I've long maintained that much in the apophatic traditions actually represents some of the highest forms of sceptical thinking. Obviously, there's immense variety--and some more so, or less so, than others--but even a fairly oblique poetic passage, like this one from Angelus Silesius, kinda presages future directions in philosophy, biology, ethology, and other disciplines:
A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
- Status
I've long maintained that much in the apophatic traditions actually represents some of the highest forms of sceptical thinking. Obviously, there's immense variety--and some more so, or less so, than others--but even a fairly oblique poetic passage, like this one from Angelus Silesius, kinda presages future directions in philosophy, biology, ethology, and other disciplines:
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
I think we should be aware that what is often called "the new atheism", in the sense of seeing religion and the belief in God as bad things, isn't really all that new at all. Here's some thinkers in the past that were particularly anti-religion:
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." --James Madison
"I call Christianity the one great curse, the one enormous and innermost perversion, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are too venomous, too underhand, too underground and too petty -- I call it the one immortal blemish of mankind."
-- Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, The Antichrist (1888), quoted from Encarta Book of Quotations (1999)
“One of the most irrational of all the conventions of modern society is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected. …[This] convention protects them, and so they proceed with their blather unwhipped and almost unmolested, to the great damage of common sense and common decency. That they should have this immunity is an outrage. There is nothing in religious ideas, as a class, to lift them above other ideas. On the contrary, they are always dubious and often quite silly. Nor is there any visible intellectual dignity in theologians. Few of them know anything that is worth knowing, and not many of them are even honest.” --H.L.Mencken
"My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race. I cannot, however, deny that it has made some contributions to civilization. It helped in early days to fix the calendar, and it caused Egyptian priests to chronicle eclipses with such care that in time they became able to predict them. These two services I am prepared to acknowledge, but I do not know of any others."--Bertrand Russell
"Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion--several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother's path to happiness and heaven....The higher animals have no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out in the Hereafter. I wonder why? It seems questionable taste."
- "The Lowest Animal" by Mark Twain
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." --James Madison
"I call Christianity the one great curse, the one enormous and innermost perversion, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are too venomous, too underhand, too underground and too petty -- I call it the one immortal blemish of mankind."
-- Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, The Antichrist (1888), quoted from Encarta Book of Quotations (1999)
“One of the most irrational of all the conventions of modern society is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected. …[This] convention protects them, and so they proceed with their blather unwhipped and almost unmolested, to the great damage of common sense and common decency. That they should have this immunity is an outrage. There is nothing in religious ideas, as a class, to lift them above other ideas. On the contrary, they are always dubious and often quite silly. Nor is there any visible intellectual dignity in theologians. Few of them know anything that is worth knowing, and not many of them are even honest.” --H.L.Mencken
"My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race. I cannot, however, deny that it has made some contributions to civilization. It helped in early days to fix the calendar, and it caused Egyptian priests to chronicle eclipses with such care that in time they became able to predict them. These two services I am prepared to acknowledge, but I do not know of any others."--Bertrand Russell
"Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion--several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother's path to happiness and heaven....The higher animals have no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out in the Hereafter. I wonder why? It seems questionable taste."
- "The Lowest Animal" by Mark Twain
Bells
Staff member
Still offended?
Okay then. Carry on. Let me know when you're done.
Oh here we go..
Why are you applying religion to something that has nothing to do with religion?
Do you even understand or know what atheism is? Is that why you are so confused? You just don't know what it is?
Because you keep applying religious concepts to it. Such as your attempted wordplay that followed your complaint of 'gross mischaracterisation'.. Do you understand the difference between atheism and Islam? Atheism is not a religion, ergo we do not practice it. Attempts to do so result in cults of personalities and blindly following self described 'voices of atheism'.
You are either and atheist or you are not (as in you don't not believe in a deity but do believe in a deity). I am an atheist, so I do not believe in anything spiritual or of the divine. I don't believe in any God. I have no religion. You are not an atheist because you still aren't sure if there is no God. So you kind of fence sit.
And once again, stop misrepresenting what I am saying. I get that you don't quite grasp what it is to be an atheist, what I am saying is that atheism is being represented by abuse and ridicule. There is a vast difference between what I am saying and what you are lying in claiming I am saying. At no time have I said the only way to represent atheism is via abuse and ridicule. I am saying it should not be represented that way by the likes of Dawkins and co. Do you understand now? Yes? Even an intsy bit? Go on GeoffP, try.
One final point. "Some" does not mean "all". Learn to tell the difference between the two before you misrepresent what I actually said.
The so called 4 horsemen of new atheism are also anti-semitic, sexist, bigoted and generally offensive. If you think those qualities represent the best parts of the movement, then the movement is doomed.spidergoat said:
For example, Dawkins:
He sounds genuinely offended that anyone could think otherwise. He does regret, he says, the comparison with Trinity College. He wishes he had set contemporary Muslim academic achievement against that of the Jews. "Something like between 20% and 25% of all Nobel prizes have gone to Jews, who are less than 1% of the world's population. That's a very embarrassing comparison."
