The Arrogance Of The New Atheism
Tweet
Preach it, brother.
The irony is that this current brand of aggressive atheism is just another form of fundamentalism. These particular atheists are zealots on the subject of faith who see no shadings of gray, only black and white. They’re dead-set against religion but weirdly obsessed with it.
The ‘new atheism,’ as it’s called by its adherents, is itself a kind of church. An anti-church church, granted, but a form of lockstep belief nonetheless.
302 Responses to “The Arrogance Of The New Atheism”
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
What Time Is Super Bowl 2012 (Super Bowl XLVI)?
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Oliver your Pot/Kettle arrogance strikes me as offensively ignorant, yet after checking your other multiple posts on this topic …more pitiful than laughable. Who are we exactly… these “NEW” atheists, in 2010? Why do you feel such a need to attribute the limits of your own belief system on mine or anyone else’s? Freedom FROM religion means exactly that.
any adult who still believes in fairytales shouldn’t be allowed to drive, vote, or hold down a job. They need treatment for being mentally ill.
Oliver, you are too smart to fall for this nonsense. We live in a society filled with people imposing their fundamentalist religious beliefs on everybody else in society. Our entire culture is wrapped around religious beliefs, and far too often even our laws are too. Are the New Atheists doing anything comparable? No, we are just requesting evidence for people’s stated religious beliefs, and if the evidence is lacking, then we will say that. If the religious beliefs are stupid, then we will say that. If the religious beliefs are detrimental to a responsible society, then we will say that. We are not enshrining atheism into law though, as millions and millions and millions of fundamentalist Christians are enshrining their religious beliefs into law. Please stop trying to equate the 2 sides when they are fundamentally different.
Brian
What you are doing in equating them is akin to what the media does (and which liberals rightfully criticize them for) when taking a liberal commentator and conservative commentator and assuming that the truth must be somewhere in the middle between them. It is a false equivalency, a well-intentioned but misguided attempt at trying to be fair. Sometimes there really is a right side and a wrong side, and the truth is found more on one than the other.
Brian
Word. I’m an atheist and I don’t care who knows it. When atheism itself is used as a justification by anyone in government for government action in the same way that religion is, let me know. When someone claims that we are historically an “atheist” nation, ditto.
Claiming that the absence of religion is itself a religion is falling for the ol’ banana in the tailpipe. I respect your first Amendment rights, please respect mine.
We are not enshrining atheism into law
What else would you call interpreting “separation of Church and state” to mean a complete departure of religion from the public square, if not “enshrining atheism into law”?
That would be called “secularism” not “atheism.” If children were pressured into reciting a daily oath to the flag in which they said “one nation, under no god” then a valid complaint could be made that we are enshrining atheism. If no mention is made of any god or religion at all, then that is secularism, not atheism. Secularism is not atheism. This article helped clarify that for me:
http://infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/lowder2.html
Also, can we stop using the phrase “public square?” It is corny, as well as very ambiguous and misleading. People can utter whatever religious nonsense they want under their 1st amendment rights. What we are objecting to is the use of the government to promote religion. As long as our expressions are our own and are not advanced by the government, there will not be a significant issue.
Brian
Wow, it really burns you when people actually pay attention to what the founding fathers wanted…
Yes, why don’t those damned atheists shut up and get in the back of the bus like they’re supposed to!
Sometimes there really is a right side and a wrong side, and the truth is found more on one than the other.
On the question of religion, how could you ever determine on which side the truth lies?
The article does not quote a single “New Atheist.”. If you have heard Dawkind speak, you have heard confidence and stereotypical English erudition and courtesy, but not mean-spiritedness. As far as it being a “church” or “fundamentalism,” I see no evidence for it.
I will admit that PZ Myers is sometimes a prick, and I do disagree with his blasphemy wafer stunt – not because it’s fundamentalist ? but because it involved unethical deception and was in poor taste.
The same way we determine truth and obtain knowledge in other settings—deductive and inductive evidence and arguments. Those of us in the new atheist movement are just advocating that we close the loophole that religion has been passing through for a very long time. Religious claims need to be backed up with evidence just like anything else. They should not get a free pass.
Brian
To be clearer—citing “faith” or “personal revelation of the Holy Spirit” do not make the cut. Provide actual sound arguments and evidence, just like everyone else does for everything else.
Brian
Please. True arrogance is flying a plane into a building for your religion. It’s arrogant to think your God will forgive you for fucking children.
You think I am intolerant of your fairy tales? Well, that’s too fucking bad. Grow the fuck up.
Atheists need to be organized politically and intellectually if they’re going to push back against the very, very, very, very, very entrenched religious power structures. Seems to me what the “new atheism” is about is activism. Just like there were always feminists, they just didn’t get obnoxious about demanding their freedom until the suffragists and then the “women’s libbers” of the mid-20th century counterculture came along. There have always been atheists, but they’ve been so marginalized and persecuted for so long that, like any other marginalized group, they learned to survive in the shadows. Discreetly. What’s happening now is that atheists don’t want to be discreet any longer. They want to change the dialogue, change what people are talking about, and challenge fundamental assumptions in ways that demand attention.
When you try to accomplish goals like that, you have to get organized, and when you do that, conformity and orthodoxy and dogma often follow despite your best intentions. A lot of atheists don’t want to belong to any club, even a club of atheists, which is why it’s been so difficult to get the movement going. But if you don’t have some “lockstep” action, by which I mean party unity, you’re not a real power and no one has to take you seriously.
The familiar charge of “obsession” with one’s adversary is just a way of trying to marginalize the legitimacy of the discussion.
Marco FTW.
Well-stated.
Also, the complaints about “tone” are another way of marginalizing the discussion. Oliver himself takes a harsh, critical, insulting, and sarcastic tone when he takes shots at other peoples’ views he disagrees with on issues of politics, foreign affairs, science, etc. What is new about the new atheists is that we are just going to do the same thing when it comes to religion. The tone is actually nothing new. It is just new to aim it in this particular direction that has traditionally gotten away with undeserved reverence.
