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

[MarkBastable]

This appeals to me as a calm, enlightened point of view. When I posted earlier of the "two camps," the calm atheists vis the hysterical ones, I was thinking more of a psychological rather than a theological difference. The calm atheists have examined the evidence - or lack of it - for a "God," and having concluded that it's unconvincing, they go about their lives as best they can.

The hysterical atheists, on the other hand, need the believers. Raging against them gives purpose to their lives. It amuses me to imagine a world in which theism and all those who subscribed to it have disappeared, and the dedicated atheists run around looking desperately for something or someone else to be against.

There is always the one-billionth of a percent chance that theists know something and as long as they don't try to legislate on the basis of what they believe they know, why not leave them alone - and carry on our lives as morally and usefully as we can?

It's intellectual debate. Intellectual debate is always good and harms no one. It's not an attack on a person to attack the ideas that person holds - or, at least, it shouldn't be seen as such by any person who can marshall the intellectual skills to take part.

So, although I fall into your 'calm' category, I disagree with you about the other one (and I think the choice of the word 'hysterical' is perjorative). The constant and rigorous testing of ideas against each other is not only good exercise, it's also good social intercourse. If you don't want to take part, fine - don't. But don't stick your head round the door to advise everyone else not to do it and to pass judgement on the people who do. It's patronising and unkind.

[baaaaadgoatjoke]

Don't you know that it's better to let people think for themselves, because if you try to impose your will onto anyone they're just going to react against you?

I don't know that I can undermine your religion and not threaten your status.

I could give you some studies that indicate that individual people are, for the most part, very reasonable as long as they're not feeling that their status is being threatened or they are in a group situation.

Please do. Make sure the examples are of something analogous like politics where people cling blindly to their beliefs and disregard facts.

As for not giving people credit for having the capacity for reason and logic, 23% of the world is Islamic and Christiany comprises 25-33%. Both these religions require the suspension of logic, so no, I don't.

The hysterical atheists, on the other hand, need the believers. Raging against them gives purpose to their lives.

This is just self-indulgent.

as long as they don't try to legislate on the basis of what they believe they know

You don't see that this is impossible?

Yes christians often overlook the fact that what they are doing is rude but from their perspective it isn't seen as rude. It's seen as attempting to save you from the worst fate imaginable.

I don't actually buy that for a second, because of the context and manner of delivery on every occasion I've heard a christian talk about unbelievers going to hell. It is never a case of "Crikey, I wish you'd listen to me/Jesus/someone, because I really fear for your immortal soul.", but always "Atheists are going to go to hell, LOLOL!!11!"

Yea I don't agree with rores here either. On top of what you said I might be rude, but I'm doing so with the best interests of society so I have to get a free pass as well.

[The Atheist]

The hysterical atheists...

More strawman nonsense.

You have manufactured a category - hysterical atheists - so I guess you're free to state what those are and how they behave, but since it bears no relevance to reality, I will just stick to pointing out that when one makes one's own categories, based entirely on one's own preferences, it's pretty easy to be right all of the time.

I am finding it highly amusing that these outrageous strawmen are being constructed and burnt by a former self-professed atheist.

Just like ex-smokers, I guess...

Yea I don't agree with rores here either. On top of what you said I might be rude, but I'm doing so with the best interests of society so I have to get a free pass as well.

Sounds good to me.

Even better, you can inject humour into the discussion, which certainly gets you a free pass.

[Drkshadow03]

It's intellectual debate. Intellectual debate is always good and harms no one. It's not an attack on a person to attack the ideas that person holds - or, at least, it shouldn't be seen as such by any person who can marshall the intellectual skills to take part.

So, although I fall into your 'calm' category, I disagree with you about the other one (and I think the choice of the word 'hysterical' is perjorative). The constant and rigorous testing of ideas against each other is not only good exercise, it's also good social intercourse. If you don't want to take part, fine - don't. But don't stick your head round the door to advise everyone else not to do it and to pass judgement on the people who do. It's patronising and unkind.

Sure, there are many reasonable atheists interested in intellectual debate and testing ideas.

But having debated quite a few atheists in my time, I also know there are many out there who aren't interested in any real debate and clearly are only interested in insulting people who believe in God or practice even the faintest hint of a religion.

I think this is the sort of "hysterical" atheist PrinceMyshkin is talking about, although his defining them as someone "jealous" of religion seems a tad silly. The issue isn't really atheism; it's a certain type of anti-theism.

