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

[The Atheist]

You mean like atheists enforce their beliefs of evolution in the classrooms?

Oddly, I don't have any problem with teaching of peer-reviewed science. Especially ones that have been peer-reviewed to extreme lengths, like evolution.

____________________________________


I've now had time to go through the article critically and would make the following comments:

What spiritual quest are they on, except to put an abrupt end to those like my father's? For them, the science is settled, the data are conclusive and the book (no, not the Good Book) has been written. Time for everyone else to pack up and move on to other business, like, presumably, accumulating wealth and fulminating at the sight of the nearest Christmas tree.

Where are atheists who suggest accumulation of wealth?

This is an outrageous strawman argument. I would like to see evidence that any atheist has ever suggested accumulation of wealth as an alternative to religion.

The christmas tree comment isn't just wrong, it's stupid. The German tradition of christmas trees has only a tenuous connection to christ, which has long been superceded by commercialism. I have never heard an atheist railing against christmas trees and every atheist home I've been into this christmas has a christmas tree.

Though more than 95% of the world finds some meaning in faith, God-hating comic Bill Maher shrugs this off as a "neurological disorder."

>95% is a false claim.

Even Adherents, a religious organisation, lists agnosticism at 16% worldwide.

I feel that's a little low, given China alone, where a high percentage of the population does not practice any form of religion, but as the numbers at Adherents already negate her argument, I'll leave it there.

While the neoatheists pay only cursory attention to dismantling arguments for God, they spend most of their time painting his followers as uncultured rubes.

Assertion without foundation, which is no doubt why she has again failed to provide evidence. There are certainly examples of atheists attacking theists' intelligence, but saying it takes up "most of their time" is totally dishonest.

The truth is, folks like Maher and Silverman don't want to know about actual belief - in fact, they are much more certain about the nature of the world than most actual believers, who understand that a measure of doubt is necessary for faith. They want to focus on the downfall of a gay pastor or the Nativity scene at a mall.

Again, this is completely fallacious to the point of fantasy.

Almost no atheists claim certainty, and Richard Dawkins' well-known 6.9/7 comment regarding certainty embodies this precisely for the vast majority of atheists. To claim that atheists talk of certainty and theists of doubt is a travesty of reality.

Poor article, badly written, using several fallacious arguments, actual falsehoods and argument from personal assertion.

Thanks, Aunt Shecky, for the link, because it goes right to the heart of my OP. She has created a strawman of atheism to attack, which is a pretty easy target in 90% theistic USA.

I couldn't have found a better example!

[YesNo]

Here's a beautifully written essay by a professed atheist on the need for humility:

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/...certainty.html

Ms Cupp writes:
"The militant atheist wants nothing more than to spoil the believer's spiritual journey. That's both mean spirited and radically unenlightened."

and as an illustration:

"I wonder what they'd say to someone like Immaculee Ilibagiza, a survivor of the Rwandan genocide who says that her faith in Jesus Christ got her through 91 days of hiding in a 3x4 foot bathroom while her family was murdered outside. Would they tell her she was crazy? Delusional? To just deal with it? I would hope not - but I am not sure."

I don't see how the "mean spirited" comments of either atheists or Christians can "spoil" someone's spiritual journey. Cupp's own article seemed "radically unenlightened".

[The Atheist]

I don't see how the "mean spirited" comments of either atheists or Christians can "spoil" someone's spiritual journey.

That's a very good point too.

I often ask christians why they get angry at atheism when their personal pal just happens to run the entire universe.

What are they really afraid of?

[BienvenuJDC]

I don't see how the "mean spirited" comments of either atheists or Christians can "spoil" someone's spiritual journey. Cupp's own article seemed "radically unenlightened".

Then the comments about "Christian fundamentalists" are without any legitimacy. Most of the issues that many atheists have are about the opinions of "Christian fundamentalists". Why don't we all just have our own opinions and leave each other alone? That would also mean that BOTH evolution and creationism should be taught in schools.

[MarkBastable]

Why don't we all just have our own opinions and leave each other alone?

There's a fundmental and important distinction between questioning ideas and attacking people. All ideas should be constantly and rigorously tested and retested. They should never be left alone.

And as the ideas have to be expressed by people, people tend to be involved in that process.

That doesn't mean that the people involved are being attacked. It's possible to simultaneously be happy for people to have their own opinions and also to want to talk about the ideas that support those opinions.

I honestly don't understand why some people - of many persuasions - don't want to have their ideas questioned, but that's their choice of course. The rest of us, on the other hand, might want to carry on with that exchange.

[BienvenuJDC]

I honestly don't understand why some people - of many persuasions - don't want to have their ideas questioned, but that's their choice of course. The rest of us, on the other hand, might want to carry on with that exchange.

Yet there is currently an ongoing movement to stifle the discussion of religious matter in any public school. The "new" "militant" atheism doesn't want any discussion of "intelligent design". They want to monopolize the discussion and the evidences. I've raised the question many times, but it is never answered. Why do we continue to teach in our schools that it takes millions or billions of years for coal to form in nature, when scientists now know for a fact that it only takes decades? There are SOME who don't want to address truth, but they revel in their theories....theories that don't match the evidence.

