A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"

[Yazata]

It would be one thing to simply live without God and so on.

That's what most atheists do.

But evangelical atheists

You're shifting goalposts, Tiassa. You began this thread by calling all atheists out. That looked like an over-broad generalization at the time. Now you're talking about evangelical atheists. The obvious difficulty is that not all atheists are evangelists in your sense.

remind constantly that their hatred of religion

Atheists are simply people who don't believe in the literal existence of 'God'. (There's a problem there with defining that word, which we can pass over.) Atheists don't all hate 'religion' (same problem). Most of them don't. Many of them like religion. Many of them are religious, albeit in some non-theistic way.

leads to or is the result of extraordinary ignorance of history, psychology, anthropology, and art.

Some atheists are ignorant. Others of us probably know far more about many of those things than you do.

We see the same spectrum among theists. Some theists are crude poorly-educated Bible-wavers. Others are like my thesis advisor in graduate school, a former Catholic priest and a noted authority on a certain late antique Neoplatonist.

Once upon a time, evangelical atheists were proud to boast of their intelligence; but once society obliged and paid attention, they proved themsleves as stupid as the religious people they hate with such focused passion. It would be nice to think that atheism is something legitimate, but considering the behavior of the atheists I know in my real life circles, here at Sciforums, and otherwise through the virtual extension to the rest of humanity, such a belief would be an utter and decrepit lie.

Ok, you're mad at us. Gotcha.

I would like to think atheists are all they claim to be, but they're not, and that would be okay except they are apparently incapable of recognizing their limitations. And, yes, that makes them as dangerous as the religious megalomaniacs.

You speak of "religious megalomaniacs". Does that mean that you are willing to differentiate among different sorts of theists, between these (arguably) low-end examples and more sophisticated, humane and thoughtful believers in 'God'?

If you are, then why don't you extend the same courtesy to atheists?

If you aren't, then where does that leave you? If the theists and the atheists suck, if they are all such inferiors in your eyes, then what little island are you standing on where you can avoid the wholesale condemnation?

 

[Kittamaru]

Yazata, allow me to add some clarity into what Tiassa was saying (or, at least, my take on what he meant).

He has nothing against Atheists at all. It's just when Atheists start shoving their beliefs down other peoples throats, he feels they become no better than the Theist's they are trying to say they aren't.

In other words... it's like the old addage... having a penis is great. Being proud of said penis is great. Waving it around all over and showing it to every person you come across? Not so great.

 

[GeoffP]

Alright, I'm calling you all out.

Y'all is calling them out? All of them? I see.

Would you please stop deliberately misrepresenting atheism as a brainless cult?

Or, better still and certainly more appropriate, you could identify specific individuals whose mode of argumentation or central narrative treats the religious or 'faithful' unfairly in discussion: say, by grouping them together en masse with a negative generalisation.

You know, like your OP did.

Bonne chance la-bas.

 

[GeoffP]

Yazata, allow me to add some clarity into what Tiassa was saying (or, at least, my take on what he meant).

He has nothing against Atheists at all. It's just when Atheists start shoving their beliefs down other peoples throats, he feels they become no better than the Theist's they are trying to say they aren't.

In other words... it's like the old addage... having a penis is great. Being proud of said penis is great. Waving it around all over and showing it to every person you come across? Not so great.

And criticizing everyone with penises... actually against SF rules.

But what value they?

 

[Kittamaru]

*laughs* GeoffP, nobody is criticizing the penis, nor the person with the penis. Merely, saying that perhaps showing it off in public isn't the best course of action

As for value... well, I like being able to stand and piss for one But we're getting off topic now... the penis tangent can wait.

 

[quinnsong]

*laughs* GeoffP, nobody is criticizing the penis, nor the person with the penis. Merely, saying that perhaps showing it off in public isn't the best course of action

As for value... well, I like being able to stand and piss for one But we're getting off topic now... the penis tangent can wait.

I know, just one time to pee standing up and if it were huge I would certainly want everyone to know.

I think Tiassa may have set off a hornet's nest up in here! Maybe if he said something like the religion forum is one great big circle fuck and let the discussion progress from there?:shrug:

 

[GeoffP]

Well, kittamaru, still using the metaphor, it's a bit unfair and unethical to criticise all penis-carriers blithely and jointly whether or not some penis users have done bad things. (Probably no more than a tiny, tiny minority of radicals, I'm sure.) I'm sorry if or that a few atheists have been unfair in their comments, but going on the attack against atheists, themselves and generally, is appropriate and is not the kind of criticism that is tolerated on the forum. There is a difference between attacking a philosophy and attacking its adherents generally, and it is a difference that is in no question of usage on SF. The thread should be closed and, frankly, tickets handed out, for whatever that's worth. It's not appropriate.