Brian
Is it arrogance to ask that the major religions provide some evidence for their beliefs beyond “God exists because I say so”? There are lots of religions in the world that believe all sorts of different things. Which one is right? What mechanism should we use to determine that, other than Crusade/Jihad/Kill-The-Unbeliever?
The New Atheists are actually indistinguishable from the Old Atheists in their arguments, BTW. Their only “crime” is that they won’t shut up and go away when a religious person gets offended at being asked for real evidence. Religion (in the West at least) has lost the ability to intimidate critics into silence. I wouldn’t call that a bad thing.
Why are you siding with those who use intimidation as a political weapon Oliver? That seems a little out of character for you.
Then the best you can do is “We don’t really know.” You’re not really able to determine “truth” in regard to questions about how and why this universe exists.
We don’t really “know” that we are not a universe sitting on top of a turtle. We don’t really know that we are not living inside a Matrix. We don’t really know that the entire world was created last Thursday with our memories implanted in us. Yet, somehow we still admit those as possibilities, but not probabilities. We acknowledge that they are probably false, even though it is possible that they are true. Similarly, religions could possibly be true, but they are probably as false as any of those scenarios. Until someone provides evidence that they actually are true, instead of just saying that they might possibly be true, let’s stop kidding ourselves. Let’s grow up and see the world as it really is instead of what religions claim it is. Reality is not as scary as religions make it out to be.
Brian
You know, I’m as bleeding-heart liberal as they come, and I hate racism and I don’t dislike people because of their ethnicity, but some of what Malcolm X had to say bothers me. Some of the Black Power stuff that happened in the ’60s disturbs me. Some of what was said and done back then is hard for me to take, because some of it was angry and unfair and directed at whites. And I’m white. And it hurts to be hated.
But you know what? Too fucking bad for me, and cry me a river if you can spare one, because I still wake up every day white and male and heterosexual in the bosom of the most powerful white straight male-dominated society in the whole world. I can take a little hate. Especially if it comes in the service of the advancement of equitable rights for all people, including those who have been marginalized and oppressed.
The lesson I take from this? If they call you arrogant, that means you matter.
Yet, somehow we still admit those as possibilities,
No, we don’t. I doubt there’s anyone who believes those things to be literally so.
Similarly, religions could possibly be true, but they are probably as false as any of those scenarios. Until someone provides evidence that they actually are true, instead of just saying that they might possibly be true, let’s stop kidding ourselves. Let’s grow up and see the world as it really is instead of what religions claim it is.
Very well. Describe to me “the world as it really is” and how that differs from the religious view. You’re using a dangerously broad brush there.
You misread my statements. I did not say that anyone believed those to be true, only that it is *possible* that they are true. We cannot prove them to be false. Somehow though, nobody actually does believe that they are true. Why is that? Why do we not apply that exact same principle to religion? Merely having the *possibility* to be true is not enough to justify the belief that it actually is true. To justify the belief that it is true, we need to have actual evidence that it is probable, not just possible.
Also, broad brushes are fine when you are making general statements, and there is nothing wrong with making general statements.
Brian
At least the “arrogance” of “the new atheism” doesn’t involve believing that people will burn in hell for eternity if they aren’t atheists.
Somebody doesn’t know the definition of “fundamentalist.” I expect more from you ODub. Well, except on this issue. This is a continuous blind spot for you.
Very well. Describe to me “the world as it really is” and how that differs from the religious view. You’re using a dangerously broad brush there.
Earth according to the Bible: 6000 years old. Earth according to direct observation of “the world as it really is”: 4.54 billion years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_earth).
You misread my statements. I did not say that anyone believed those to be true,
I didn’t misread. You said, “We admit those as possibilities.” I replied, “No we don’t.” We do not admit those as possibilities.
Robster, what are you talking about? Oliver never even mentioned the word “fundamentalist” anywhere.
Earth according to the Bible: 6000 years old.
False. The Bible does not say Earth is 6,000 years old. Some Biblical literalists interpret the Bible that way.
To declare that belief is definitive of the religious view is as much a mistake as the belief itself. Both views are shortsightedly literal.
Maybe not all atheists should be spending their time saying loudly, “Fuck you, all you religious idiots are dangerous and full of shit,” but I’m glad there are some out there, because, god knows, I think there ought to be a loud and arrogant and fearless response to all the religious shitballs that have dominated the discussion in my life, particularly a bunch of worthless dumbfucks who deny evolution and think that what goes on in peoples’ bedrooms is a subject of public debate and condemnation.
broad brushes are fine when you are making general statements, and there is nothing wrong with making general statements
Wait, what happened to logic and reasoning and truth? “General statements” aren’t very helpful when you’re fashioning yourself the servant of science and reason.
One of my favorite atheist quotes seems appropriate here as well:
“There are no ghosts, ghouls, goblins, or gods. Only people telling stories in the dark. Welcome to the dawn.”
In religion, people are in communication with an invisible being that exists in an alternate plane of existence, and who seems oddly obsessed with our penises. In the real world, people do not have this superpower. Their belief that they do, along with their various other religious beliefs, is nothing more than the result of their own personal biases, sloppy reasoning, shallow thought-processes, and particular indoctrinations.
Somehow though, religion has convinced its adherents and even non-adherents that it should be treated with reverence, and not be burdened with the expectation that it provide evidence for its claims. Believing its claims “on faith” instead of evidence works out much better for it.
Why would we ever let that slide? It is insanity, but religion is a socially-accepted insanity that we have gotten too comfortable with.
Brian
As a nonbeliever, here are, essentially, my demands:
*Remove tax exemption for churches.
*No government favoritism, endorsement, or implied endorsement of any specific religion or religion in general. That means selling off the National Cathedral, removing “In God We Trust” from money, public employees working on Xmas Day, the whole schmear.
