A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"

[Write4U]

a) 'Evil' is a religious concept, so why would an atheist apply it at all? Dawkins described religion as a virus and theists to be sufferers of faith. While describing it as a virus, or a disease, for example, is not the same as being 'evil', but as far as insults go, scientifically, it's kind of up there.

I agree, unless the religious person has called the atheist and atheism "evil". As you observed, the game is played by different "ethical" rules. Ironically, in religious days of old, viruses were considered "demons" . Dawkins merely turned the phrase.

b) Why should atheists care if someone applies a religious concept to them? Someone thinks I am evil because I am an atheist?

Well if they come into your backyard and smash a priceless lifesized sculpture of Venus and Cupid (a gift from a world famous sculptress) with baseball bats.

Okay then.. And?

Really?

Get in line behind my relatives who constantly tell me I am going to burn in hell for eternity and beg me to repent on a weekly basis.

Are you defending your relatives for promising hell? That's odd.

Dawkins is clear. Anyone who is a theist or associates with theists should be mocked and ridiculed.

The sad thing is that in the beginning, Dawkins was not like this. There was a level of rational debate to be found in his words. Now though, it's as if he is on a crusade. Which is ironic really. It's literally coming down to a 'convert or else' scenario now.

Similar to the religious duty to prostletize? Tis is one of the problems. Theists are not passively practicing their religions. History is witness to that.
Atheists are extremely passive about practicing atheism. Atheist do not knock on people's doors and ask the owner "if he or she is saved" or else he/she will burn in hell."

 

[Balerion]

Hah at your comments about Ruse. Conceited much? And your continued misrepresentation of what I say is frankly kind of nasty.

I said that as an atheist, I have also mocked theists on this site. I have at times found myself falling into the realm of 'new atheism'. You know, the one you are frantically defending without really knowing or understanding what it actually means. Hell, you can't even decide what you are. Perhaps you should stop trying to determine what others are?

You are offended because your role on this site is to be offended. It's all you do. You spend half your time posting one liner quips and reminding staff how you are going to save this or that to use for later.

Tiassa's complaint is against 'new atheism'. Instead of addressing the issues with that movement, you have taken it upon yourself to be offended on behalf of atheists because you can't even understand what Tiassa is actually even speaking about. Instead, you take a blog post done with a large dose of sarcasm and you have assigned him as a theist and then complained some more and surprise surprise, been offended even more. No true surprise there.

Hitting the eject button, I see. Lol.

Nothing new there.

 

[Bells]

I agree, unless the religious person has called the atheist and atheism "evil". As you observed, the game is played by different "ethical" rules. Ironically, in religious days of old, viruses were considered "demons" . Dawkins merely turned the phrase.

Fear of the unknown was often referred in such ways as well, so really, it's not just the religious.

Well if they come into your backyard and smash a priceless lifesized sculpture of Venus and Cupid (a gift from a world famous sculptress) with baseball bats.

Because this is likely? Within the realm of reality, how common do you think this is?

Really?

Words.. can't break my bones. They are just words. I am hardly going to start wailing because someone thinks I am evil for being an atheist.

Are you defending your relatives for promising hell? That's odd.

Those very same relatives who tell me I will burn in hell for my atheism are also the very people who have and do drop anything and everything to come to my aid when required. When I was ill, they cooked for us, looked after my children, helped bathe me, cleaned my house, mowed my lawn, supported me when my marriage failed. Just because they are religious and religious fundamentalists in a few cases, does not mean I don't love them and does not mean they aren't good people. They are, by any definition, exceptional loving human beings.

Why wouldn't I defend them?

But if I ascribed to Dawkins, they should be shunned and mocked and ridiculed. I'd rather no one did. They have their faults like everyone does, but they are also awesome people. Should I judge them for their religious ideology? Or for the type of people they are, who have come running from all areas of the country, some even in the middle of the night at any time they find out someone in the family needs help?