I suggest that this may not have been wise. Leaving aside the sensitivities surrounding the Arab-Israeli conflict, you can also argue that Jews are a race. "No you can't!" he replies. "It's just total nonsense to talk about Jews being a race. That's precisely where Hitler went wrong."
I suggest that this may not have been wise. Leaving aside the sensitivities surrounding the Arab-Israeli conflict, you can also argue that Jews are a race. "No you can't!" he replies. "It's just total nonsense to talk about Jews being a race. That's precisely where Hitler went wrong."
One has to wonder if he thinks that Hitler would not have gone wrong if he'd just identified Jews by their religion instead of classifying them as a race. This does not even touch on his offensive and stereotypical comments about Jews and power. From his "OUT" campaign:
What other OUTs might we imagine? Well, suggest your own. Vote OUT representatives who discriminate against the non-religious, the way George Bush Senior is alleged to have done when he described atheists as non-citizens of a nation “under God”. Politicians follow where the votes are. They can only count atheists who are OUT. Some atheists are defeatist in thinking we’ll never be effective simply because we’re not a majority. But it doesn’t matter that we’re not a majority. To be effective, all we have to be is recognizable to legislators as a big enough minority. Atheists are more numerous than religious Jews, yet they wield a tiny fraction of the political power, apparently because they have never got their act together in the way the Jewish lobby so brilliantly has: the famous ‘herding cats’ problem again.
He has since removed this from his website, but this is what he was spouting on his website.
It defies logic. Which is ironic..
I think the 4 now represent the worst of atheism.
They haven't inspired people to abandon their faith. They have shamed them in public to force them to abandon their faith or else end up with damaged reputation and constant hounding from the 4's and their supporter's. If the 4 keep representing the so called new atheism then it's doomed.
Bells
Staff member
Because this is what GeoffP does. Always.
Even though I clearly said 'some', he saw all, so he will defend that 'some' means 'all'. Because in GeoffP-land, this is what GeoffP does. This will be shortly followed by complaints about my position on staff here and some more whining about how he is being victimised because he saw 'some' as being 'all'..
Just ignore it. He has to find something to be offended about. This is just the latest one. He will find something else to be offended about soon enough.
I just put him on ignore when he gets to this point. Starve the fire, so to speak.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I think that's true. My impression is that the phrase 'new atheism' was coined by the press, in response to several writers having just published popular mass-market books expressing outspoken anti-"religious" themes. The phrase stuck and people started taking it literally, believing that it really did represent something new. But all that happened was that several new books had hit the bookstores and reached the reviewers at about the same time.
Up and Down
Well, I'm sorry that you misunderstand me so comprehensively. I'm a little shocked at your true emerging opinion here, but each to their own foolery, I guess. I suspect that your friendship with Bells is colouring your discourse as the argument shifts on to her statements. Anyway, let's evaluate your argument:
Correct. Vocal atheists - those who "practice" their atheism, which is to say express a public opinion about faith vis-a-vis their atheism - thus must uniformly do so via "ridicule and abuse" according to Bells' statement as written. I think you now see her statements as expressed, but you don't grasp the meaning of those statements and I hope my above clarifies this. Perhaps Bells simply erred, but her use of language prior to this doesn't seem to hint at any such refinement of actual position, even when confronted with its existence. I suppose we'll see. Or not.
- which is not inherently abusive. Do you see what I'm saying here? Public or "practiced" atheism, atheism as a movement or atheism through its organisations, is not by nature abusive or offensive. Similarly, public Catholics are not by their nature abusive or offensive, although some of those public Catholics may be. Not all practicising Catholics are - and here we mean not those Catholics who go to church, but those who 'practice' in the way of 'proselytisation' - and neither are all proselytisers, of Catholicism, or of any faith or philosophy. These are all refining terms that could have been injected earlier, but weren't. I suppose I await further explanation. In short - if we are to take Bells' position as written, it implies that all these proclaimers are abusers and ridiculers of their theological opponents. This is manifestly untrue, as I think is obvious.
NB: Perhaps we should shift terms here to 'proselytisation', since Bells missed it. It's understandable. The connection didn't leap out at me until just now either. Guess that's the stress of dealing with mods.
I've attached the following link for your edification. Try drawing out the Venn diagram itself; it helps, I assure you. I searched for an A vs. B ∪ C figure online and didn't find one; there really should be a library of these things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagram
Again, you have misunderstood. I interpreted it as an attack on all 'public' or 'proclaiming' or 'statement' atheists - those atheists that make public statements about their atheism - not a blanket attack on atheists as a whole (not the whole), which would be quite absurd. Bells did not make such an attack in that post, although she does seem to have certain sectarian leanings.