[OrphanPip]

Yet there is currently an ongoing movement to stifle the discussion of religious matter in any public school. The "new" "militant" atheism doesn't want any discussion of "intelligent design". They want to monopolize the discussion and the evidences. I've raised the question many times, but it is never answered.

Intelligent design is not science, not only that the major proponents of it, like Michael Behe, have been shown countless times to be outright liars that are just taking advantage of the scientifically illiterate by using just enough scientific jargon to confuse the layman, even though everything they say has been thoroughly debunked.

Teach ID at home if you like, but science courses should teach science.

Why do we continue to teach in our schools that it takes millions or billions of years for coal to form in nature, when scientists now know for a fact that it only takes decades? There are SOME who don't want to address truth, but they revel in their theories....theories that don't match the evidence.

That's patently nonsense, it does take millions of years for coal to form, on another note there haven't even been complex plants around for a billion years. Not only that, but coal formation requires extended anaerobic conditions, i.e. they have to occur in marshes, lakes or bogs. The early stages of coal formation, which can occur in a few decades, is peat, which makes a far less effective fuel.

Have you ever been to a strip mine where they mine coal, the depth coal is found at couldn't even be possible if it only took decades. Stuff from a few decades back, without disturbance, would only be under a couple feet of ground at most. Not to mention the fact that coal formation requires decaying plant material to originally be under water.

[The Atheist]

Then the comments about "Christian fundamentalists" are without any legitimacy. Most of the issues that many atheists have are about the opinions of "Christian fundamentalists". Why don't we all just have our own opinions and leave each other alone? That would also mean that BOTH evolution and creationism should be taught in schools.

This is a horrible suggestion, and I would fight it to my death.

It isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact vs belief.

As to leaving each other alone, that's a goal I'd love to see realised, but it would require theists to keep their faith to themselves, and I will wait until that happens before I put down the artillery.

[MarkBastable]

Yet there is currently an ongoing movement to stifle the discussion of religious matter in any public school. The "new" "militant" atheism doesn't want any discussion of "intelligent design". They want to monopolize the discussion and the evidences. .

So would it be better if nothing was taught in schools that anyone anywhere disagreed with? Or should everything be taught in schools that someone somewhere feels ought to be?

[MystyrMystyry]

Because so-called 'Intelligent design' works in reverse to defeat itself

'Why do we have two legs?'
'One for the accelerator and one for the brake'

'Why do we have two ears?'
'So our spectacles don't fall off'

'Why do we have two eyes?'
''In case we poke ourself in one by a burnt stick, and what could be better than that?'

[JuniperWoolf]

My biology teacher DID teach us about intelligent design in highschool. Of course, he first taught us about natural selection, mutation and evolution but after he was done each section of study he always went over the social implications of what we learned and after evolution we learend about the "intelligent design controversy." He was a great guy, he didn't say "and then some people believe in THIS nonesense," he just let the facts speak for themselves. It's important to know what other people believe in, this is as close to allowing intelligent design into a science classroom as I will condone.

[AuntShecky]

____________________________________


I've now had time to go through the article critically and would make the following comments:



Where are atheists who suggest accumulation of wealth?

This is an outrageous strawman argument. I would like to see evidence that any atheist has ever suggested accumulation of wealth as an alternative to religion.

There you go with your "strawman" again.

Although I have no doubt that some atheists are not materialistic, the absence of spirituality would create a vacuum, one would think, which must be filled-- if not with the desire to accumulate wealth, then with something else.

Among famous atheists Karl Marx derived his philosophy from Hegel's dialectical materialism.
The christmas tree comment isn't just wrong, it's stupid. The German tradition of christmas trees has only a tenuous connection to christ, which has long been superceded by commercialism. I have never heard an atheist railing against christmas trees and every atheist home I've been into this christmas has a christmas tree.

The Christmas tree, as a symbol, has a tenuous association with Christianity in the sense that it can represent both the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil," as in the Garden of Eden allegory, as well as the "tree" which provided the wood for the cross. The primary focus on the tree is that it is an evergreen, which for the pre-Christian societies symbolized the coming of spring and for Christians the idea of resurrection and everlasting life.

>95% is a false claim.


I feel that's a little low, given China alone, where a high percentage of the population does not practice any form of religion

How do we know this? Are we assuming that no Chinese harbor religious beliefs simply because they do not practice religion publicly? ( Doing so would be risking bodily harm by the State.)

I thought the examples cited by the author (including the woman who survived while witnessing the murders of her family, as well as the author's own father) were effective and emotionally moving examples.

Almost no atheists claim certainty, and Richard Dawkins' well-known 6.9/7 comment regarding certainty embodies this precisely for the vast majority of atheists. To claim that atheists talk of certainty and theists of doubt is a travesty of reality.

