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.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?"
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.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
That's clearly not an accurate timeframe. You may want to at least go back to the Enlightenement or Galileo.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squicky, then a more sohpisticated understanding of the affair of Galileo should be coming forth from you.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
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
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
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!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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!'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
He only has true evidence if he has reason to believe what the deity shows/tells him. I sense a circular argument coming on...
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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 Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
