramble. Sorry about that.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:If a national atheist organization has its way, a series of 12-foot-tall memorial crosses that adorn Utah's highways will be taken down.
But not if the families of the people those crosses honor — state Highway Patrol troopers killed in the line of duty — have anything to say about it.
American Atheists Inc. has filed a federal lawsuit, arguing that the 13 white, steel crosses represent the death of Jesus Christ and therefore violate the First Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits government establishment of religion.
But the families of the fallen heroes say otherwise. They say the crosses, which bear the names and badge numbers of the troopers, were built strictly as memorials.
"We're being attacked personally for something we did to help us heal," said Clint Pierson, whose father, Trooper Ray Lynn Pierson, was shot and killed during a traffic stop in 1978.
"We put the crosses up as a memorial to the fallen officers."
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
12-foot tall crosses for someone shot in 1978 does seem a little much. I appreciate that the family wants to grieve in their own way, and I respect that, but I'd say putting up a 12-foot non-denominational grave marker on the freeway wouldn't be any better.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
That's actually a perfect example of something which shouldn't be allowed in the first place, and when atheists challenge it, it is mistaken as disrespectful or a 'war on Christianity' or sommat.
The only way that such a monument is acceptable is if it's on private land, I think.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)