Well, they should.
What do atheists think that "to know God" means?
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
I concur. But to say this is an atheist viewpoint of any sort is incorrect. Even the Vatican has endorsed evolution, so one could theoretically presume they'd have a similar comment for anyone who disagrees.
Dawkins himself says he is not a strong atheist for the same reason he thinks strong theists are wrong. There is no evidence that god does exist, nor is there any precluding that existence. The most he will say is that god probably does not exist. He says he is a 6.9 on his belief scale(1 being an "I talk to god and he talks back" believer and 7 being a "There is no god" non-believer). I'm about the same.
Grumpy
Grumpy
Their endorsement of evolution is weak in my opinion, they don't realize it's full implications.
Dawkins himself says he is not a strong atheist for the same reason he thinks strong theists are wrong. There is no evidence that god does exist, nor is there any precluding that existence. The most he will say is that god probably does not exist. He says he is a 6.9 on his belief scale(1 being an "I talk to god and he talks back" believer and 7 being a "There is no god" non-believer). I'm about the same.
Grumpy
There certainly is evidence that religion is myth and superstition and in no way representative of the true nature of the universe, and on that count I believe Richard is a strong atheist. When he says he is not a strong atheist, though, he means it in the sense of an actual creator of the universe. I don't really see how there's any other intellectual position to hold on the subject.
I think it's safe to say that the Vatican understands the implications of evolution. And more importantly, they understand evolution as a scientific theory, which is of course why they endorse it.
On contrary, denying such terms can apply to atheism is an atheist ploy to avoid discussion on the social/cultural/ethical implications of their ideas.
One can be a fundamental/militant anything as long as there is a philosophy/ideology to tag along with it.
Usually they try to avoid this by hiding behind teh rampart of atheism being like the atheism of chairs and tables ... which would be fine it such proponents behaved like chairs and tables instead of going on for tirades about what is and isn't real and what is deserving of social credence and what isn't (all blatant hallmarks of philosophy/ideology)
example : http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/articles/constitution
There is when one tars all religious input under the same umbrella - like when dawkins suggests all religious based charities should be disbanded.
Complete bollocks.
Atheists, both the provincial types and the gurus whom they glean their ideas from, are full to the brim about the manner to "properly" view the world on account of their atheism
More tripe
You can find scientists (or more correctly, persons speaking on the authority of science) talking about heaps of things which they say confirm/deny the existence of god
Atheism (at least the atheism that is not of the "chair and table" type) is a reaction to theism.
Call the philsoophical/ideological component of atheism "anti-theism" if it makes you feel better but please don't pretend their is no obvious connection between the two
Last edited:
He did, but I was victim of quote minning - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WumBRr5j3P0&feature=related
Anyway, my problem is that some militant atheists are irrational.
Agreed. But again, the usual corollaries of strong miliant atheism are sometimes irrational and biased.
Real world/postings examples for this?
Granted. A bit to strong, they are, for my tastes.
But the atheist perspective is indeed more rational and likely.
Agreed, and my point exactly. If an atheist is to indeed value rationality the way s/he claims to, he needs to accertain that his actions and beliefs are not too strong or militant to the point of irrationality, as examplified by the fundies.
I'm curious why you're so eager to insist that atheists are "militant" when you also call them "strong." It seems redundant to the point of insult. I'm also eager for examples of what these "usual corollaries" are, and of how they are irrational and biased.
You understand that atheism is an intellectual position based on the fact that there is no evidence to support the existence of a god, no? How can one be irrational and biased towards a position that is empirically correct?
@JDawg --
While that certainly is the usual case, a person become an atheist for other reasons as well. For example, a person could have been brought up with a belief system like taoism or buddhism and just not consider the possibility that there is a god or have rejected theistic beliefs simply because it conflicted with a previously held belief. They might just not have been exposed to theism(I agree, highly unlikely given the current state of the world).
However the scenario you laid out is, by far, the most common one.
While that certainly is the usual case, a person become an atheist for other reasons as well. For example, a person could have been brought up with a belief system like taoism or buddhism and just not consider the possibility that there is a god or have rejected theistic beliefs simply because it conflicted with a previously held belief. They might just not have been exposed to theism(I agree, highly unlikely given the current state of the world).