To illustrate this point, let us stop and consider. Are all atheists who 'practice' this 'faith' (and you can call it a faith if you want; one could argue that it's a point on a distribution of the range of all possible belief) then the vicious kind that grinds Bells' gears (i.e., Dawkins)? Well, obviously not. Some are quite innocuous; I, as an agnostic (which is not quite the same thing, I admit), would fall into this category - I fully believe that atheists have as much right to proselytise as theists do, stopping short of actual abuse. Yazata makes a comment about the nature of the duality here, where theists have fired the first shot and atheists are firing back on their own terms. I'm not sure what to think about it - he makes a really good point here, if I may say so. When reactionary Evangelicals push at secular trends using fire and brimstone language, does one bear their outrageous slings, or fire back?
Again, if you want to change tacks and call this a slip of the tongue on Bells' part, I suppose that would be legitimate, to the extent that anything is. But I caution you that it is not meet to berate all public atheism in this way; there needs to be a counter to the threat of encroaching theism in our schools. I don't know where you stand on that, of course.
It does beg a simple question, I grant you, because that's a simple interpretation. I think you can do better.
Well, I'm sorry that you misunderstand me so comprehensively. I'm a little shocked at your true emerging opinion here, but each to their own foolery, I guess. I suspect that your friendship with Bells is colouring your discourse as the argument shifts on to her statements. Anyway, let's evaluate your argument:
Correct. Vocal atheists - those who "practice" their atheism, which is to say express a public opinion about faith vis-a-vis their atheism - thus must uniformly do so via "ridicule and abuse" according to Bells' statement as written. I think you now see her statements as expressed, but you don't grasp the meaning of those statements and I hope my above clarifies this. Perhaps Bells simply erred, but her use of language prior to this doesn't seem to hint at any such refinement of actual position, even when confronted with its existence. I suppose we'll see. Or not.
- which is not inherently abusive. Do you see what I'm saying here? Public or "practiced" atheism, atheism as a movement or atheism through its organisations, is not by nature abusive or offensive. Similarly, public Catholics are not by their nature abusive or offensive, although some of those public Catholics may be. Not all practicising Catholics are - and here we mean not those Catholics who go to church, but those who 'practice' in the way of 'proselytisation' - and neither are all proselytisers, of Catholicism, or of any faith or philosophy. These are all refining terms that could have been injected earlier, but weren't. I suppose I await further explanation. In short - if we are to take Bells' position as written, it implies that all these proclaimers are abusers and ridiculers of their theological opponents. This is manifestly untrue, as I think is obvious.
NB: Perhaps we should shift terms here to 'proselytisation', since Bells missed it. It's understandable. The connection didn't leap out at me until just now either.
Guess that's the stress of dealing with mods.I've attached the following link for your edification. Try drawing out the Venn diagram itself; it helps, I assure you.
I searched for an A vs. B ∪ C figure online and didn't find one; there really should be a library of these things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagram
Again, you have misunderstood. I interpreted it as an attack on all 'public' or 'proclaiming' or 'statement' atheists - those atheists that make public statements about their atheism - not a blanket attack on atheists as a whole (not the whole), which would be quite absurd. Bells did not make such an attack in that post, although she does seem to have certain sectarian leanings.
To illustrate this point, let us stop and consider. Are all atheists who 'practice' this 'faith' (and you can call it a faith if you want; one could argue that it's a point on a distribution of the range of all possible belief) then the vicious kind that grinds Bells' gears (i.e., Dawkins)? Well, obviously not. Some are quite innocuous; I, as an agnostic (which is not quite the same thing, I admit), would fall into this category - I fully believe that atheists have as much right to proselytise as theists do, stopping short of actual abuse. Yazata makes a comment about the nature of the duality here, where theists have fired the first shot and atheists are firing back on their own terms. I'm not sure what to think about it - he makes a really good point here, if I may say so. When reactionary Evangelicals push at secular trends using fire and brimstone language, does one bear their outrageous slings, or fire back?
Again, if you want to change tacks and call this a slip of the tongue on Bells' part, I suppose that would be legitimate, to the extent that anything is. But I caution you that it is not meet to berate all public atheism in this way; there needs to be a counter to the threat of encroaching theism in our schools. I don't know where you stand on that, of course.
It does beg a simple question, I grant you, because that's a simple interpretation. I think you can do better.
Actually, Yazata, yeah that does sound more Agnostic than Atheist to me (as you said). I am curious - why do you deem the challenge to be similar to that of a schoolyard bully? Tiassa has already given his explanation on what the challenge was (for those of us in sci forums who are atheists to step up and represent sciforums as a good place to be, rather than attempting to demean or insult those who believe in a theology), so other than the particular choice of wording, I'm note sure why it is so upsetting. It would be no different than me making a post calling out all Christians to stop acting like fools and to stop attacking/persecuting muslims or homosexuals or non-theists...