My former inlaws, on the other hand, atheist, my sister in law is a bitch who has taken to stealing my kid's clothes for her own children at every opportunity, is offensive and rude and overly controlling to the point that if we don't name plants by their latin names, she will openly abuse us for our ignorance, is somewhat racist on occasion and has made detrimental comments about my sons because they aren't as white as her children.. by telling me that my kids stand out like sore thumbs in photos and don't look as though they fit in because they have olive skin.

Who should I defend?

Similar to the religious duty to prostletize? Tis is one of the problems. Theists are not passively practicing their religions. History is witness to that.
Atheists are extremely passive about practicing atheism. Atheist do not knock on people's doors and ask the owner "if he or she is saved" or else he/she will burn in hell."

One cannot practice atheism. You are either an atheist or you are not. There is no practice. The issue is, some try to practice it. And they do so by conversion through ridicule and abuse.

 

[Write4U]

Fear of the unknown was often referred in such ways as well, so really, it's not just the religious.

In the Dark Ages, religion ruled everything and every offense was an offense against god. That's why we had exorcisms and the Inquisition, who had an enhanced interrogation method called "putting to the test". Few passed the test.

Because this is likely? Within the realm of reality, how common do you think this is?

More common than you think. That statue belonged to my parents.

Words.. can't break my bones. They are just words. I am hardly going to start wailing because someone thinks I am evil for being an atheist.

No, I would suggest a low profile lest someone thinks you are evil for being an atheist. Ask Hypatia.....
http://www.womanastronomer.com/hypatia.htm

Those very same relatives who tell me I will burn in hell for my atheism are also the very people who have and do drop anything and everything to come to my aid when required. When I was ill, they cooked for us, looked after my children, helped bathe me, cleaned my house, mowed my lawn, supported me when my marriage failed. Just because they are religious and religious fundamentalists in a few cases, does not mean I don't love them and does not mean they aren't good people. They are, by any definition, exceptional loving human beings.

Is anyone accusing them of being evil?

But I do like your closing statement and would modify it only to say that most people, spiritual or atheist, are exceptional loving human beings, by any definition.

Why wouldn't I defend them?

Against who, Atheists?

I ascribed to Dawkins, they should be shunned and mocked and ridiculed. I'd rather no one did. They have their faults like everyone does, but they are also awesome people. Should I judge them for their religious ideology? Or for the type of people they are, who have come running from all areas of the country, some even in the middle of the night at any time they find out someone in the family needs help?

Why are you mnaking this complicated? Atheists do not persecute religious people (unless they behave unlawfully). Your enemy is other religions, who lay claim to "eternal truth".

My former inlaws, on the other hand, atheist, my sister in law is a bitch who has taken to stealing my kid's clothes for her own children at every opportunity, is offensive and rude and overly controlling to the point that if we don't name plants by their latin names, she will openly abuse us for our ignorance, is somewhat racist on occasion and has made detrimental comments about my sons because they aren't as white as her children.. by telling me that my kids stand out like sore thumbs in photos and don't look as though they fit in because they have olive skin.

And what has that to do with religion or atheism?

Who should I defend?

Be selective in your friends and family.

One cannot practice atheism. You are either an atheist or you are not. There is no practice. The issue is, some try to practice it. And they do so by conversion through ridicule and abuse.

Oh come now. You are talking about formal debates which are always won by atheists. You do NOT see atheists stand on corners, proclaiming that God's wrath is about to rain down on this sinful world. Repent, repent!.

An atheist doesn't give a hoot what you believe in unless you want to "spread the good news" and get in someone's face who does not wish to be bothered.

 

[Kittamaru]

An atheist doesn't give a hoot what you believe in unless you want to "spread the good news" and get in someone's face who does not wish to be bothered.

If only that were true mate... sadly, there are plenty who go out of their way to make theists feel like crap, even right here on these very forums. (Q) was a pretty good example of that.

 

[Write4U]

If only that were true mate... sadly, there are plenty who go out of their way to make theists feel like crap, even right here on these very forums. (Q) was a pretty good example of that.