Well, many of them publicly behave as if they had all the answers, giving the impression that anyone who doesn't share their beliefs (or lack of them)is intellectually "juvenile," to use Dawkins's term. I'm sorry, but I cannot accept the premise that belief in a Supreme Being -- or even keeping an open mind to the possibility that there may be truth beyond what can be measured or perceived by the senses-- is
a symptom of ignorance. There are far too many geniuses in the intellectual history of mankind who advocated religious belief: Dante, Milton, Donne, Tennyson, Emily Dickinson, G. K. Chesterton. J. R. R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, et al.--especially William James:

http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=57272

No one is forced to abandon his own cherished beliefs simply because the opposite opinion happens to be trendy or a hot topic at the time. It would be much better if both schools of thought would at least attempt to have respect for the other's opinion. Even though there may be camps of fundamentalist fanatics, the proponents of atheism do not have to emulate their tactics. In general, though, Christians are required to "hate the sin but love the sinner," though many do not always remember that. And though there is value in honest and forthright zeal, there's always the possibility of "brainwashing" on both sides.

Both sides could use a little dose of healthy doubt once in a while:

"There lives more faith in honest doubt,
Believe me, than in half the creeds."
--Tennyson [/COLOR][/

[The Atheist]

There you go with your "strawman" again.

Trust me, I hate the term myself, but it's the only thing which fits in these cases. The premises are made up, and made up for the sole purpose of supporting an argument.

What else can I describe it as?

If you can find some evidence that any of the premises are true, fire away.

Although I have no doubt that some atheists are not materialistic, the absence of spirituality would create a vacuum, one would think, which must be filled-- if not with the desire to accumulate wealth, then with something else.

I have bolded the appropriate part, because you're falling into exactly the same error. Who says it will create a vacuum? Why would it create a vacuum?

You are making up things to suit your argument.

The Christmas tree...

My primary point - which you didn't answer - was that I have never heard of atheists complaining about christmas trees.

The idea is made up.

How do we know this? Are we assuming that no Chinese harbor religious beliefs simply because they do not practice religion publicly? ( Doing so would be risking bodily harm by the State.)

Again, you're missing the main point. The numbers used in the article were made up. I gave you a religious organisation's estimate, which proved her wrong. Whether or not the number is higher, it is unarguable that she made up the "95%".

I thought the examples cited by the author (including the woman who survived while witnessing the murders of her family, as well as the author's own father) were effective and emotionally moving examples.

Of what? That people believe in god/s with all of their being?

I already knew that, and many suicide bombers have confirmed it since then.

The stories may have moved me more had I been sure they were true. When I read an article which has glaring dishonesty, I find it hard to be moved by the emotional bits - they're probably as false as the data used.

Well, many of them publicly behave as if they had all the answers, giving the impression that anyone who doesn't share their beliefs (or lack of them)is intellectually "juvenile," to use Dawkins's term.

I find it hard to disagree with Dawkins on this one. The idea that religion is merely human construct is so obvious that it is often hard not to be too dismissive.

Let's agree that's one area where militant atheism could improve itself.

It would be much better if both schools of thought would at least attempt to have respect for the other's opinion.

I won't agree with that, though. I will never be able to respect theism, nor do I believe that I should. I don't respect people who believe in psychics, astrology or alien lizards running the planet earth, so I think seeking respect is the wrong approach.

Even though there may be camps of fundamentalist fanatics, the proponents of atheism do not have to emulate their tactics.

This is another of those made-up ideas.

In what way do atheists behave like fundies? Do they tell those who disagree they're going to hell? Do they have atheist exorcisms, exorcising the spirit of Jesus? Do they pay for television stations to broadcast daily messages to the faithful?

I see a lot of conflating atheism and fundamentalism, but I think it's highly dishonest.

Both sides could use a little dose of healthy doubt once in a while:

I repeat that atheists actually exercise a lot more doubt than you're suggesting.

[BienvenuJDC]

It isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact vs belief.

True...it is your belief that...
...everything came from nothing
...life came from non-life
...consciousness came from unconsciousness
...intelligence came from non-intelligence
...morality came from amorality

But NONE of that comes from facts. There are NO facts that support evolution. Science does not support your beliefs. But you'll just deny it...that doesn't really make your case though.

[OrphanPip]

Although I have no doubt that some atheists are not materialistic, the absence of spirituality would create a vacuum, one would think, which must be filled-- if not with the desire to accumulate wealth, then with something else.

Among famous atheists Karl Marx derived his philosophy from Hegel's dialectical materialism.

This is a bit silly Shecky. You're conflating very different meanings of materialism. Dialectical materialism is a theory from Marxism about capitalism's tendency to work towards maximum efficiency in a way that is self-destructive to the capitalistic system. I.e. The move of factories towards robotic workers that puts factory workers out of work, and in turn creates less customers for the factory would be an example of dialectical materialism.

I just don't get what this has to do with the accumulation of wealth replacing any spiritual thing for atheist.

And really let's look at Calvinist, who used to see material wealth as a sign of God's Grace, thus they were very actively involved in the accumulation of material wealth. I don't see why atheist would be more likely to look for satisfaction in wealth than religious people.

Most scientist are atheist, most scientist are not working in fields likely to get them rich.

If we're talking about philosophical materialism, obviously this is a worldview many atheist are likely to support, but this has nothing to do with the accumulation of wealth. It just means that you believe the world around us is real and understandable and there is no supernatural.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism