Atheism, 21st century-style. New? Militant?

[Satan]

As long as religious fundamentalism exists, I welcome the new atheist.

This.

And this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5yNZ1U37sE

Lack of belief in a supernatural nothingness -- even in an organized form -- doesn't constitute a religion. I shouldn't have to reiterate that a million times over and over again. And there's nothing wrong with democracy, except that people have the g-d given free-will to be, act and choose stupid.

[Drkshadow03]

There are religions who ignore the concept of the existence god and avoid direct moralizing. Can, say, Zen Buddhism or many types of Hinduism be only good for a "truly messed up individual."? It seems like a large proportion of religious criticism is aimed at literalistic or semi-literalistic interpretations of Abrahamic religions, and to criticize "religion" is nebulous and inaccurate.

Not to mention the threat of hell doesn't even play a major role in all the Abrahamic religions. ::cough:: Judaism ::cough::

[baaaaadgoatjoke]

People need to stop asking what does religion do bad and start asking what good it does. The bad is obvious, the good could and is supplied elsewhere.

[Ecurb]

There's also the problem that we can't really ignore the tangible effects religion continues to have in controlling the lives, and negatively influencing some people's lives, as we speak. Religion is hardly the benign cancer some would make it out to be. Billions of people continue to live in nations where religion is allowed to dictate who you can sleep with, what you can wear, who you can speak to in public, and what you're allowed to say.

Religion does not need to be eradicated, but it needs to be pushed out of serious consideration in the public sphere.

I’ll grant that the Islamic world endorses both unity between Church and State, and (often) a great many oppressive laws. However, we cannot infer from this that advocating separation of church and state is the best way to end oppression. Oppression in Muslim countries is enforced by the state – and the unity of Church and State is a long-standing tradition in Islam (Muhammed was a political reformer, as well as a prophet). It seems likely to me (and I’m no expert) that many Muslims resent Western demands for a separation of Church and State as a form of intellectual imperialism and a desire to stamp out Islam. Liberalization of oppressive laws might be more likely if reformers endorsed the Islamic ideal of unity of Church and State, but argued for new interpretations of the Quran.

People don't behave ethically because their religion tells them to. They do however engage in bigotry because their religious leaders tell them to.

This is ridiculous. The notion that religion cannot (or at least never does) have a good influence on followers’ behavior, but often has a bad one defies reason and common sense.

[Fat Mike]

I don't see how democracy is based on bull****, it is a tested and effective means of governance that is the best way to ensure individual participation and representation.

I'm sorry, I expressed my thoughts very poorly there. I support democracy as well, even though I'm sometimes convinced about the stupidity of mankind. What I ment is that calling the current system for democracy is a fallacious assumption. Yes, maybe a some narrow form of democracy, but it's far far, light years away from how democracy ought to be. And people don't seem to accept this fact; voting doesn't have jack **** to do with democracy. And we use this conviction, based on lies, to commit murder abdroad. Why I keep saying "based on lies" because there is not a single country today that has democracy, but we keep spreading it like it existed. The western world operates the same way as the bigot religious part of the world.

Religion doesn't have a bad reputation because it did bad a few years ago. Religion continues to do bad. Last year the Catholic church endorsed life imprisonment for homosexuals in Nigeria. Women continue to be oppressed in the name of religion throughout the Middle East. Religion's past is irrelevant when its present is still oppressive.

You're right, it's important to have in mind that religion is still oppressive in some parts of the world. But the mistreating of women in the islamic world is more of a tradition and a cultural phenomen than a religion. You don't find it anywhere in Qur'an nor in the feared Shariah law that women should be oppressed. Claiming that religion equals oppression of women is like claiming that democracy equals homeless junkies on the streets. I live in Sweden which is one of the most secularized country in the world, but it's still the women who cook, take care of children and earn less than men. I think you could call that for oppression of women.

Besides, I support democracy and individual rights because I'm a social democrat, not because I'm an atheist. Democracy is not the opposite to religion, but secularism is a necessity for the proper functioning of a liberal democracy.

And again, I disagree. I don't see the opposition between democracy and religion, perhaps you could explain your views on this. On the contrary, the morality of some religions are a lot more complex and developed than the ones you find in the UN Charters for example. Morality might be a natural result of evolution that almost all human beings are aware of, but the first steps to institutionalize them were made by religions, no?

No, not all belief systems are equivalent. One that arbitrarily supports oppression of individual freedoms is not acceptable. Your position is reductionist and ignores the oppression at the level of the individual. Ignore the state level and look at how small Christian groups participate in attempting to get ID taught in schools, or campaign against gay rights. These have nothing to do with the greed and power of human beings, these have to do with the inherently flawed arbitrary morality of religion.

The problem with these oppressive behaviours that are often associated with religons is that they are not religious at all. The leaders of different sects use religion as a tool to gain support for their ****ed up and sick values. And this brings us to my only problem with religion, that it encourages worshipping and blind following which makes believers an easy victims for selfish reasons. If we try to implement democracy on the individual level as well, where every participant has an equal voice in the decision making, I don't think any sect at all would start witch-hunts on homosexuals. I think most sects work on the basis of group pressure and has nothing to do with religious values.

[baaaaadgoatjoke]

This is ridiculous. The notion that religion cannot (or at least never does) have a good influence on followers’ behavior, but often has a bad one defies reason and common sense.

No it's not. A common claim is that religions helps set up a code of ethics, which it does not. If religion had never been invented people would still behave ethically.