 

[spidergoat]

Yazata, allow me to add some clarity into what Tiassa was saying (or, at least, my take on what he meant).

He has nothing against Atheists at all. It's just when Atheists start shoving their beliefs down other peoples throats, he feels they become no better than the Theist's they are trying to say they aren't.

In other words... it's like the old addage... having a penis is great. Being proud of said penis is great. Waving it around all over and showing it to every person you come across? Not so great.

I don't have any problem with evangelism per se, it's just what they are evangelizing about. Atheists aren't doing anything politically except enforcing the constitutional separation between church and state. If you are complaining about posting here about our beliefs, it is a forum for that.

 

[Kittamaru]

Fair points all around. As I said, that was just my interpretation of what Tiassa said - I could be wrong

 

[Yazata]

Yazata, allow me to add some clarity into what Tiassa was saying (or, at least, my take on what he meant).

If Tiassa's words require someone else's exegesis in order to make sense of them, then they would seem to have been very badly written.

He has nothing against Atheists at all.

The thread title is "A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"". The first line in the first post was, "Alright, I'm calling you all out".

That looks to me like a schoolyard bully's challenge. I'm something of an atheist, I guess, so I assume that the challenge applies to me too.

It's just when Atheists start shoving their beliefs down other peoples throats, he feels they become no better than the Theist's they are trying to say they aren't.

If Tiassa had actually said that, instead of firing crazily at anything that moves, then I would have probably agreed with him. I've said similar things on many occasions myself.

 

[quinnsong]

Yep, woulda, coulda, shoulda but ultimately it is a discussion that needs to be had. Are you one of those that belittle, attack and condescend to the religious on this forum? At one time or another I have done the belittling and condescending myself and nobody's mind was changed, on top of it I felt like shit. I will be a little bold here but more of us should emulate Yazata when discussing and debating religion.

 

[(Q)]

The thread title is "A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"". The first line in the first post was, "Alright, I'm calling you all out".

That looks to me like a schoolyard bully's challenge.

Exactly, but since the rules don't apply to moderators, they can do whatever they want.

Where is the moderator of this forum and why haven't they dealt with this and given Tiassa a time out so he may ponder his folly?

I get three fucking days ban for posting an image while Tiassa creates threads calling out people on the forum and will probably get fuck all. Wtf?

JamesR, where the fuck are you? Get your police squad in line. Do your fucking job.

 

[Balerion]

Well, here's the thing Spidergoat - religion does have some backing evidence... after all, SOMETHING had to have motivated people, even after the creation of the sciences, to continue to believe in the Almighty. Else, why would humanity have done so for so long, and with so many variations?

Does not follow. Most people are born into their religion and never even consider the alternative.

 

[Balerion]

Exactly, but since the rules don't apply to moderators, they can do whatever they want.

Where is the moderator of this forum and why haven't they dealt with this and given Tiassa a time out so he may ponder his folly?

I get three fucking days ban for posting an image while Tiassa creates threads calling out people on the forum and will probably get fuck all. Wtf?

JamesR, where the fuck are you? Get your police squad in line. Do your fucking job.

Just another example of mods operating outside of the rules.

Oh, and Syne won't act here because he agrees with Tiassa's position. Like most other mods, Syne is selective as to whom and what he apllies the rules to. Replace "atheist" with "Christian," and Syne would already have closed the thread.

 

[billvon]

Just another example of mods operating outside of the rules.

A request directed to Sciforums' "Mods."

Would you please stop deliberately misrepresenting moderators as hypocritical ideologues?

 

[Balerion]

A request directed to Sciforums' "Mods."

Would you please stop deliberately misrepresenting moderators as hypocritical, extremist ideologues?

Im sorry, bil, this post unfairly targets moderators. We here at sciforums won't tolerate this kind of bigotry against things we agree with. Enjoy your ban, bigotface.

 

[Yazata]

Most people are born into their religion and never even consider the alternative.

I agree.

And very likely there are deeper psychological reasons why people all over the world so often believe in the existence of hidden but super-powerful gods.

The theory isn't original with me by any means, but I speculate that human beings are born with innate social instincts. Those include not only ethical intuitions, but also the ability to read meaning into the behavior of other humans. We understand vocal grunts as meaningful words. We interpret facial expressions and bodily gestures as expressive of inner emotions. And we seem to have an innate 'theory of mind', so to speak, that leads us to interpret behavior, both other people's and probably our own as well, as motivated by purposes and intentions.

It's actually kind of striking how easy and pleasurable this stuff is for most people. High-school kinds relax by hanging out with their friends, not by studying calculus. Despite the fact that understanding calculus is a far simpler data-processing task than producing and decoding natural language. Young children just start speaking with very little instruction at all.