*Pat Robertson put in public stocks and rotten fruit is made available to passersby.
Is that arrogant?
“To declare that belief is definitive of the religious view is as much a mistake as the belief itself. Both views are shortsightedly literal.”
Maybe belief in a god at all is shortedsightedly literal too.
Unless evidence is provided that it actually is real, and not just might possibly be real, we have no reason to believe that it actually is real.
Brian
You do not admit that it is even *possible* that we are in a Matrix, or that the world (and all our memories) were created last Thursday? How is it that you know that they are not possible, that they are impossible?
http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Last_Thursdayism
Brian
“General statements” aren’t very helpful when you’re fashioning yourself the servant of science and reason.
That is itself a general statement.
Not all general statements are false. Some actually are true.
Brian
In religion, people are in communication with an invisible being that exists in an alternate plane of existence, and who seems oddly obsessed with our penises.
Once again, overly broad.
That might be true if you’re talking about certain flavors of fundamentalist Christianity, but fundamentalist Christianity is not a good way to characterize religion.
Why would we ever let that slide? It is insanity, but religion is a socially-accepted insanity that we have gotten too comfortable with.
Now see? That’s just what OW was talking about when he made his original post.
You like to congratulate yourself on “seeing the world as it is,” but so far, you haven’t done much other than characterize religionists as superstitious and insane.
Pissing in someone else’s corn flakes doesn’t make you Galileo.
Fine, strike out the part about the penises. Even “moderate” theists think they possess knowledge that there exists an invisible being in another realm of existence, and some of them believe that they are in communication (psychically, somehow) with it.
Yes, that is a general statement. It is also an accurate one. Of course there are some religions that do not postulate supernatural entities that communicate with humans (some flavors of Buddhism), but it is overall a common theme among religions still. It is still an accurate general statement, and yes, sometimes it is ok to make general statements.
Brian
From the link you helpfully provided:
The belief, much like the belief in the Invisible Pink Unicorn, is a parody…
“You like to congratulate yourself on “seeing the world as it is,” but so far, you haven’t done much other than characterize religionists as superstitious and insane.”
If I claimed to know that that statement was true because an interdimensional being told me so, would that make it better? If I said I believed it “on faith” does that give it extra credibility? Would you say that you cannot prove that it is false, and so will therefore believe that it is true, or at least has some credibility?
For the record, I do not think religionists are insane. They just have whacked-out beliefs. Even sane and smart people can have whacked-out beliefs though.
Brian
Congratulations. You have, in short order, committed the very irrationality you disdain.
You stated that “religion” (with no qualification–not “some religion” or “mainstream religion” or any other constraint) is “probably as false” as the very broad parodies you presented.
When challenged on the breadth of that assessment, you insist that it’s true because it’s true.
When are we going to get around to “seeing the world as it is”? So far, you’re just making broad assertions without any evidence.
The main argument the author seems to be making is that atheists are “smug, dogmatic, and mean-spirited.” This is fine for coercing his readership who are no doubt primarily other Pentecostal and Southern Baptists in Kentucky, but it is not the basis for rational discourse.
Unless evidence is provided that it actually is real, and not just might possibly be real, we have no reason to believe that it actually is real.
Brian, you started out with the assertion that “sometimes there really is a right side and a wrong side, and the truth is found more on one than the other”. So far, you’re only arguing that the other side is wrong, not that your side is right.
The software does not allow me to reply to Quaker-in-a-Basement’s nested replies to me, so I will make one here.
I again ask for *proof* that the universe was not created Last Thursday. Yes, wiki correctly points out that the idea that it was initially started as a parody of some religious beliefs. The point is that there are lots of *unfalsifiable* beliefs about the world that we can come up with. We cannot prove that they are false. That in itself though is not good enough reason to believe that they are true, or even that they are ideas that should be taken seriously. It is *possible* that the universe was created last Thursday, and maybe the spoof aspect of it is actually onto something legitimate. Can you *prove* that the universe was not created last Thursday? Nobody can (Oh no! A general statement!). We do not believe it was created last Thursday though, even though it is *possible* that it was. That is because we require evidence that a belief is probably true in order for us to hold it, not just that it is possibly true.
Brian
Even “moderate” theists think they possess knowledge that there exists an invisible being in another realm of existence,
Maybe some do.
My personal gripe with this entire debate is that religionists often start talking about “God” as an axiomatic construct. If you really want to get under those people’s skins, just ask ‘em to explain what they mean by the word.
At the same time, the strain of athiesm that satisfies itself more with anti-religionism (in place of “seeing the world as it is”) accepts this axiomatic construct as the frame for the argument.
There are several billion Buddhists in the world who don’t talk about “God” at all–at least not in the same sense as believers of the Jehovah of the Old Testament. Likewise, there are a billion or so Hindus who recognize an entire pantheon of mythological deities as metaphorical. There are Christians too, who aren’t literalists when it comes to Yahweh.
Your starting point for a discussion of the truth or falsity of all religion is far too narrow and your conclusions far too broad for someone who likes to pass judgment on the rationality of others.
For the record, I do not think religionists are insane.
No? Then who was it who wrote that “religion is insanity”?
If I claimed to know that that statement was true because an interdimensional being told me so, would that make it better? If I said I believed it “on faith” does that give it extra credibility?
That would make your statement no more credible (and no less) that presenting it the way you did: Religion is false because I say so.
I again ask for *proof* that the universe was not created Last Thursday.
And I ask for proof…sorry, *proof* that anyone thinks it’s so.
You’re arguing proof by negation here. “The opposite of my belief cannot be true, therefore what I believe must be true.” You’re chasing your own tail here.
Still waiting to hear about “the world as it is.”
Quaker said:
“My personal gripe with this entire debate is that religionists often start talking about “God” as an axiomatic construct. If you really want to get under those people’s skins, just ask ‘em to explain what they mean by the word.”
That is a general statement as well. Therefore, you should criticize it for its tone.