However the scenario you laid out is, by far, the most common one.
Then none of these people "became" atheists, just as you never became an atheist in regards to Zeus; belief in that particular pantheon wasn't an option for you.
Nor would any of those people define themselves as atheists. A Taoist would call himself/herself a Taoist, a Buddhist would call himself/herself a Buddhist, and someone never exposed to theism would view atheism as an abstraction.
At any rate, none of these people are the kind aaquaocaoneaquao is talking about.
Strong, militant atheists are a rare creature, most atheists realize that they have no evidence for saying that there is no god any more than an "I talk to god and he talks to me" theist has any evidence for his position. As a scientist I know that nothing we know can be said to be certain, it is always subject to change given new evidence or new understanding.
But it is this which is the major difference between thinking scientifically and thinking religiously. And strong atheism is a religious form of thinking, it is blind faith without evidentiary support. Most atheists reconize this and that's why strong atheists are so rare.
But militancy is a seperate thing which can be shared across the spectrum of belief(even though a militant agnostic is a little hard to conceptualize). And militancy has a spectrum of it's own from forcing your beliefs/convictions on others to actively resisting any attempts to do so. Theists tend to be the first type, atheists the latter. But in our society militant theists are given tacit approval(or at least tolerated)and those militant atheists defending their rights are vilified. Cardinal Dolan(a mysoginist, totalitarian, pedophile protecting theist)is promoted, Dawkins(a militant atheist, though not a strong one)is denigrated and complained about as an oppressor of theism for putting up a few pro-atheism billboards and failing to give deference the theists consider their due.
Man can be a very irrational species.
Grumpy
But it is this which is the major difference between thinking scientifically and thinking religiously. And strong atheism is a religious form of thinking, it is blind faith without evidentiary support. Most atheists reconize this and that's why strong atheists are so rare.
But militancy is a seperate thing which can be shared across the spectrum of belief(even though a militant agnostic is a little hard to conceptualize). And militancy has a spectrum of it's own from forcing your beliefs/convictions on others to actively resisting any attempts to do so. Theists tend to be the first type, atheists the latter. But in our society militant theists are given tacit approval(or at least tolerated)and those militant atheists defending their rights are vilified. Cardinal Dolan(a mysoginist, totalitarian, pedophile protecting theist)is promoted, Dawkins(a militant atheist, though not a strong one)is denigrated and complained about as an oppressor of theism for putting up a few pro-atheism billboards and failing to give deference the theists consider their due.
Man can be a very irrational species.
Grumpy
It isnt. For example -
A ballist comes along a says, "I have a ball" [somewhat like -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qahB7mYhLxs]
Weak Aballist says - "I dont believe you"
Strong Aballist says - " No you dont".
Militant aballist says - "You stupid delusional ignoramus, show me the damn ball!"
And strong militant aballist says -
"You assholes dont have a ball. Your ball-craziness belongs in a dustbin."
I was suggesting that the extreme theophobia and mistheism that is sometimes seen in such people, when mixed with irreligiousity and anti-theism, gives rise to a strong and irrational mindset.
Atheism by itself isnt the problem, strong, irrational mistheism and anti-theism + militant irreligiosity that might sometimes be a corollary to it is what the problem is.
Strong, militant atheists are a rare creature, most atheists realize that they have no evidence for saying that there is no god any more than an "I talk to god and he talks to me" theist has any evidence for his position. As a scientist I know that nothing we know can be said to be certain, it is always subject to change given new evidence or new understanding.
But it is this which is the major difference between thinking scientifically and thinking religiously. And strong atheism is a religious form of thinking, it is blind faith without evidentiary support. Most atheists reconize this and that's why strong atheists are so rare.