@ GeoffP - so you are saying the "generalization" is her statement that those being vocal about their atheism are ridiculing or abusing theists...
Okay, to that point, do you have evidence to the contrary? In the context of this forum, it would seem that Bells is absolutely correct; those like (Q) and Balerion (and, to an extent, I would even say Fraggle Rocker) tend to be quick to point out that any kind of theism is akin to belief in fairies/santa/easter bunny and use it as a grounds for claiming such beliefs to be cause for suspecting intellectual/mental instability of some sort. Now, admittedly, I have not seen every single post in every single forum that has been made here... but I have yet to come across an atheist who is "preaching" atheism without somehow insulting those who believe in God... so while Bells statement may be harsh, I would say it to be accurate, and thus not a generalization at all.
Conversely, as Bells said, those who are "quiet" Atheists, and only talk about it when asked, tend to be more reserved and accepting and allow the theists around them to go about their beliefs unmolested.
To use your own analogy; it is like the person out on the streetcorner claiming that everyone is going to "burn in hell" for their transgressions vs the average Baptist Christian who quietly goes about their day, but is willing to step in and do "Gods Work" when the opportunity arises by simply being a kind or generous soul and, if asked why they are helping a stranger, simply states that it is because of their faith.
Are there people in the "column A"? Most certainly. Are they effective in "spreading their message"... perhaps, but, as Tiassa pointed out in his first post, that "message" gets muddled by the apparent hatred/disdain/contempt for those not following the same belief.
@ GeoffP - so you are saying the "generalization" is her statement that those being vocal about their atheism are ridiculing or abusing theists...
Okay, to that point, do you have evidence to the contrary? In the context of this forum, it would seem that Bells is absolutely correct; those like (Q) and Balerion (and, to an extent, I would even say Fraggle Rocker) tend to be quick to point out that any kind of theism is akin to belief in fairies/santa/easter bunny and use it as a grounds for claiming such beliefs to be cause for suspecting intellectual/mental instability of some sort. Now, admittedly, I have not seen every single post in every single forum that has been made here... but I have yet to come across an atheist who is "preaching" atheism without somehow insulting those who believe in God... so while Bells statement may be harsh, I would say it to be accurate, and thus not a generalization at all.
Conversely, as Bells said, those who are "quiet" Atheists, and only talk about it when asked, tend to be more reserved and accepting and allow the theists around them to go about their beliefs unmolested.
To use your own analogy; it is like the person out on the streetcorner claiming that everyone is going to "burn in hell" for their transgressions vs the average Baptist Christian who quietly goes about their day, but is willing to step in and do "Gods Work" when the opportunity arises by simply being a kind or generous soul and, if asked why they are helping a stranger, simply states that it is because of their faith.
Are there people in the "column A"? Most certainly. Are they effective in "spreading their message"... perhaps, but, as Tiassa pointed out in his first post, that "message" gets muddled by the apparent hatred/disdain/contempt for those not following the same belief.
Bells
Staff member
You also saw a connection between the Boston bombings and the CIA and linked Alex Jones and tried to make that connection. I think that says it all about your leaping connections.
I'm quite sure they are offensive to many, but you have yet to prove any of the rest. Dawkins wasn't wrong about Muslims, they made many discoveries in the past, you know, before science revealed anything that would disprove their religion. Jews, in contrast, don't generally let their religion get in the way of progress. They have largely adapted to secular society, probably due to the fact that the Jewish diaspora had little political power.
Forced them through shame? Is that even possible? If you genuinely feel shame about your religion, that's your problem. Do they have the power to damage reputations? Or is this more fake Christian persecution complex?
While you can find the same sentiments expressed by Lucretius, the New Atheists do represent a somewhat harder line against religion than was customary among secularists.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Bells said:
I'm not sure whether that's true or not. Is publicly discussing atheism practicing it? Does presenting arguments in favor of atheism, or defending it against criticism, constitute practice? We could even ask about the kind of inner psychological adjustments that some theists might have to make when they lose their faith. Presumably they will have to learn to think about a lot of things in a different way.
The question might have made a good thread topic, back in friendlier times.
Bells said:
I disagree with that one. As I wrote earlier this morning, whether or not one is an 'atheist' can sometimes be a function of how one defines the word 'God'.
Bells said:
GeoffP said:
Kittamaru said:
The difficulty seems to be the assumption that while only some atheists try to "practice" atheism (whatever that means), those who do practice atheism do so by "conversion", and try to accomplish that conversion through "ridicule and abuse".
I'm not sure that's very plausible as it stands and it does look like a dismissive stereotype.
Sometimes I wonder if anyone ever pulls their head out of their ass long enough to actually read the shit to which they link.