Or is it ok because you included the word “often” in the middle there? If all the atheists inserted the word “often” in their statements, would that make their statements acceptable to you? Really, we should not have to do that. When we make general statements about people, we are saying that they are true for large quantities of people that are members of that group. The larger the population, the more likely it is that there will be exceptions, but the general statement still applies to the bulk of the group. We should not have to add all sorts of unnecessary disclaimers every time we make that kind of statement. At some point it is the responsibility of the reader to understand that there will be outliers, but the statement still applies generally.
Brian
To put a point on all this, Brian, you’re proving OW’s point rather well. The “new athiest” movement likes to pretend it is logical and rational and empirical. Those aren’t the same things as swatting at the broadest and most simplistic pedestrian religious metaphors.
I’m sure if you stood out on the street and asked passersby if they believe in a gigantic, bearded, all-knowing being who sits astride a celestial throne, you’d find some takers.
That doesn’t mean that’s what “religion” is.
Yes, you are plainly misreading again. I never, ever said that anyone thinks the universe was created last Thursday. I know of no person that believes it, and I doubt that anybody does. Please stop asking me for proof of a statement that I think is false anyway.
All I am saying is that it is possible that the universe was created last Thursday. You seem to repeatedly confuse 2 distinct concepts:
1. The possibility that [X] is true.
2. The belief that [X] is true.
I also say it is also possible that aliens from the planet Zuptor are controlling the minds of everybody on earth. I say it is possible that my mother is a time-traveler from the future and is not really my mother at all, but an advanced shapeshifter.
Note that I am saying that it is *possible* that those are true. I cannot prove them to be false. That is not the same thing as saying that I think they are actually true. Do you understand the difference between a person saying that something is *possibly* true, and the person saying that they believe it actually is true? Just saying that something is *possible* means that it is a logically coherent (does not contradict itself) concept. It does not mean that it actually is true.
Brian
Look, you’re the one who started out by saying there’s more truth on one side of the question than the other. If your *proof* for that proposition is that religion amounts to insane superstition because you said so, then you have a long way to go to achieve “truth.”
As for my supposedly general statement, how many people do you know who talk about “God” without defining the term?
How disappointing.
There are no shades of gray. God exists or he doesn’t. He doesn’t kind of exist. He doesn’t exist for some people and not for others. He doesn’t exist on Tuesdays and Fridays. He either exists or he doesn’t.
It’s no different than the question of whether John Travolta exists or whether Santa Claus exists. It doesn’t matter how good or bad an actor you think Travolta is. It doesn’t matter whether it’s healthy for kids to believe in Santa Claus. It doesn’t matter how much money you heard John Travolta gave to charity last year. It doesn’t matter if belief in Santa Claus makes kids behave.
Either Santa Claus exists or he doesn’t. Either John Travolta exists or he doesn’t. It is as black and white as it could possibly be, and that is obvious to anyone who is willing to accept the obvious answer to either of those two questions.
It’s only when people don’t want to accept the obvious answer that muddled thinking and equivocation become a virtue.
I am an absolute, uncompromising fundamentalist on the issue of whether Santa Clause exists. Same with regard to John Travolta. Same with regard to God.
“The “new athiest” movement likes to pretend it is logical and rational and empirical.”
Did you type that with a straight face? You criticize others for making general statements while you go ahead and (obliviously, it seems) make general statements yourself.
Now, I am fine with people making general statements. They turn out to be accurate sometimes. It is you who was criticizing others just for making a general statement, as if there was something wrong with that in itself. Please make up your mind on this and let me know when you do.
Brian
I know of no person that believes it, and I doubt that anybody does.
You wrote that “we allow it as a possibility.” And now you write that you don’t know anyone who believes it. What you’re doing is setting up a great big ridiculous idea so you can kick it down and claim you’re disproving religion.
I’m not misreading at all. You’re just arguing badly.
The same way we determine truth and obtain knowledge in other settings—deductive and inductive evidence and arguments. Those of us in the new atheist movement are just advocating that we close the loophole that religion has been passing through for a very long time. Religious claims need to be backed up with evidence just like anything else.
Either you’re representative of the new athiest movement or you’re not. I’m not generalizing. I’m reading what you wrote.
When I was little and believed in Santa, at the very least I could count on him once a year. Jesus, on the other hand, was rumored to return that first year I recollect hearing about him and every one since.
Santa, although a lie, was dependable. Fuck. Still is. Jesus? Not so much.
“I’m sure if you stood out on the street and asked passersby if they believe in a gigantic, bearded, all-knowing being who sits astride a celestial throne, you’d find some takers.
That doesn’t mean that’s what “religion” is.”
The religious beliefs that are very, very ubiquitous in our world are just as silly, and even moreso, than the proverbial “bearded man in the sky.” They may scoff at the suggestion that that is who their god is. When you find out what their religious beliefs actually are though, and the characteristics of their god, it is no better than the “bearded man in the sky.”
Caution/disclaimer, general statement ahead: There is indeed a wide variety of religious beliefs in the world. One common theme those diverse beliefs generally have in common though is that they are shallow, and lacking in any depth. Yes, there is a wide diversity of beliefs. They generally tend to be lacking in all meaningful substance. Once you talk to people about their beliefs, you quickly find out that they are not the result of quality critical evaluation of the evidence and well-thought-through analysis. As I mentioned earlier, people’s religious beliefs tend to be the result of their personal biases, shallow thinking, sloppy reasoning, and cultural indoctrinations. There is a whole lot less there than meets the eye, when it comes to religion.
That is not saying that people who are religious are stupid. That is not at all what I believe. I will repeat what I said earlier: even very smart people are capable of holding some very stupid beliefs. There are plenty of smart people who are religious. Even their religious beliefs turn out to be pretty stupid though. The way that beliefs in general, and religious beliefs specifically, spread throughout time and space allows for the possibility that smart people will still have some stupid beliefs.