[Rores28]

Yea I don't agree with rores here either. On top of what you said I might be rude, but I'm doing so with the best interests of society so I have to get a free pass as well.

Its not so much a matter of agreeing... these are simply what I have seen from the majority of the people who I have spoke with. Maybe the people I knew were just nicer than the ones you have talked to... or maybe I am getting less extremist and dickish responses because I am dishing out less extremist and dickish proclamations.

As to the free pass.... its funny but it does illustrate a real problem in the debate and that is that there is still a contest going on (well if they get a free pass so do I.... etc...). Discussions, especially ones of this importance, need to divest themselves of the notion of winning and teams

Also I want to be clear because there is some confusion. I am not against a concerted and constant effort to bring atheism to the mainstream and explain what it is all about and why I it is the framework within which my life is lived. My issue is with being an ******* about it.

I think atheism is at especially high risk already as people amazingly still equate the word atheist with immoral and *******. I imagine a scenario in which every atheist / theological discussion has the religious folk giving out there own brand of rude abrasive illogical debate, while the atheists remain totally calm and polite and in no way condescending and I just can't that this would not be a greater boon to the cause than **** throwing in both directions.

There is always the one-billionth of a percent chance that theists know something and as long as they don't try to legislate on the basis of what they believe they know, why not leave them alone - and carry on our lives as morally and usefully as we can?

The sad fact is this just isn't going to happen. Even if that legislating occurs only on an implicit level. This is where irrational dogmatism is at its most dangerous.

"I don't understand where that God fellow is coming from" is much different than "You know, I don't think God knows what he's doing."

I wasn't there for the conversations, but one of those is blasphemous.

Well to simplify.. what they were saying to me was already blasphemous, thus the existence question was equally blasphemous so I see no reason to hold back one or the other. But of course I could be making all of this up... you'll have to take it on faith

No, we've only seen that when people pray to god about their problems and then make the false attribution that that action is what helped them then the consequences can be at most neutral. Its probably more often negative once they progress and buy into dogma. Bigotry limits you on a personal level so that has to be factored in.

Here you and I still have very different ideas about how religion operates. You are viewing it as something more analogous to a bottle of tylenol that people break out when they have some sort of existential dilemma. I see it as more pervasive and automatic. Additionally, plenty of religious people do not think praying is simply going to fix their problems... they believe, and this is not just implicitly, that it is an issue of faith and prayer combined with personal responsibility.

It seems like much of the talk about theists is focused on the almost caricature like fundamentalists that generally are only seen in TV and movies made to poke fun of them, rather than what is surely the larger demographic of the much more reasonable variety. [/QUOTE]

Bigotry is limiting... perhaps. But sometimes limits are personally liberating... underground man?

Look at politics. People claim to prefer level headed straight talk, but react to smear campaigns.

This is unfortunately true but I think that sort of persuasion is only suited to more transient and facile conceptions, like who should I vote for, as opposed to entire religious ideologies. Smear campaigns may be able to cause people to disregard particular candidates but I don't think they are able to impel people to disregard their entire political party or political views.

Also, the majority of people are not capable of rational discussion or logical thought.

I want to say that this is not true, but I can't say that has been my experience. I just find this idea of blindly manipulating people "for their own good" as somewhat morally repugnant, but only on an emotional moral level not a logical moral one. This attitude also seems to open the flood gates for some dangerous ramifications.

I don't know that I can undermine your religion and not threaten your status.

Logically you can't... but they are religious right....

Jesting aside.. it's a difficult balancing act, but when you're as charismatic and tactful as me its totally achievable.

"Virtually infinite possibilities"?

You're making an infinity from a trilogy. God-belief, no god-belief, don't know - three choices only.

I think they are referring to the fact that the "don't know camp" is comprised of a continuous spectrum of certainty/uncertainty about God. 80% sure 75% sure etc...

I don't actually buy that for a second, because of the context and manner of delivery on every occasion I've heard a christian talk about unbelievers going to hell. It is never a case of "Crikey, I wish you'd listen to me/Jesus/someone, because I really fear for your immortal soul.", but always "Atheists are going to go to hell, LOLOL!!11!"

Another thing about this. When you get this response, you must know this is the manifestation of insecurity or an emotional defense mechanism to their faith being challenged. They are falsely attributing their anger at your "dangerous" idea to just anger at you. The problem is this anger doesn't resolve itself into a deeper understanding or consideration of the subject but instead engenders more implacable jingoism.