My gut tells me “no,” but… so does everything else. It’s like everyone suffers from whatever the fuck that MadAnt guy suffers from (oh no i di’int).
For the record Batman is neither a bat nor a Jew—even though he calls himself Batman. Go figure.
My gut tells me “no,” but… so does everything else. It’s like everyone suffers from whatever the fuck that MadAnt guy suffers from (oh no i di’int).
For the record Batman is neither a bat nor a Jew—even though he calls himself Batman. Go figure.
Yazata, to be honest, I would say there is a big difference between "practicing" something and "discussing" it, though I understand what you mean - to me at least, the issue comes when you have atheists (such as (Q)) who simply won't let the issue go, even after the other party has attempted to disengage from the conversation; in this example, even when S.A.M. was posting in, say, the biology forum about something completely unrelated to theology, (Q) would dredge up the old arguments he had with S.A.M. and derail the thread, mocking S.A.M. for her particular beliefs.
While I would argue that one could "spread" atheism without "preaching" it, which again seems like it would defeat the whole purpose of atheism as an idea, it would seem most cross that fine line and take to ridicule and abuse of those with differing ideals; while I haven't personally encountered any who could keep from doing so, especially in the face of a "devout" believer, perhaps you could provide evidence to prove me (and by extension Bells) wrong?
Yeah, that's what I posted
Not sure to which post you are referring here... did I miss something?
While I would argue that one could "spread" atheism without "preaching" it, which again seems like it would defeat the whole purpose of atheism as an idea, it would seem most cross that fine line and take to ridicule and abuse of those with differing ideals; while I haven't personally encountered any who could keep from doing so, especially in the face of a "devout" believer, perhaps you could provide evidence to prove me (and by extension Bells) wrong?
Yeah, that's what I posted
Not sure to which post you are referring here... did I miss something?
It should be obvious to anyone who has read my posts that I've never suggested that belief in a god is grounds for suspecting mental instability. I am well aware that most people are born into their religions, and as a result are reluctant to consider alternatives. (It's the reason you can guess a person's faith based on where they were born with startling accuracy.) I beleive the bond between a person and their faith is often as strong as their familial bonds, so even considering unbeleif would be asking too much. This Is why apologetics, in my opion, exists; it gives intelligent people an excuse to believe when they couldn't otherwise reconcile their faith with what they know to be empirically true.
I did say recently that I hadn't met a theist at sciforums who displayed intellectual integrity, but I think that's due to the nature of the forum; a theist who proclaims on a science forum will be challenged, and since religious doctrine doesn't stand up to scientific, moral, lr philosophical scrutiny, a theist finds themselves in a losing position more often than not.
Also, everyone knows Fraggle is openly hostile towards religion. I am simply not on his level when It comes to that.
Why is challenging a religious belief considered "molestation," but challenging literally any other belief is not just welcome, but expected?
We ridicule the political beliefs of people. We deride opposing philisophical views. Differences of moral opinion are considered grounds for name-calling. Why can't you handle having your faith challenged? Many theists are uniquely sensitive in this way. Not to say anyone takes kindly to challenges of their beliefs of any kind, but theists tend to not only react negatively, but also claim injury.
Atheism is growing faster than, I believe, any other minority group in the US, so I'm not sure who is missing the message. While Dawkins is vitriolic, his works have helped many--including at least one priest--leave their faith. And I don't think we need to discuss the impact Hitchens had, except to say it will only grow as the man becomes legend. You may not agree with their anger, or even understand it, but it doesn't seem to be missing its mark.
Last edited:
I don't think any kind of "ridicule" is necessary; quite the opposite, I think you "attract more with sugar than lemons" so to speak... present a well thought out, rational argument and let the truth speak for itself.
That's more for us than them. We need to keep our spirits up.
Atheism is not a Utopian vision. We are not peddling paradise through the guise of reason. Science is not based on absolutes.
Why is it that nobody cringes when mockery is flung towards the abnormal practices of cults? The major religions have a huge influence on society and behavior, and they are continually reinforcing misconceptions. I’m not afraid to admit that I’m not only an atheist but also an anti-theist. Now, that it's illegal to burn and torture us to death, we can finally stand up for ourselves.
Where does this notion come from that religion is privileged, that it should be uncritically accepted, untouchable, and unchallenged? Are we to ignore or pretend that the conception of this so-called all-knowing god is only good?
Well, we must be doing something right because our numbers are growing. Let’s just hope that when atheists become the majority that they don't treat the pious in the same manor that the pious have treated them.
[video=youtube_share;GUI_ML1qkQE]http://youtu.be/GUI_ML1qkQE[/video]
Why is it that nobody cringes when mockery is flung towards the abnormal practices of cults? The major religions have a huge influence on society and behavior, and they are continually reinforcing misconceptions. I’m not afraid to admit that I’m not only an atheist but also an anti-theist. Now, that it's illegal to burn and torture us to death, we can finally stand up for ourselves.