Brian
Some of my beliefs are representative of the new atheist movement, and some of them are not. What does that have to do with anything though?
Please do not misunderstand what I mean by “representative.” No election was ever held that appointed anyone, including me, to be a representative. I only mean that they are reflective in some ways of the views of the community as a group.
Brian
Both sides are dogmatic fundamentalists. One just happens to have far more power. But its the same damn coin.
Yes, I do it with things that we can prove with objective reality. But the tone the hardcore atheist takes belittling someone who believes in “fairy tales” or “sky gods” or whatever derisive tone du jour is, is claiming they have objective reality on their side. Which neither side does in this case.
“You wrote that “we allow it as a possibility.” And now you write that you don’t know anyone who believes it. What you’re doing is setting up a great big ridiculous idea so you can kick it down and claim you’re disproving religion.”
You are not answering the question posed to you. Let’s try again:
Do you see any difference at all between a person saying that something is possible to be true, and saying that it is probably true?
Shorter still:
Do you see any difference at all between the words “possible” and “probable?”
Brian
Because the idea that everyone who is religious is somehow trying to intimidate atheists is untrue and paranoid.
Sorry, Oliver. I do have objective reality on my side. Find me an Ark and we’ll talk.
Really? Prove God doesn’t exist. Because you have as much evidence as the Falwells who insist he does exist because they say so. That’s the only point I’m trying to make.
Do you see any difference at all between a person saying that something is possible to be true, and saying that it is probably true?
Yes, I do. Please continue.
Except its freedom OF religion.
You can prove the negative as much as a hardcore religionist can prove the positive. That is, not at all.
Once you talk to people about their beliefs, you quickly find out that they are not the result of quality critical evaluation of the evidence and well-thought-through analysis. As I mentioned earlier, people’s religious beliefs tend to be the result of their personal biases, shallow thinking, sloppy reasoning, and cultural indoctrinations.
And right there is exactly what OW was complaining about at the outset.
That is not saying that people who are religious are stupid.
Of course not. Not stupid. Just biased, shallow, sloppy, and indoctrinated.
I am an absolute, uncompromising fundamentalist on the issue of whether Santa Clause exists. Same with regard to John Travolta. Same with regard to God.
With regard to John Travolta and Santa Claus, I have a pretty good idea what you’re referring to. Not so with “God”.
“Yes, I do it with things that we can prove with objective reality.”
Some beliefs cannot be proven or disproven, but still are silly for people to believe are true. It cannot be proven or disproven that the earth was created 6,000 years ago and merely given the appearance of an older age, and that fossils were planted by Satan to deceive people.
Such a thing is possible to be true, in the sense that it is logically coherent and we have no data that contradicts it (because all the data was manipulated by Satan to conform to it). ***It is still silly for people to believe that it is true though.***
[quote]But the tone the hardcore atheist takes belittling someone who believes in “fairy tales” or “sky gods” or whatever derisive tone du jour is, is claiming they have objective reality on their side. Which neither side does in this case.[/quote]
If someone made the completely unfalsifiable claim to you that the universe was created last Thursday, would you consider that claim to be just as likely as the claim that it was not? We cannot prove it either way. I suspect though that you would still not take that idea seriously, simply because it is *possible* that it is true. We can still say that it is *probably* false.
Brian
Caution/disclaimer, general statement ahead:
Are you amusing yourself with this? Let’s review what I was referring to when I first made note of your generalities.
You wrote:
Based on nothing more than your say so, you’re declaring that all religion is “probably false”, that the religious are kidding themselves and need to grow up. And as yet, you have offered not one example of “the world as it really is instead of what religions claim it is.”
Now please. If it pleases you to throw “general statement” back in my face, you’re welcome to it.
Indeed, I hope I’m replying to you correctly here (this system really isn’t popping up right on my browser). While I agree with most of your sentiments, I would like to note that the so-called “National Cathedral” is not owned by the U.S. Government, nor is it situated on Federal property. While prominent government officials have taken a keen interest in the church (such as Teddy Roosevelt, who was present when construction started), it is wholly owned and operated by the Episcopal Church.
“That is not saying that people who are religious are stupid.”
“Of course not. Not stupid. Just biased, shallow, sloppy, and indoctrinated.”
Your snark aside, it is actually true that smart people are susceptible to bias. Smart people are susceptible to shallow thinking. Smart people are subject to sloppy reasoning. Smart people are also susceptible to being indoctrinated.
Smart people can still hold stupid beliefs. So when someone says that a particular belief is stupid, that is not the same thing as saying that they themselves are stupid. Smart people can, and frequently do, hold stupid beliefs. No person is 100% rational with all true beliefs. All of us are a mix of some correct and some incorrect beliefs. Even the smart folks among us. Some of those incorrect beliefs can even be stupid too, and frequently are. Given the nature of beliefs, how they are formed, and how they are preserved in our minds, it is very common for even smart people to still have some stupid beliefs.
Brian
I wondered about that and didn’t bother to check. Busted. How about not no government business in there, ever.
Do you see any difference at all between a person saying that something is possible to be true, and saying that it is probably true?
Yes, I do. Please continue.
Then you should not be asking me for proof that someone actually believes Last Thursdayism is true when I never claimed that anybody believes that it is true. I was only saying that it is *possible* that it is true, not that anyone thinks it actually is true.
Brian
As far as I know, nobody’s ever proven that Santa Claus doesn’t exist. We all agree he doesn’t exist because after a certain point in our maturation process we cease to be emotionally invested in the belief he does exist, and it is considered silly to continue to believe in something which all available evidence indicates is a myth.
If Quaker in a basement, for example, were still as emotionally committed to Santa Claus as he is to God, he would be making the same arguments in defense of Santa Claus. If somebody pointed out that the North Pole has been explored and nobody found Santa’s workshop, he would dismiss the whole silly story of a workshop at the North Pole as a superstition held by “fundamentalists” and not serious believers and then accuse you of attacking a straw man. If you pointed out that it the gifts under the Christmas tree are actually bought by parents and some of them even have little tags attached that say so, Quaker would again insist you are dishonestly attacking a backward idea that no serious Clausian holds in the modern age. Of course Santa doesn’t deliver all those gifts! But he provides the spiritual inspiration and guidance to make sure gifts are given in the spirit of Christmas.