Are they being rude? Yes.... but it's a sort of pitiable response... not unlike the newly rejected partner who claims they were going to break up with you anyway.

I have yet to be convinced that attack is wrong. To paraphrase one of Dawkins' faves, it isn't necessary for the truth to be somewhere in the middle - one side can be completely wrong.

This is true, though I think rarely the case.... But probably in this case..

Still is this relevant to the militant approach. Let's say atheism is one hundred percent factually correct. This would speak nothing to the degree of militancy that we should employ in its proselytization. If indeed the main contention is that a wholly militant approach is not the most efficacious means of conversion.

[The Atheist]

Another thing about this. When you get this response, you must know this is the manifestation of insecurity or an emotional defense mechanism to their faith being challenged. They are falsely attributing their anger at your "dangerous" idea to just anger at you. The problem is this anger doesn't resolve itself into a deeper understanding or consideration of the subject but instead engenders more implacable jingoism.

Are they being rude? Yes.... but it's a sort of pitiable response... not unlike the newly rejected partner who claims they were going to break up with you anyway.

I know!

Fortunately I thrive on that stuff.



This is true, though I think rarely the case.... But probably in this case..

Still is this relevant to the militant approach. Let's say atheism is one hundred percent factually correct. This would speak nothing to the degree of militancy that we should employ in its proselytization. If indeed the main contention is that a wholly militant approach is not the most efficacious means of conversion.

I don't believe it's necessary or desirable to proselytise just because atheism is the correct position - there's nothing special about being right. I can't speak for others, but conversion has never really been a goal for me.

It really is atheism as the bulwark against fundamentalism and teaching of absurd anti-science theories that concerns me. We know with 100% surety that, unopposed, certain sects will try to enforce teaching of their beliefs to all.

[baaaaadgoatjoke]

As to the free pass.... its funny but it does illustrate a real problem in the debate and that is that there is still a contest going on (well if they get a free pass so do I.... etc...). Discussions, especially ones of this importance, need to divest themselves of the notion of winning and teams.

It's not about competition. If execution is going to be viewed through the lense of intention, then that courtesy must be granted to everyone.

This is unfortunately true but I think that sort of persuasion is only suited to more transient and facile conceptions, like who should I vote for, as opposed to entire religious ideologies. Smear campaigns may be able to cause people to disregard particular candidates but I don't think they are able to impel people to disregard their entire political party or political views.

Rush Limbaugh, Fox News. It's effective not only as a surprise attack right before election night, but in the long term as well. Constant, unabashed derision slowly erode people's will (and, in the case of fox news, rationality). After being on the defensive for so long, you're basically forced to reconsider your position and that's what we're after.

I want to say that this is not true, but I can't say that has been my experience. I just find this idea of blindly manipulating people "for their own good" as somewhat morally repugnant, but only on an emotional moral level not a logical moral one. This attitude also seems to open the flood gates for some dangerous ramifications.

I agree with you completely, but on this point I'm willing to give myself a pass because I know what's best.

Jesting aside.. it's a difficult balancing act, but when you're as charismatic and tactful as me its totally achievable.

Except that earlier in this thread you refer to Richard Dawkins and, tacitly, myself as "obstinate douchebags" thus violating your own terms of engagement.

Another thing about this. When you get this response, you must know this is the manifestation of insecurity or an emotional defense mechanism to their faith being challenged. They are falsely attributing their anger at your "dangerous" idea to just anger at you. The problem is this anger doesn't resolve itself into a deeper understanding or consideration of the subject but instead engenders more implacable jingoism.

Really? Maybe I'm not in the majority, but, while I'll never cave in the face of the person delivering damning evidence, it invariably reenters my consciousness later and forces me to resolve the dissonance. Then again, I suppose the defense for that is learned through religion.

Still is this relevant to the militant approach. Let's say atheism is one hundred percent factually correct. This would speak nothing to the degree of militancy that we should employ in its proselytization. If indeed the main contention is that a wholly militant approach is not the most efficacious means of conversion.

In this case, it is 100% true.. probably. And while you're right, we need to give more weight to the social damage done by not employing a blitzkrieg style proselytization. We need massive cultural change because right now religion = good, even to lots of athiests.