Where does this notion come from that religion is privileged, that it should be uncritically accepted, untouchable, and unchallenged? Are we to ignore or pretend that the conception of this so-called all-knowing god is only good?
Well, we must be doing something right because our numbers are growing. Let’s just hope that when atheists become the majority that they don't treat the pious in the same manor that the pious have treated them.
[video=youtube_share;GUI_ML1qkQE]http://youtu.be/GUI_ML1qkQE[/video]
This and That
Where does the question of socioeconomics and political outcomes actually enter your argument? It's one thing to say that the diaspora had little political power, but we see similar outcomes regardless of religious labels. Whether its Buddhist monks beating each other in the street over who sleeps where, Christians and Muslims in Liberia, or maybe even Christians in Mexico, there are more and even larger factors in play than mere religion.
Sticking to the superficiality of the religious label might result in an emotionally gratifying proposition and resolution, but it does nothing to address or consider the issues influencing and, in many cases, causing the behavior you complain about.
The fact that humanity has not yet resolved the question of its own irrationality should be significant; in your attempt to be "rational", you are quite obviously omitting a real factor, which is the humanity of human beings—that irrationality is itself irrational does not mean you can just lop it out of the equation. It must be accounted for.
Then there is eighteenth-century atheist Denis Diderot, who once explained: "Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths."
History includes the transformation of faith to reason, one of the more important experiences on the record insofar as the development of atheism is concerned.
It would be one thing to say that atheism itself hasn't come very far since the eighteenth century, but that's not entirely accurate. Rather, the idea has made significant gains in terms of acceptability in society, but also appears to have regressed philosophically.
Rather than innovating on the models we have in history, the general tendency of atheistic expression in the public discourse is toward a simplification of the history, a recital of talking points near to articles of faith.
Then again, neither were Diderot and his contemporaries attempting to deal with the lowest end of the religious gene pool. That is to say, these weren't the reckless televangelists and politicians so easily mocked and exploited, or the half-wit congregations eager to follow their shepherds into contradictory beliefs. This part of the eighteenth century saw top-tier atheistic philosophical work, the kind modern (or "new", I suppose) atheism seems rather quite incapable of. And it's not that the minds are incapable.
Bells, for instance, appears to wrestle with the question of how "atheism" works as an identity label; is that application of the term so different a context from the mere rational assertion?
But at the same time, there is no question that her moral and functional outlooks are shot through with heavy doses of the rational. I can certanly pick nits with her or, say, Fraggle Rocker's hard condemnations of religion and religious people, but why would I? Not only am I perfectly both willing and able to pour boiling oil on religious arguments, outcomes, and icons, I am also aware that these neighbors of mine demonstrate reliable adherence to rational argument; when we differ on issues, it is often simply a matter of disagreeing presuppositions.
But that's not what people see when they look at "atheism". Well, to be specific, that is not what the people who are not already sympathetic see when they look at atheism.
This is a general annoyance of mine, but has come back into focus of late[sup]†[/sup]: What does someone who has no familiarity with Sciforums see if they arrive here following search leads on atheism?
What do we do for atheism? What is this community's contribution to the idea of atheism? As congregations coalesce, symbols emerge, and the mere proposition finds itself growing more and more influential, what reception will this movement that our community apparently argues does not exist find?
One can point out the river, but there is also a saying about horses and water.
____________________
Notes:
[sup]†[/sup] The question won't make sense to anyone else, but I'm currently considering issues of "safe harbor", which in turn give rise to an example I am trying to reconcile: To what degree does, say, "The Gay Fray" or other threads about issues pertaining to homosexuals, represent "safe harbor" for homophobia? And, no, that's probably not really a point we need to digress for in this thread. Still, though, questions of safe harbor have been on my mind of late.
Works Cited:
Haddad, Yvonne Y. "The Islamic Alternative". The Link, v.15 n.4. September/October, 1982. AMEU.org. May 1, 2014. http://www.ameu.org/getattachment/95724959-9612-4f5f-a769-ee876b1972aa/The-Islamic-Alternative.aspx
Armstrong, Karen. A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1993.
Spidergoat said:
Where does the question of socioeconomics and political outcomes actually enter your argument? It's one thing to say that the diaspora had little political power, but we see similar outcomes regardless of religious labels. Whether its Buddhist monks beating each other in the street over who sleeps where, Christians and Muslims in Liberia, or maybe even Christians in Mexico, there are more and even larger factors in play than mere religion.
Sticking to the superficiality of the religious label might result in an emotionally gratifying proposition and resolution, but it does nothing to address or consider the issues influencing and, in many cases, causing the behavior you complain about.