In the same way, Quaker just keeps paring back God, slicing away and casting aside any remaining property normally and traditionally associated with God when that property comes into conflict with reality to such an extent it is indefensible, until he has some hollow, abstract, foggy, vaporous concept of God that is so poorly defined it is impossible to say anything intelligent about it, much less disprove it. In the end, God is Love, or something, and how can you argue against that? There’s nothing there to argue against.
That’s how you maintain a belief when there is a mountain of evidence against it. You just keep backtracking and insisting “nobody ever said God was [something everybody has always said God was, and will continue to say as soon as there's no argumentative atheist around].”
So, in response, I say I have as much or more proof there is no God than that there is no Santa Claus. Like Marco says, Santa Claus probably has a better claim on reality than God. But none of us believe in him. Because none of us, at this point in our lives, have the emotional motivation to ignore the obvious reality that he doesn’t exist.
John Travolta, on the other hand, even though one would expect him to have a much, much lower profile than God, leaves evidence of his existence everywhere. I can easily prove he exists. Because, as we all know, he is actually real. And even people who really don’t like him or who resent having been suckered by his ludicrous smile into spending hard-earned money on a bad movie will still have to admit that he exists. I don’t know of anybody who denies his existence, even if they wish he didn’t exist. Funny how that works.
Some of my beliefs are representative of the new atheist movement, and some of them are not. What does that have to do with anything though?
Oh, I see. You can write with confidence about what “those of us in the new atheist movement” believe but I’m not to attribute what you say those beliefs are to anyone except you.
At the same time, you’re quite comfortable equating people who believe the universe was created last Thursday with all religious belief.
For one who believes in truth being found “more on one side than the other” you’re having a difficult time making your case.
Does all religion fit within your definition of “stupid beliefs”?
Well, most of the comments above pretty much verify what Paul Prather’s column was complaining about. The “new atheists” seem to think that being an atheist is a license to be an asshole.
One of the commenters tells us to “grow the fuck up” if we don’t like his atheism. That’s exactly what I’d like to say to these “new atheists” — grow the fuck up, and start by learning some manners. Getting into people’s faces with spittle-flying mockery and abuse doesn’t make you a bold, progressive thinker; it makes you a childish, obnoxious jerk.
I’m guessing the more strident commenters today are people in their early 20s who haven’t yet learned that if you want to be part of civilized society, you have to behave in a civilized manner. No matter; they’ll learn soon enough, probably after they get fired from a job after insulting a co-worker’s religion.
I was only saying that it is *possible* that it is true, not that anyone thinks it actually is true.
Very well. In a strictly abstract sense, this belief (that we agree absolutely no one holds) is “possible.”
Continue.
In the same way, Quaker just keeps paring back God, slicing away and casting aside any remaining property normally and traditionally associated with God when that property comes into conflict with reality to such an extent it is indefensible, until he has some hollow, abstract, foggy, vaporous concept of God that is so poorly defined it is impossible to say anything intelligent about it, much less disprove it.
Pardon me, Max. I think you have mistaken me for someone else. Else, you’re making up stuff about me.
Let’s stroll down to the other end of this question and see what we see.
There is an observable universe, yes?
I’m pretty sure it’s not technically “getting into people’s faces” when they were the ones who were insulted in the first place. What’s more, it’s far more likely for a non-atheist to insult an atheist in the workplace than the other way around. As someone who holds absolutely no religious beliefs whatsoever, I can attest that I have never in my entire career heard an atheist openly mock a believer at work. I wish I could say the opposite was true, but I cannot. (In fact, I’ve even known someone to be canned once it was learned by the boss’ secretary that they didn’t attend church regularly. Of course, that wasn’t the reason he was given, but it was the reason it happened.) One must live a fairly sheltered life in the U.S. if they believe that atheists can openly express their views in the same manner that theists do. For many, being somewhat aggressive in the defense of their (lack of) belief on a semi-anonymous message board connected to a political blog is about as much free speech as they have. So, I completely understand they’re desire to kick it up a couple notches when commenting.
or: “their” desire . . .
The “new atheists” seem to think that being an atheist is a license to be an asshole.
Strawman.
The Pope is an asshole. Pat Robertson is an asshole.
Pointing out, as a poster above has done, that religion gets an exemption from evidence, verification, testing, logic and empiricism that we use to seek truth in every other subject, does not make one an asshole. It merely indicates that one is observant.
After all, if there were testable truth in religion as there is, for example in the study of physics, every religious person would agree in the same fashion that physicists agree on the speed of light or the formula for determining the coefficient of friction.
In religion, the result is exactly the opposite. The more study there is, the more the students disagree on what they have learned. Thousands of years of study of theology seems to have determined only that Truth is whatever serves the state, and that different states require different “truths.”
It would appear so. Ergo, God exists, and we should all start attending church regularly to ensure a place in the creator’s laboratory. I see your point.
I think you’re being disingenuous here. I’m sure you’ve noted that this kind of obnoxious, confrontational tone is typical of the World Wide Web. They even have a name for it: “flaming,” a term coined sometime in the last century, I believe.
So I don’t think we’ve proven anything about atheists except that they have internet access too.
Not everyone. But a lot of them. And that’s not paranoia. It’s observation of reality.
I see your point.
Then you can see the future. I haven’t even made my point yet. I think what you have actually done is made something up and called it my point.
We, as sentient beings, are part of the observable universe and possess a capacity for perception.