I feel like crap when someone tells me my view of GR is completely wrong. His feeling about my inner beliefs do not inyerest me in the least. Religious peoples are not the victims in this historical tale. It was the heretic, the non-believer who introduced satan to the community and had to be exterminated. It was the Non-religious people who were victimized . these facts cannot be dismissed and now religion is complaining about persecution?

Religions have many more advantages and priviliges than ordinary individuals.

 

[Bells]

In the Dark Ages, religion ruled everything and every offense was an offense against god. That's why we had exorcisms and the Inquisition, who had an enhanced interrogation method called "putting to the test". Few passed the test.

Of which, many stem from before organised religion.

Religious beliefs or belief in something may have stemmed as far back as the middle paleolithic period. Our hominid ancestors may have buried their dead. Early human graves were found with what appears to be ritualistic use of red ochre and other items buried with them.

More common than you think. That statue belonged to my parents.

And some religious people broke into your parents yard and smashed the statue?

A few years ago some people broke into some churches and vandalised it, spray painting "God = Delusion" and "There is no God" along with a few other messages. Arseholes belong to both sides of the equation.

No, I would suggest a low profile lest someone thinks you are evil for being an atheist. Ask Hypatia.....
http://www.womanastronomer.com/hypatia.htm

Riigghhhttt..

Bit of a stretch, don't you think?

These days, if I declared myself a theist amongst some circle's, I could find myself having my reputation shredded in public, my name being mud, being abused and insulted in public by some within the public arena.

Is anyone accusing them of being evil?

I'd like to see them try.

But I do like your closing statement and would modify it only to say that most people, spiritual or atheist, are exceptional loving human beings, by any definition.

Of course.

However the new atheism movement would have me break contact and insult them for their beliefs.

A few weeks ago Balerion said something very strange to me, when I said that my youngest child appears to be a theist in that he believes there is a God and heaven. And Balerion commented and said that it would be disappointing if he grew up and still believed that. And I thought to myself there are a few things that could disappoint me. I would be disappointed if my son grew up to be hateful or bigoted or grew up to be violent or hurt someone. Would I be disappointed if he grew up to believe in God? No.

Against who, Atheists?

Well according to some, they deserve to be abused.

Why are you mnaking this complicated? Atheists do not persecute religious people (unless they behave unlawfully). Your enemy is other religions, who lay claim to "eternal truth".

So as an atheist I should have enemies? What do other religions who lay claim to eternal truths have to do with me, so much so that I should consider them my "enemy"?

And what has that to do with religion or atheism?

It has everything to do with it. New Atheism would mean shunning them and trying to convert them. So as an atheist by Dawkins reasoning, I am failing in my duties. Our role is now apparently to convert. Some even mentioned it at the start of this thread. But convert them to what? We are quick to state that religion should be private, but atheism needs to be the choice of the day? So much so that we should convert people by driving them to it through abuse and insults?

Be selective in your friends and family.

Oh I am. Which is why I adore my family for all of their faults. Because if I am ever in need of help, they will be there for me. Which is what new atheism cannot quite get. Community and being able to have shared experiences with people who believe differently to us. Common connections and recognition that the other is a human being. Where one's religious beliefs or lack of belief is secondary to the human being. New atheism demands that we recognise people by their beliefs, not by their very humanity and who they are. There can be no true connection if they are believer's.

Oh come now. You are talking about formal debates which are always won by atheists. You do NOT see atheists stand on corners, proclaiming that God's wrath is about to rain down on this sinful world. Repent, repent!.

An atheist doesn't give a hoot what you believe in unless you want to "spread the good news" and get in someone's face who does not wish to be bothered.

Then perhaps Dawkins and co should get out of our collective faces.

If the good news is "Mock them.. Ridicule them.. In public.." then as an atheist I do give a hoot.

Because I don't call that winning the debate.

 

[spidergoat]

There are flaws in the movement. If you can't see them, then you are just as blind as fundamentalist theists who can't see the flaws in their religious dogma and beliefs and actions.