I don't think that a truly religious person - not just fundies, either, rational religious types - can be swayed by argument from a single individual no matter how calm or vitriolic. It takes a sea change in the culture to do that. The target audience is the agnostics or the types who go to church out of tradition and others who carelessly identify as religious. I'm basically talking about reversing the flow of peer pressure away from religion. When approached from this angle, bullies like Dawkins and Bill Maher are extremely profitable. Dawkins because of his stature and logic and Maher because of his ability to make people laugh at the absurd elements of religion.

I'm just saying, is all I'm saying. Morally repugnant or not, it works. And maybe the ends justify the means.

[JuniperWoolf]

I don't know that I can undermine your religion and not threaten your status.

You can. Believe it or not, it is possible to not treat people like crap who don't agree with you.

Please do.

Ah, balls. *sigh* Aaaalright, give me a second.

http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/gpr-813.pdf
http://www.apa.org/pubs/books/4320265.aspx
http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/rel...ge-1354553.pdf
http://www.apa.org/pubs/books/4316500.aspx
http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/xlm/index.aspx
http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/rel/index.aspx
http://www.apa.org/pubs/books/4320265.aspx



There we go. I have a Chem midterm in the morning, so I didn't have time to go through the articles, but the synopses look promising in providing evidence that humans are actually logical creatures that can function without you telling them what to do. Rest easy. There are some books too which are directly related to the conversation.

[caddy_caddy]

Over the past couple of decades, since atheism has largely come out of the closet, it is often asserted that atheism has a new militancy, that it has become doctrinaire, or some other wild generalisation. I contend that there is nothing new, or newly-militant, about atheism, and in fact it is religion painting atheism as bad that has more to do with the general perception than anything atheists are doing.

For starters, nothing about atheism is new. People have been atheistic since long before the Abrahamic gods arose in man's contemplation. People have also attacked religion quite mercilessly for thousands of years as well.



Those words come from over a thousand years ago, yet they are at least as abusive as any treatise by any recent author.

During the French Revolution, christianity was often punishable by death, yet I see no modern atheists asking for theists to be put to the sword.

As to recent popular books on the subject, they are no more dogmatic or militant than Bertie Russell's speech 83 years ago.

There are unquestionably more atheists now than in Bertie's day, and religious adherents are shrinking in the developed world and have been for some time. It suits religion to paint unbelief as some kind of evil doctrine, and the first rotten apple to be thrown is that atheists are big meanies.

So let's compare attacks.

In this very forum are posts which tell me and other atheists that we will be tortured for eternity for simply not being faithful to a god which is invisible to us.

While that doesn't bother me for a billisecond, think about the level of abuse it contains - you are taking delight in someone being tortured for billions of years. Not because they were a mass murderer or rapist, but only because they refused to believe in your god!

This forum is by no means unique, and a simple search of Google for "Atheists go to hell" returns 55,000 results, many of which are theistic in nature and confirm that atheists do indeed go to hell:



link



link

By no means all churches take this view. The RCC, for instance, allows that an atheist who lived a "good" life may avoid going to hell; but then again, the pope only last month likened atheists to Nazis.

Is it any wonder that the proliferation of hardline christianity which spawns these widespread feelings has resulted in some atheists fighting back? And that "fighting back" takes no more form than sales of books by Dawkins, Hitchens, et al. Atheists must use a dictionary with a different meaning for "militant" than theists.

Evangelical Amercian churches pay for missionaries to come to NZ to spread their word and seek converts. Do we class that as "militant christianity'?

Yet when Richard Dawkins undertakes speaking engagements, it is somehow "militant".

Theists sport billboards all over the planet demanding that their god be believed in.

Yet when atheists put billboards on buses, they said "There's probably no god..."

Where are these newly-militant atheists? I do not believe that they are new, and I do not believe that the few genuinely militant among them are any greater numbers than have been seen in the past - at any stage in the past.

Hi
I read this thread when you first posted it and liked it so much .
It's sth I asked to myself : who is better ? A religious man who spends his time praying to God ,or an atheist who dedicates his life to do sth good to humanity ?
Honestly , to me the atheist is much better than the religious .Because the religious is self- centered although he knows God and loves Him . Most religious now become self-centered and what's is worse, soo arrogant . They feel they are superior to others and treat others with superiority .

The Prophets and their disciples ,who are the examples to follow for religious, were very humble . We never saw such arrogance in them . They never condemned any one .
A Prophet who knows God better than any one asks God for mercy and begs him to go to Heaven!! How comes ?
How a Prophet could not be sure he will go to Heaven and asks for mercy and he is of no sinner ???
What does this tell to religious people ?