The fact that humanity has not yet resolved the question of its own irrationality should be significant; in your attempt to be "rational", you are quite obviously omitting a real factor, which is the humanity of human beings—that irrationality is itself irrational does not mean you can just lop it out of the equation. It must be accounted for.
• • •
Magical Realist said:
Then there is eighteenth-century atheist Denis Diderot, who once explained: "Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths."
History includes the transformation of faith to reason, one of the more important experiences on the record insofar as the development of atheism is concerned.
In Europe, a few people were beginning the trend away from God himself. In 1729, Jean Meslier, a country priest who had led an exemplary life, died an atheist. He left behind a memoir which was circulated by Voltaire. This expressed his disgust with humanity and his inability to believe in God. Newton's infinite space, Meslier believed, was the only eternal reality: nothing but matter existed. Religion was a device used by the rich to oppress the poor and render them powerless. Christianity was distinguished by its particularly ludicrous doctrines, such as the Trinity and the Incarnation. His denial of God was meat too strong even for the philosophes. Voltaire removed the specifically atheistic passages and transformed the abbé into a Deist. By the end of the century, howewver, there were a few philosophers who were proud to call themselves atheists, though they remained a tiny minority. This wasan entirely new development. Hitherto, "atheist" had been a term of abuse, a particularly nasty slur to hurl at your enemies. Now it was just beginning to be worn as a badge of pride. The Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711-1776) had taken the new empiricism to its logical conclusion. There was no need to go beyond a scientific explanation of reality and no philosophical reason for believing anything that lay beyond our sense experience. In the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Hume disposed of the argument that purported to prove God's existence from the design of the universe, arguing that it rested on analogical arguments that were inconclusive. One might be able to argue that the order we discern in the natural world pointed to an intelligent Overseer, but how, then to account for evil and the manifest disorder? There was no logical answer to this, and Hume, who had written the Dialogues in 1750, wisely left them unpublished. Some twelve months earlier, the French philosopher Denis Diderot (1713-84) had been imprisoned for asking the same question in A Letter to the Blind for the Use of Those Who See, which introduced a full-blown atheism to the general public.
Diderot himself denied that he was an atheist. He simply said that he did not care whether God existed or not. When Voltaire objected to his book, he replied: "I believe in God, although I live very well with the atheists .... It is ... very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but to believe or not believe in God is not important at all." With unerring accuracy, Diderot had put his finger on the essential point. Once "God" has ceased to be a passionately subjective experience, "he" does not exist. As Diderot pointed out in the same letter, it was pointless to believe in the God of the philosophers who never interferes with the affairs of the world. The Hidden God had become Deus Otiosus: "Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useleess truths." He had come to the opposite conclusion to Pascal, who had seen the wager as of supreme importance and utterly impossible to ignore. In his Pensées Philosophiques, published in 1746, Diderot had dismissed Pascal's religious experience as too subjective: he and the Jesuits had both been passionately concerned with God, but had very different ideas about him. How to choose between them? Such a "God" was nothing but tempérament. At this point, three years before the publication of A Letter to the Blind, Diderot did believe that science—and science alone—could refute atheism. He evolved an impressive new interpretation of the argument from design. Instead of examining the vast motion of the universe, he urged people to examine the underlying structure of nature. The organization of a seed, a butterfly or an insect was too intricate to have happened by accident. In the Pensées Diderot still believed that reason could prove the existence of God. Newton had got rid of all the superstition and foolishness of religion: a God who worked miracles was on a par with the goblins with which we frighten our children.
Three years later, however, Diderot had come to question Newton and was no longer convinced that the external world provided any evidence for God. He saw clearly that God had nothing whatever to do with the new science. But he could only express this revolutionary and inflammatory thought in fictional terms. In A Letter to the Blind, Diderot imagined an argument between a Newtonian, whom he called "Mr. Holmes," and Nicholas Saunderson (1682-1739), the late Cambridge mathematician who had lost his sight as a baby. Diderot makes Saunderson ask Holmes how the argument from design could be reconciled with such "monsters" and accidents as himself, who demonstrated anything but intelligent and benevolent planning.