In case it's escaped your notice (that was sarcasm by the way, it clearly has escaped your notice), atheist discourse is dominated by the likes of Dwarkins, Hitchens and Harris and their ilk. Their faces are plastered everywhere as the face of atheism. If ever there is anything about atheism to discuss, it's Dwarkins and his fellow buffoons who do the talking and usually end up making atheists around the world cringe in embarrassment. There is even a term for it. New Atheism.

I'm not a new atheist.

I am an atheist. But I am not a 'new atheist'. It seems you clearly are because to criticise the movement is apparently mean spirited. Fark me, you're like rank and file without an independent thought about your atheism.. a mere mouth piece for the popular movement.

New atheism is about taking over because new atheism is supposedly so much more rational. It's about atheistic conversions. I don't view Dwarkins as being rational. I see him as being a fundamentalist and an extremist who does more damage than good 3/4 of the time.

I am a new atheist. There are flaws in the movement because there are flaws in people. And because atheism isn't a comprehensive "how to behave" ideology. So there are sexists and racists among us. I think the so-called 4 horsemen of new atheism represent the best parts of the movement. Yes, they are bold in their anti-religious sentiment and that is something new, but necessary. They have inspired many people to abandon faith and embrace reason.

 

[GeoffP]

Hah at your comments about Ruse. Conceited much?

Sometimes. But as I say, Ruse is punching up a monster of his own construction here. No rebuttal to that, I see. Since you're so curious, I pinned him to the wall with one point when I was debating him about some of his comments which I think you might have called "new atheistic". He just kind of slumped in his seat. It's wonderful to have your turn at deconstructing a legendary figure. Heh. Nice guy though; i just feel he's wrong about this issue and about some of the facets we discussed.

Wait... my god. Was I partially responsible for the counter-movement to this (misconstrued) "New Atheism"? Did I impregnate the fertile mind of Ruse that day, twenty years gone? We'll never know.

And your continued misrepresentation of what I say is frankly kind of nasty.

The only nasty thing about this discussion is the nearly constant misdirection, actually. You've stated that you engage in theist-baiting, you seem to still feel that being a theist is some kind of character flaw, and that same perspective exists in your comments since you tried to "over-theist" me or "under-atheist" me or whatever the hell that was earlier WRT Tiassa. I'll state what I'm looking for here again, and which is the only reasonable solution: an infraction for Tiassa, and move on. Thanks. His caricature of modern atheists was absurd and embarrassing even to see.

I said that as an atheist, I have also mocked theists on this site. I have at times found myself falling into the realm of 'new atheism'. You know, the one you are frantically defending without really knowing or understanding what it actually means. Hell, you can't even decide what you are. Perhaps you should stop trying to determine what others are?

Oh, my capacities for determination are really quite phenomenal. I'll carry on doing as I do, thanks. Still no cite from you on your counter, I see.

You are offended because your role on this site is to be offended. It's all you do. You spend half your time posting one liner quips and reminding staff how you are going to save this or that to use for later.

That would be funnier if it weren't so hysterically ludicrous. I mean, there's a limit, you know? A point can't be too absurd, or it just produces a sort of disinterested stare. It gets boring. It has to have an element of near believability; something that could almost be true, in some kind of skewed universe. I laughingly remember Tiassa's dire, Sarumanesque - and you can use that word - prophesies when management forced him to back down about some point or other a long while back: "oh so this is the sort of forum you want, so it's the sort of forum you're going to get blah blah blah here's a story I read but had nothing personal to do with about an irrelevant juxtaposition in Washington as if anyone cared blah blah you and your little dog too". I did laugh, because it was melodramatic pap, easily as good as a villain's soliloquy from a Hammer Films vampire flick, and because it was funny to watch my supposed moral superior being bent into a pretzel simulacrum of an ethics manager forced to obey the very rules he's meant to be an example of. God, what fun. So don't douse me with your terrifying prevarications. Go haunt a house with them, and leave me be; there's the thing.

Oh, and by "staff" I think you mean: you. Don't try to paint all the mods in the same crap colours, thanks, and I remind you that I've reminded you about this before.