But what of the universe which is not observable? Are things at light speed ‘everywhere all the time’? Would such things be defined as “spiritual” from our own time/space constrained viewpoint? Is evolution a rule-based semi-random sequentially occurring construct, or have things been intelligently designed concurrently by a higher dimensional being, front to back and side to side, so to speak? If it’s the latter, then the most efficient way to destroy the (from our 3D/time viewpoint) observable universe would be for an almighty being to make it so the universe had never been created. Such a being, unconstrained by time, would simply snuff out the moment of creation. But would such an event set up a cascading chain of recursively destructive anomalies destroying all metaphysical “anchors” and leading to the death of the omnipotent spirit form itself? Inquiring minds need to know.
“Truth” is a loaded word. Ixnay that for a second, forget about which side has more truth on it, and ask which side has more evidence.
No one can prove a negative. Okay. So how does a person decide which positive to accept? All sorts of reasons, and not all of them are rational or even deliberate ones. People can believe whatever turns them on, of course, and it needn’t be based in rationality of any kind. But! If you are going to proceed from a basis of rationality, if the issue of the existence of “God” is going to be considered debatable, then you have to look at the evidence.
And the evidence is all on the side of atheism. God-worshippers got nothin’.
1)Coming to that
2)No
3)Possibly
4)It probably doesn’t matter
5)Moot. See 4)
6)Godamighty!
Our capacity for perception is limited. We perceive the observable universe imperfectly.
OW, you are so consistently wrong about this that it’s a damned joke at this point.
The burden of proof lies with the theist. The atheist only demands to see the evidence. Belief in an idea, in a deity, in supernatural forces, in spite of a complete lack of evidence is really, really stupid. The reason is because there are literally infinite ideas that are not impossible – yet we do not believe most of these things to be true. It is possible there is an invisible goblin that lives in my shower drain and sometimes clogs it up. Do you think that this scenario is as likely to be true as it is to be false? You’d be an idiot to think the chance was 50%.
Until there is actual evidence for God’s existence, there is no rational explanation for why anyone should believe in him. Same goes for Bigfoot, Santa Claus, Ogopogo, the Loch Ness monster, or ghosts. Does it make me arrogant for saying that?
And QiaB, this is true no matter how you want to define God. If you anthropomorphize him, then there is a distinct lack of evidence for him. If you define him in another way, perhaps more nebulously, then it’s a redundant and/or superfluous non-description. So let me ask you, how do you define God?
“Truth” is a loaded word. Ixnay that for a second,
OK, but with the stipulation that it wasn’t me who brought it up in the first place.
If you are going to proceed from a basis of rationality, if the issue of the existence of “God” is going to be considered debatable, then you have to look at the evidence.
You’re skipping a step. Before you can address the question of God’s existence, you need to define your terms. What “God” are you talking about?
So let me ask you, how do you define God?
You want it in a nutshell? Here goes: That which is called “God” is a property of the observable universe, not a “being” separate from it. By extension, “God” is you.
But what if Jesus wasn’t saying “I am the light” in a metaphoric sense, or even in a Rastafarian sense, but in an extrapolated from special relativity sense where at point of death the physical form must reconcile with the higher dimensional spirit form (of which it is a part such as the line is a part of the plane it lies on), lest something bad happens?
If it makes it any easier, I see no distinction between cosmology and religion.
Said briefly: The universe is great. The minds of men are small.
timmy, I can’t tell to what degree you’re making mock of this discussion, but I could actually make the case that this last post is correct, aside from the fact that many Biblical scholars think he probably never said that.
I’m sick and tired of the arrogant, shrill tone Christians take every day. As a worshiper of the Norse gods and Yggradrassil the Tree of Life, Odin knows how many times I’ve been confronted with the sheer arrogance of Christians telling me they’re so right in their beliefs that Jesus is the son of God, and that those who don’t accept him as their savior will burn in eternal hellfire, while I am wrong in my faith in the existence of the warrior-afterlife of Valhalla, where we do battle every day and the survivors get to celebrate with wine and buxom wenches. Thor’s blood, this is infuriating. I really wish they’d tone themselves down.
Which is to say, atheism is not a religion. Just look at the word itself — it’s the absence or denial of faith, of that which can’t be proved empirically. If I don’t believe Godzilla lives in your closet, that doesn’t mean I start the “anti-closet Godzilla church,” it simply means you haven’t convinced me. Religions, ranging from Christianity to Wicca, are based on positive claims for the existence of the unsee-able. Atheism is the denial of supernatural claims, agnosticism is something like a skepticism aimed at the plausibility of any such supernatural claims.
Can atheists be shrill? Sure. So can the “GOD HATES FAGS” Christians who protest dead soldiers. And if you really think guys like Hitchens and Dawkins writing books and giving talks are morally equivalent to the Westboro Church folks screaming their Christian hate, then you’re an idiot.
So along with Palestine and the netroots, let’s add religion to the list of things Oliver is incapable of talking like an adult about.
And if you really think guys like Hitchens and Dawkins writing books and giving talks are morally equivalent to the Westboro Church folks screaming their Christian hate
Did someone say that?
let’s add religion to the list of things Oliver is incapable of talking like an adult about
Effectively proving the original thesis of the post.
Would I be correct in saying that this matters only insofar as it affects public policy (abortion, capital punishment, etc.)? I mean otherwise, who gives a shit what a bunch of strangers think about the nature of the universe, am I right?
Like I said…
A = something you don’t believe in, and the existence of which I have no evidence.
B = something you do believe in, requiring no evidence.
A = B
Therefore, A exists.
I think the atheist would counter with:
B – A = B
Therefore A is nothing.
That would be called “secularism” not “atheism.”
No, I call it atheism. And, like you, I reserve to myself the right to call things whatever I want, and , if I so choose, pretend that your 200 year old methodology of discovery is inferior to my eons old methodology of revelation. Do you really think you have it right because of some “I can’t put it in a test tube” notion?
Oh noes, I’m being shrill and arrogant!