The God of New, and indeed of many conventional Christians, who was supposed to be literally responsible for everything that happens, was not only an absurdity but a horrible idea. To introduce "God" to explain things that we cannot explain at present was a failure of humility. "My good friend, Mr. Holmes," Diderot's Saunderson concludes, "admit your ignorance". (Armstrong, 341-343)
Diderot himself denied that he was an atheist. He simply said that he did not care whether God existed or not. When Voltaire objected to his book, he replied: "I believe in God, although I live very well with the atheists .... It is ... very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but to believe or not believe in God is not important at all." With unerring accuracy, Diderot had put his finger on the essential point. Once "God" has ceased to be a passionately subjective experience, "he" does not exist. As Diderot pointed out in the same letter, it was pointless to believe in the God of the philosophers who never interferes with the affairs of the world. The Hidden God had become Deus Otiosus: "Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useleess truths." He had come to the opposite conclusion to Pascal, who had seen the wager as of supreme importance and utterly impossible to ignore. In his Pensées Philosophiques, published in 1746, Diderot had dismissed Pascal's religious experience as too subjective: he and the Jesuits had both been passionately concerned with God, but had very different ideas about him. How to choose between them? Such a "God" was nothing but tempérament. At this point, three years before the publication of A Letter to the Blind, Diderot did believe that science—and science alone—could refute atheism. He evolved an impressive new interpretation of the argument from design. Instead of examining the vast motion of the universe, he urged people to examine the underlying structure of nature. The organization of a seed, a butterfly or an insect was too intricate to have happened by accident. In the Pensées Diderot still believed that reason could prove the existence of God. Newton had got rid of all the superstition and foolishness of religion: a God who worked miracles was on a par with the goblins with which we frighten our children.
Three years later, however, Diderot had come to question Newton and was no longer convinced that the external world provided any evidence for God. He saw clearly that God had nothing whatever to do with the new science. But he could only express this revolutionary and inflammatory thought in fictional terms. In A Letter to the Blind, Diderot imagined an argument between a Newtonian, whom he called "Mr. Holmes," and Nicholas Saunderson (1682-1739), the late Cambridge mathematician who had lost his sight as a baby. Diderot makes Saunderson ask Holmes how the argument from design could be reconciled with such "monsters" and accidents as himself, who demonstrated anything but intelligent and benevolent planning.
What is this world, Mr. Holmes, but a complex, subject to cycles of change, all of which show a continual tendency to destruction: a rapid succession of beings that appear one by one, flourish and disappear; a merely transitory symmetry and a momentary appearance of order.
The God of New, and indeed of many conventional Christians, who was supposed to be literally responsible for everything that happens, was not only an absurdity but a horrible idea. To introduce "God" to explain things that we cannot explain at present was a failure of humility. "My good friend, Mr. Holmes," Diderot's Saunderson concludes, "admit your ignorance". (Armstrong, 341-343)
It would be one thing to say that atheism itself hasn't come very far since the eighteenth century, but that's not entirely accurate. Rather, the idea has made significant gains in terms of acceptability in society, but also appears to have regressed philosophically.
Rather than innovating on the models we have in history, the general tendency of atheistic expression in the public discourse is toward a simplification of the history, a recital of talking points near to articles of faith.
Then again, neither were Diderot and his contemporaries attempting to deal with the lowest end of the religious gene pool. That is to say, these weren't the reckless televangelists and politicians so easily mocked and exploited, or the half-wit congregations eager to follow their shepherds into contradictory beliefs. This part of the eighteenth century saw top-tier atheistic philosophical work, the kind modern (or "new", I suppose) atheism seems rather quite incapable of. And it's not that the minds are incapable.
Bells, for instance, appears to wrestle with the question of how "atheism" works as an identity label; is that application of the term so different a context from the mere rational assertion?
But at the same time, there is no question that her moral and functional outlooks are shot through with heavy doses of the rational. I can certanly pick nits with her or, say, Fraggle Rocker's hard condemnations of religion and religious people, but why would I? Not only am I perfectly both willing and able to pour boiling oil on religious arguments, outcomes, and icons, I am also aware that these neighbors of mine demonstrate reliable adherence to rational argument; when we differ on issues, it is often simply a matter of disagreeing presuppositions.
But that's not what people see when they look at "atheism". Well, to be specific, that is not what the people who are not already sympathetic see when they look at atheism.
This is a general annoyance of mine, but has come back into focus of late[sup]†[/sup]: What does someone who has no familiarity with Sciforums see if they arrive here following search leads on atheism?
What do we do for atheism? What is this community's contribution to the idea of atheism? As congregations coalesce, symbols emerge, and the mere proposition finds itself growing more and more influential, what reception will this movement that our community apparently argues does not exist find?
One can point out the river, but there is also a saying about horses and water.
____________________
Notes:
[sup]†[/sup] The question won't make sense to anyone else, but I'm currently considering issues of "safe harbor", which in turn give rise to an example I am trying to reconcile: To what degree does, say, "The Gay Fray" or other threads about issues pertaining to homosexuals, represent "safe harbor" for homophobia? And, no, that's probably not really a point we need to digress for in this thread. Still, though, questions of safe harbor have been on my mind of late.
Works Cited:
Haddad, Yvonne Y. "The Islamic Alternative". The Link, v.15 n.4. September/October, 1982. AMEU.org. May 1, 2014. http://www.ameu.org/getattachment/95724959-9612-4f5f-a769-ee876b1972aa/The-Islamic-Alternative.aspx
Armstrong, Karen. A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1993.
- Status