Tiassa's complaint is against 'new atheism'. Instead of addressing the issues with that movement, you have taken it upon yourself to be offended on behalf of atheists because you can't even understand what Tiassa is actually even speaking about. Instead, you take a blog post done with a large dose of sarcasm

Ha! Now see, that was funny, because it was just flatly absurd. "Blog post done with a large dose of sarcasm"? That was some truly excellent crap. I mean, we could talk about how you couldn't possibly know or infer that from the, you know, answers to the questions Tiassa poses to himself - easily one of the stranger things I've witnessed associated with SF - but I suspect it wouldn't have the same comedy as your last bit above.

If you want to know what I think of Dawkins, you can scroll back up through the thread as I have made numerous comments about him and his brand of atheism which are all written in my own words.

That's nothing to brag about. Also, where's this evidence you're meant to produce about my generalisations? 24 hours now. Thanks.

 

[Kittamaru]

I feel like crap when someone tells me my view of GR is completely wrong. His feeling about my inner beliefs do not inyerest me in the least. Religious peoples are not the victims in this historical tale. It was the heretic, the non-believer who introduced satan to the community and had to be exterminated. It was the Non-religious people who were victimized . these facts cannot be dismissed and now religion is complaining about persecution?

Religions have many more advantages and priviliges than ordinary individuals.

I go after persecution in all its forms, because I cannot stand it. We, as a species, need to collectively "get over ourselves" and learn to put our big boy/girl pants on and act like adults. We're all the same basic species, we live on this little rock together... how about instead of trying to make those that are different from us feel like shit or trying to persecute/prosecute/enslave/et al them... why don't we work together and better ourselves?

Seems like a much more useful idea in the end, doesn't it?

 

[quinnsong]

They have inspired many people to abandon faith and embrace reason.

Might be because it felt just like another religion to them, especially if the converting is done by someone like Dawkins or a new atheist. Comfort Zone so to speak because they are trading one dogma for another.

 

[GeoffP]

Hitting the eject button, I see. Lol.

Nothing new there.

She keeps hammering it but the circuit appears to be broken, because she's still here.

Wasn't there some ghost movie where they thought they were killing it and it kept coming back? That's a good parallel too.

 

[GeoffP]

One cannot practice atheism. You are either an atheist or you are not. There is no practice. The issue is, some try to practice it. And they do so by conversion through ridicule and abuse.

Another example of the same kind of ridiculous generalisation. It just keeps on giving. Hello, SF staff. Maybe this should be thumped? Just saying.

 

[Kittamaru]

Another example of the same kind of ridiculous generalisation. It just keeps on giving. Hello, SF staff. Maybe this should be thumped? Just saying.

Not sure what you are disagreeing with... there is absolutely no generalization going on here... after all, the big word here is 'some'... not 'all'... rather large difference.

 

[spidergoat]

Might be because it felt just like another religion to them, especially if the converting is done by someone like Dawkins or a new atheist. Comfort Zone so to speak because they are trading one dogma for another.

Then they weren't really paying attention. And neither are you. Reason isn't a dogma.

 

[GeoffP]

Not sure what you are disagreeing with... there is absolutely no generalization going on here... after all, the big word here is 'some'... not 'all'... rather large difference.

She's saying that the only way to publicly represent atheism is via abuse and ridicule. That's a pretty gross mischaracterisation. Let's replace it with another word here and see what you think of it:

One cannot practice Islam. You are either a Muslim or you are not. There is no practice. The issue is, some try to practice it. And they do so by conversion through ridicule and abuse.

How does that sit? Not so well, I imagine. Nor should it.

 

[Kittamaru]

She's saying that the only way to publicly represent atheism is via abuse and ridicule. That's a pretty gross mischaracterisation. Let's replace it with another word here and see what you think of it:

How does that sit? Not so well, I imagine. Nor should it.

Unfortunately, the misrepresentation here is yours: She is saying, quite succinctly, that SOME people try to "practice atheism" through "conversion through ridicule and abuse". She is not saying, at all, that the only way to "practice atheism" is to do so... just that some do.