So... it seems likely that when people are confronted with events in the physical world around them, they will just automatically tend to think of those events in ways that are easiest and most natural. In other words, it's likely that they will interpret natural and inanimate events in terms appropriate for understanding human beings, in terms of purposes and intentional actions.

But if no human body is perceived to exist that's in any position to generate the kind of events that are being observed (weather, fate or whatever), we are apt to see the leap to the idea that there must be some other kind of intentional agents at work out there, ones with psychologies like our own (that are 'persons' in other words), that are invisible to our senses and capable of performing amazing acts far beyond the powers of mere humans like ourselves.

In other words, I'm speculating that our innate abilities to interact with other human beings might predispose many of us towards psychologically anthropomorphizing non-human realities as well.

 

[Kittamaru]

And see, I dont' agree with that at all... it's how my family did it, and I ended up leaving my faith and exploring several others for a few years before finally settling on one that felt right. Indoctrinating your child into a religious belief at a young age is crazy... but then again, people take Mark 10:15 out of context... "Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a child will not enter it at all."

The actual quote is thus:

But when Jesus saw this, He was indignant and said to them, "Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. "Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all."

Basically, the way I see it, he was saying not to stop a child from exploring their religion, but also that one must look at religion with eyes not tainted by the world at large.

 

[Sorcerer]

I agree.

And very likely there are deeper psychological reasons why people all over the world so often believe in the existence of hidden but super-powerful gods.

The theory isn't original with me by any means, but I speculate that human beings are born with innate social instincts. Those include not only ethical intuitions, but also the ability to read meaning into the behavior of other humans. We understand vocal grunts as meaningful words. We interpret facial expressions and bodily gestures as expressive of inner emotions. And we seem to have an innate 'theory of mind', so to speak, that leads us to interpret behavior, both other people's and probably our own as well, as motivated by purposes and intentions.

It's actually kind of striking how easy and pleasurable this stuff is for most people. High-school kinds relax by hanging out with their friends, not by studying calculus. Despite the fact that understanding calculus is a far simpler data-processing task than producing and decoding natural language. Young children just start speaking with very little instruction at all.

So... it seems likely that when people are confronted with events in the physical world around them, they will just automatically tend to think of those events in ways that are easiest and most natural. In other words, it's likely that they will interpret natural and inanimate events in terms appropriate for understanding human beings, in terms of purposes and intentional actions.

But if no human body is perceived to exist that's in any position to generate the kind of events that are being observed (weather, fate or whatever), we are apt to see the leap to the idea that there must be some other kind of intentional agents at work out there, ones with psychologies like our own (that are 'persons' in other words), that are invisible to our senses and capable of performing amazing acts far beyond the powers of mere humans like ourselves.

In other words, I'm speculating that our innate abilities to interact with other human beings might predispose many of us towards psychologically anthropomorphizing non-human realities as well.

There's a lot of truth in this. You could also be a little more pragmatic and point out that there have always been charismatic people, those with a gift for words and eloquence, who are capable of controlling their fellows, especially in a herd environment, and who rather fancy staying in the nice warm cave and being a priest rather than venturing out on a hunting expedition, and who very quickly grasped the idea that promising people nice things or threatening them with nasty things was a very smart way indeed of achieving that blessed condition.

 

[quinnsong]

I agree.

And very likely there are deeper psychological reasons why people all over the world so often believe in the existence of hidden but super-powerful gods.

The theory isn't original with me by any means, but I speculate that human beings are born with innate social instincts. Those include not only ethical intuitions, but also the ability to read meaning into the behavior of other humans. We understand vocal grunts as meaningful words. We interpret facial expressions and bodily gestures as expressive of inner emotions. And we seem to have an innate 'theory of mind', so to speak, that leads us to interpret behavior, both other people's and probably our own as well, as motivated by purposes and intentions.

It's actually kind of striking how easy and pleasurable this stuff is for most people. High-school kinds relax by hanging out with their friends, not by studying calculus. Despite the fact that understanding calculus is a far simpler data-processing task than producing and decoding natural language. Young children just start speaking with very little instruction at all.

So... it seems likely that when people are confronted with events in the physical world around them, they will just automatically tend to think of those events in ways that are easiest and most natural. In other words, it's likely that they will interpret natural and inanimate events in terms appropriate for understanding human beings, in terms of purposes and intentional actions.

But if no human body is perceived to exist that's in any position to generate the kind of events that are being observed (weather, fate or whatever), we are apt to see the leap to the idea that there must be some other kind of intentional agents at work out there, ones with psychologies like our own (that are 'persons' in other words), that are invisible to our senses and capable of performing amazing acts far beyond the powers of mere humans like ourselves.

In other words, I'm speculating that our innate abilities to interact with other human beings might predispose many of us towards psychologically anthropomorphizing non-human realities as well.

Great post and unlike Kittamuru, I agree with your analysis.