[The Atheist]

The Prophets and their disciples ,who are the examples to follow for religious, were very humble . We never saw such arrogance in them . They never condemned any one .

That may be true in terms of what scripture claims, but that would hardly count as autobiographical accounts of their lives. In fact, there is no independent evidence that any of them actually existed - other than John the Baptist, I'm pretty sure. Even Jesus' own life in the bible has enormous gaps in it, while his nother rates a whole couple of lives. It's not hell of an accurate or useful in looking at what people actually did.

As to whether they condemned anyone, I'd be inclined to disagree since they were all very specific that people who worshipped other gods, or denied theirs, would be going to the hot place.

In the muslim faith, their chief prophet having married a nine-year old girl would disqualify him as a role model, so I'm not sure your premise works in any religion.

[Drkshadow03]

That may be true in terms of what scripture claims, but that would hardly count as autobiographical accounts of their lives. In fact, there is no independent evidence that any of them actually existed - other than John the Baptist, I'm pretty sure. Even Jesus' own life in the bible has enormous gaps in it, while his nother rates a whole couple of lives. It's not hell of an accurate or useful in looking at what people actually did.

There is archaeological evidence confirming the existence of quite a few of the Biblical kings. I would, however, agree that it's very dangerous grounds to take the Bible or any religious book as pure history or even as reliable biographical narrative.

[caddy_caddy]

That may be true in terms of what scripture claims, but that would hardly count as autobiographical accounts of their lives. In fact, there is no independent evidence that any of them actually existed - other than John the Baptist, I'm pretty sure. Even Jesus' own life in the bible has enormous gaps in it, while his nother rates a whole couple of lives. It's not hell of an accurate or useful in looking at what people actually did.


Here you're very skeptical.

As to whether they condemned anyone, I'd be inclined to disagree since they were all very specific that people who worshipped other gods, or denied theirs, would be going to the hot place.

Here you take the information for granted .You always make me smile.

In the muslim faith, their chief prophet having married a nine-year old girl would disqualify him as a role model, so I'm not sure your premise works in any religion.

Do u think I'm addressing you in the post ?!! Oh NO!
It was clear I'm addressing , religious people , it's in bold if you noticed .
I'm Muslim and my premise works for Muslims like me as well as others -- religious .
I would like to add that God doesn't need us , this is we who needs Him . And there is more than one billion and a half who takes Mohammad as a model . They are more than enough .

Good luck

[The Atheist]

There is archaeological evidence confirming the existence of quite a few of the Biblical kings. I would, however, agree that it's very dangerous grounds to take the Bible or any religious book as pure history or even as reliable biographical narrative.

Kings of the time aren't really what I'd describe as prophets, though, and what prophesying is done by the odd king has no other corroboration at all. That those kings existed is pretty obvious and the bible would obviously have to have them right. The dates in the bible are mostly well out, however.

[B]
Do u think I'm addressing you in the post ?!! Oh NO!
It was clear I'm addressing , religious people , it's in bold if you noticed .

No, you ask what religious people think at the end, but you quoted my post and this is a discussion forum. Anyone can address your post, and since you're posting in a thread on atheism, I think I have every conceivable right to answer your comments.

[caddy_caddy]

In the muslim faith, their chief prophet having married a nine-year old girl would disqualify him as a role model, so I'm not sure your premise works in any religion.

I quoted you because this is you who arose the subject which mainly addressed the religious and I JOINED YOU in that .This is your subject not you .
And I say so because I'm not stupid to speak from a religious perspective with an atheist and try to convince him .
It's a complete nonsense .

Secondly you said : your premise doesn't work in any religion as though you know our religions !!!Your type of knowledge is very selective . You pick up what does suit you and ignore the rest or try to ruin it .
Moreover,you always come here and criticize those who speaks about Atheism and know nothing about it or have misconceptions . You try to correct them but I won't.
I recently learnet sth that is of great wisdom . God thaugt us that the mind is the sense of the heart as the sight is the sense of the eye .
If there is a disease in the heart you can't rely on your mind .We should first cure our hearts from their diseases.

[AuntShecky]

I have long heard the expression "There are no atheists in foxholes" and up until two months ago had thought it to be a platitude. But after my family's harrowing bereavement recently, I now tend to believe that there is no atheism among mourners.

The other day I found an online article which may be germane to this thread. The webpage contains an imbedded video which I haven't had a chance to watch, but I'm sure will shed some light on the discussion at hand. Here is the link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-..._b_783755.html