But militancy is a seperate thing which can be shared across the spectrum of belief(even though a militant agnostic is a little hard to conceptualize). And militancy has a spectrum of it's own from forcing your beliefs/convictions on others to actively resisting any attempts to do so. Theists tend to be the first type, atheists the latter. But in our society militant theists are given tacit approval(or at least tolerated)and those militant atheists defending their rights are vilified. Cardinal Dolan(a mysoginist, totalitarian, pedophile protecting theist)is promoted, Dawkins(a militant atheist, though not a strong one)is denigrated and complained about as an oppressor of theism for putting up a few pro-atheism billboards and failing to give deference the theists consider their due.
Man can be a very irrational species.
Grumpy
Ah, I see I am not quite apt with words today. ^THis was what I intended to get across.
I think you misunderstand what a strong atheist is (also, why not simply frame your argument in terms of atheism, rather than "aballism?"). I think most atheists you encounter are strong atheists in terms of modern religion. For example, I think it would be safe to say that Dawkins is a strong atheist as it pertains to the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth.
When he says he is not a strong atheist, I believe he means it in terms of an actual creator of the universe.
Are you familiar with Yahweh? He's easily the most vile, repugnant villain in all of literature. I don't see how a healthy desire to see such a character vanquished from society is an irrational mindset.
I also don't see how it's irrational to want to be rid of superstition, especially given its track record of challenging scientific inquiring and stunting both social and scientific progress. In this context, is theophobia not the most rational position?
And again, you've failed to explain how or why these things are irrational. You've only made the charges. Either support these charges or retract them.
Even if I grant you the existence of this philosophical unicorn, in what way is this person "the problem?"
I think most atheists are strong as it pertains to modern religion, as we have strong evidence to support the theory that the god or gods represented are entirely man-made and fictional. We are all strong atheists in relation to the Greek and Roman pantheons, are we not? For the same reason, we are (or can be...perhaps should be) strong atheists in relation to the God of Abraham.
I would avoid using "militant" to describe an atheist simply because it implies rigidity and stubbornness, which isn't fair to someone whose position is based on logic and reason. Dawkins, whom you refer to as militant, would certainly be among the first to admit to a god's existence if he found evidence of one, so what about his position is militant?
And there is nothing wrong with aggression. If I think your opinion is baseless and ignorant, I have every right to let you know, as well as let others know that your position isn't one worth listening to. This kind of approach is employed by theists as well, and portrayed as a weapon of atheists by them only so they can appear as victims, thereby attempting to disqualify atheists from the debate before it has even begun.
JDawg
No thinking atheist can justify strong atheism. It is a belief just as unevidenced as any strong theist's beliefs. Almost all atheists stop short of stating god does not exist(or Jesus was not divine)because of a lack of evidence, but while the lack of evidence is rarely dipositive, it is a basis for provisional conclusions(unless and until evidence is forthcoming). I don't accept Jesus's divinity, though I do see wisdom in some of the things he said and taught. But the religions built around his story are much more about power than they are about morality. While religions may do some good works, so did Al Capone.
Grumpy
No thinking atheist can justify strong atheism. It is a belief just as unevidenced as any strong theist's beliefs. Almost all atheists stop short of stating god does not exist(or Jesus was not divine)because of a lack of evidence, but while the lack of evidence is rarely dipositive, it is a basis for provisional conclusions(unless and until evidence is forthcoming). I don't accept Jesus's divinity, though I do see wisdom in some of the things he said and taught. But the religions built around his story are much more about power than they are about morality. While religions may do some good works, so did Al Capone.
Grumpy
JDawg
No thinking atheist can justify strong atheism. It is a belief just as unevidenced as any strong theist's beliefs. Almost all atheists stop short of stating god does not exist(or Jesus was not divine)because of a lack of evidence, but while the lack of evidence is rarely dipositive, it is a basis for provisional conclusions(unless and until evidence is forthcoming). I don't accept Jesus's divinity, though I do see wisdom in some of the things he said and taught. But the religions built around his story are much more about power than they are about morality. While religions may do some good works, so did Al Capone.
Grumpy
You can dismiss the evidence all you like, but there is plenty to indicate that the divine character of Jesus was the invention of those who wrote of him. To state that he was not the son of a god is not an "unevidenced" statement.
Your (flawed) opinion of his teachings has no bearing on his divinity.