And if you're denying that it often leads people to bigotry you are blind.

[Ecurb]

No it's not. A common claim is that religions helps set up a code of ethics, which it does not. If religion had never been invented people would still behave ethically.

And if you're denying that it often leads people to bigotry you are blind.

Religion obviously DOES often establish a code of ethics (did you ever read the Ten Commandments?). Of course that does not imply that people without religion cannot behave ethically. Why would it?

Religion doubtless DOES lead people into bigotry – especially against people of other religions. I am not blind, but I do wear corrective lenses for nearsightedness.

[baaaaadgoatjoke]

Religion obviously DOES often establish a code of ethics (did you ever read the Ten Commandments?). Of course that does not imply that people without religion cannot behave ethically. Why would it?

Religion doubtless DOES lead people into bigotry – especially against people of other religions. I am not blind, but I do wear corrective lenses for nearsightedness.

Like I said, it's a false attribution to claim that religion created a code of ethics. That code of ethics existed before religion. We agree here.

We agree that religion leads people to bigotry. I am -5.25 in each eye. It has gotten worse every few years and I hold a slight, irrational fear that if it keeps progressing I may one day be blind.

[Ecurb]

I'm not sure we agree. I'd suggest that we don't know how the earliest "codes of ethics" developed. They may have been influenced by religion and they may not have been. Animals that lack a sophisticated language are capable of "ethical" behaviors -- but are probably not capable of developing a "code" of ethics. The word "code" implies formalized rules. We know (from ancient burial sites) that some sort of religion probably developed very early in human prehistory, and we can imagine that "codes" of ethics developed about the same time (since both are dependent on some linguistic sophistication). They probably arose together (although perhaps not).

How's that for a wishy-washy response?

[Rores28]

People need to stop asking what does religion do bad and start asking what good it does. The bad is obvious, the good could and is supplied elsewhere.

Alleviates existential anxieties relating to death and purpose.

[The Atheist]

Can I note we're getting well off track here?

The thread is supposed to be about atheism, not theism - there's a whole sub-forum to discuss that stuff.

I am a little disappointed that people who are only to happy to post assertions about "new" and "militant" atheism in other threads haven't come along armed with buckets of evidence that atheism circa year 2010 is somehow different to the atheism of ~2000 BC, 900 AD and 1939. (among other dates)

I'll keep waiting, because it surely isn't just empty rhetoric?

[JuniperWoolf]

Yeah, I was wondering where all of the opposition went as well. Aunty already made her point very nicely in her thread, {edit}

Alleviates existential anxieties relating to death and purpose.

Yes, agreed - that's what I meant when I said that individual spirituality was important.

[Ecurb]

Yes, agreed - that's what I meant when I said that individual spirituality was important.

"Personally, I'm not religious but I consider myself to be a very spiritual person."

How many times have I heard that? Aren't there any atheists out there that think such a comment is even more ridiculous than organized religion?

It seems to me to be a little like saying, "I've never studied math, but I'm a very mathematical person." Perhaps so, but isn't it likely you are reinventing the wheel? The one thing that Organized religions have studied --with a great deal of zeal, by the way -- is spirituality. To pooh pooh religion and interest oneself in "spirituality" doesn't seem very rigorous. It's like refusing to read history books, but being fascinated by history. The level of spirituality that can be reached without training, education, techniques, etc., etc. that have been highly developed over the millenia must (I suspect) be less sophisticated than the level reached by the well-educated acolyte. I mean, to think that we can learn nothing about spirituality from the many brilliant Saints (and Buddhas) who spent their lives questing for it shows a bit of hubris, does it not?

[Dodo25]

"Personally, I'm not religious but I consider myself to be a very spiritual person."

How many times have I heard that? Aren't there any atheists out there that think such a comment is even more ridiculous than organized religion?

It seems to me to be a little like saying, "I've never studied math, but I'm a very mathematical person." Perhaps so, but isn't it likely you are reinventing the wheel? The one thing that Organized religions have studied --with a great deal of zeal, by the way -- is spirituality. To pooh pooh religion and interest oneself in "spirituality" doesn't seem very rigorous. It's like refusing to read history books, but being fascinated by history. The level of spirituality that can be reached without training, education, techniques, etc., etc. that have been highly developed over the millenia must (I suspect) be less sophisticated than the level reached by the well-educated acolyte. I mean, to think that we can learn nothing about spirituality from the many brilliant Saints (and Buddhas) who spent their lives questing for it shows a bit of hubris, does it not?

It depends on the definition of spiritual. What atheists like Sam Harris or even Richard Dawkins mean by it is nothing supernatural. It's a feeling/state of mind that can be scientifically investigated. Buddhist meditation techniques can do something interesting to the mind, but that doesn't mean all the metaphysics that goes with it is true.

I hate the word 'spiritual' because I immediately associate it with ghosts and God, but if one adopts the other definition, I see no reason whatsoever why atheists can't be spiritual. It's just like the whole morality thing. Religion has claimed possession of everything moral and spiritual, as if the two (three) would always go together, and together only. This simply isn't true, and it's good that some atheists point that out.

[baaaaadgoatjoke]

Alleviates existential anxieties relating to death and purpose.

So does liquor.


edit- And does it really? Anyone worth their salt hits an existential crisis in their twenties and then moves on. Just because someone happens to pick up religion around the same time doesn't mean that religion was the salve. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.