I know you are capable of seeing that distinction yourself GeoffP... so why is it that you are attempting not to do so?

 

[GeoffP]

Unfortunately, the misrepresentation here is yours: She is saying, quite succinctly, that SOME people try to "practice atheism" through "conversion through ridicule and abuse".

Let us revisit her statement:

One cannot practice atheism. You are either an atheist or you are not. There is no practice. The issue is, some try to practice it. And they do so by conversion through ridicule and abuse.

The first two sentences, as a kind of Venn diagram, present two groups: atheists (A) and not-atheists (B). This is reinforced by the third statement: there is no 'practicing' it. There are no 'practitioners' of it. The fourth statement then emerges as a new definition: those who try to practice it (C). This is a group meant to reflect those who are public or 'pronouncing' atheists (who make statements about it), if you like. The fifth statement then concludes as grouping all those 'pronouncing' atheists (C) as doing so by "ridicule and abuse". "Some try to practice it" is a classic Venn definition: some of A are C. She could have said "some of those who try to practice it", but did not. You or her could have said "try to practice it" as if some of those people who practice it fail via being abusive, but did not and it is too late to re-accent these statement to derive a new meaning; each statement is delivered successively as a definition or refinement. End.

We could blame her poor English skills for this, if you like. Bells might even grace us with a backpedaling of the statement. I suppose that would be acceptable; after all, that's what those who step over the line for whatever reason do after the fact. Save your impressions of my distinctions; they are Legion on this forum, if you'll excuse the pun.

 

[Kittamaru]

*shakes head* That is a pathetic interpretation GeoffP, one that just shows your vindictive nature here...

It is simple: As she said "Some try to practice it (atheism). And they do so by conversion through ridicule and abuse."

Thus, those that try to "practice" atheism do so through conversion via ridicule and abuse"

Not, all atheists do so. SOME do so. The "some" being those that try to practice what is, at its core, the anti-practice of religion (that is, atheism is the rejection of theism). Once you start trying to practice it, though, it becomes a theism in itself.

Really, I thought it was rather self evident... but you are going to extraordinary lengths to try and paint this as a blanket attack on atheism as the whole... which simply begs the question, why is that? Why would you step into the realm of willful intellectual dishonesty just to try and make her the "bad guy"?

 

[Yazata]

Actually, I wasn't being lumped in with atheists; I variably self-describe as an atheist or non-atheist or gnostic or agnostic on a day to day basis. It's a fundamental failing or not failing of mine that I cannot solve the problem of "God" or "gods" and unfortunately the system tends to reset. I describe this new philosophy as "Geoffism".

In other words, you are an atheist or theist depending on convenience or alternatively, who or what you wish to complain about.

Actually, I'm kind of like Geoff. Whether I qualify as an 'atheist' is a function of how the word 'God' is being defined.

If we are talking about traditional personalized deities like Yahweh, Vishnu, Allah or Shiva, I don't believe that divine beings exist in reality that correspond to the names. That makes me an atheist.

(And for the purposes of this thread, I include myself among the Sciforums atheists and believe that Tiassa's schoolyard bully's challenge includes me.)

If we are talking about philosophical functions like 'first-cause' or 'sustainer of being itself', I don't have a clue what reality corresponds to those concepts, assuming that anything does. So I'm more of a classic Thomas Huxley style agnostic when it comes to those.

And while I don't really identify with it personally, I have a great deal of interest in apophatic theology, theologies that imagine the divine as utterly transcendent, as being beyond all words and concepts. I've even had a few spontaneous 'mystic' experiences of my own that might (or might not) suggest such a thing. So I'm not totally dismissive of the more non-cognitive forms of religious experience, even if I remain rather skeptical about them.

All in all, I think that an 'I'm not sure' or 'it depends' position is entirely reasonable from a philosophical perspective. That kind of intellectual discernment makes a lot more sense to me than trying to treat 'atheist' and 'theist' in political terms as identity politics, as Tiassa and Bells seem to want to do in this thread.