Meanwhile, atheists can be fired and/or shunned by their fellow Americans with impunity. Gays can be told who they can and can’t married based on the supposed sayings of skygods millenia ago. Woman can be treated like cattle, have their genitals sliced off, and be stoned to death because somebody once supposedly said something that an invisible voice once told somebody (probably a man, I’m guessing).
Yeah, I’ll take shrill and arrogant over unable to marry, keep a job, or my genitals intact any day.
I’m arrogant for pointing out the obvious, while a Christian person who lives under the delusion that I and the people I love will burn in hell forever simply because we don’t accept Jesus as the Messiah (we happen to be 4/5 of the world’s population, of course) are the real problem.
Uh-huh.
I wondered about that and didn’t bother to check.
And so it goes.
I think the atheist would counter with:
B – A = B
Right there’s the problem. You assume that A is divisible from B. I assume it is not. Therefore:
B – A is undefined.
Oh noes, I’m being shrill and arrogant!
Yes.
Meanwhile, atheists can be fired and/or shunned by their fellow Americans with impunity. Gays can be told who they can and can’t married based on the supposed sayings of skygods millenia ago. Woman can be treated like cattle, have their genitals sliced off, and be stoned to death because somebody once supposedly said something that an invisible voice once told somebody (probably a man, I’m guessing).
Is this supposed to be an argument in favor of atheism? If so, I’m not getting it.
Felix, the “evidence” points to a finely tuned, interconnected, interdedependent cluster of ecologies, all surviving well with each other. That most certainly is not evidence of “no God”. If anybody has “nothing” – and I might add, seems rather proud of it – it is the atheists: No Cause, no Rhyme, no Reason. Just an amazingly complicated accident.
One of the original allegories related to Intelligent Design is instructive here: Imagine all the elements required to make a Boeing 747 are in a huge warehouse. The parts, nuts and bolts, windows, seat cushions, etc.
How long would it take before that becomes a flight ready airplane without any intelligent intervention? A thousand years? A million? A billion?
Cute, but if you’re going to play that kind of game, you’ll first need to learn the difference between division and subtraction.
And since it is division by zero that is undefined, your answer, if it in fact meant anything, would ironically prove my point (that A = 0).
OK, Quaker. So what does this definition of God buy you? In other words, how does defining God in this way give you any better or more accurate description of the observable universe than someone like me, an atheist, describes it? Because it seems to me that while although your definition is not renedered laughably implausible (like the anthropomorphized God), it still suffers as being woefully redundant and superfluous. I need to see the explanatory power of your idea.
Alright, agnosticism it is. You’d better be right about this.
Dammit, Frank, there are adults talking here. You aren’t helping, and your understanding of the scientific point of view of the world, and your pitiful commentary on intelligent design (complete hogwash) is just embarrassing for you.
Nope.
You’re trying to divide a property from an observable entity. You can’t take a boulder and subtract its mass.
“Would I be correct in saying that this matters only insofar as it affects public policy (abortion, capital punishment, etc.)? I mean otherwise, who gives a shit what a bunch of strangers think about the nature of the universe, am I right?”
In a lot of ways. But what makes Christianity particularly abhorrent among the major world faiths is that it literally states that non-believers burn in hell forever as a form of punishment. Islam and Judaism don’t (although in practice I’ll admit that radical Muslims have a lot to answer for).
“Is this supposed to be an argument in favor of atheism? If so, I’m not getting it.”
If you can’t tell a moral difference between Hitchens and Dawkins being snarky and Westboro types screaming GOD HATES FAGS, then you’re far beyond lost. And it’s really not about embracing atheism as it is about rejecting the silliness that is religious faith.
But the Founding Fathers did a pretty good job of outlining the separation of Church and State (interestingly, it was the most religious groups at the time who embraced this doctrine). And allowing people to worship as they will in private is fine with me. But the religious right in America works tirelessly to overthrow these basic, rational safeguards against the theocritization of our shared secular society.
OK, Quaker. So what does this definition of God buy you? In other words, how does defining God in this way give you any better or more accurate description of the observable universe than someone like me, an atheist, describes it?
I’m not the one making the claim for better or more accurate or not stupid. That was Ben. I was asked what I believe. This is it.
Because it seems to me that while although your definition is not renedered laughably implausible (like the anthropomorphized God), it still suffers as being woefully redundant and superfluous.
We’d have to drill down to the particulars to see. Right now we’re at the nutshell version. The anthropomorphized God gives me the shits too. It was from that point that I started my personal spiritual quest some years ago. It would take a while to piece it together as a narrative and as a descriptive of the universe.
I need to see the explanatory power of your idea.
Not really. You only need to accept that my idea is rigorously sought and carefully considered and not blind, stupid, superstitious, shallow, or any of the other accusations tossed out by our logical and reasoning commenters tonight.
And if you get that far, then you’ve accepted the premise of OW’s post.
If you can’t tell a moral difference between Hitchens and Dawkins being snarky and Westboro types screaming GOD HATES FAGS, then you’re far beyond lost.
I have no problem telling the difference. It was you who suggested the equivalence, not me.
Atheists are shrill and arrogant. Oh noes.
Christians claim that non-Christians burn in hell forever. Meanwhile they deny equal rights to gays and women.
Obviously, Hitchens and Dawkins are the real problem.
I said “divisible from” as in “removable” or “separable”, not “divisible by”.
Christians claim that non-Christians burn in hell forever. Meanwhile they deny equal rights to gays and women.
Not being a Christian, I won’t presume to speak for them. But if anyone here expressed a comparable stereotype about Muslims, I expect you’d be among the first to call them on it.
(Wait, what? He calls himself Quaker, but says he’s not a Christian?!? You can ask if you like, but I don’t think it matters to you.)
And yet we created god in our image. Not the other way around. At least if you believe in a Western tradition.
The universe is a great big vast empty thing and human beings have expended a lot of time and energy trying to fill it with every possible meaning and explanation we can conjure up.
I’m an atheist. But I find religion fascinating as one facet of our truly amazing, entirely human capacity and very deep human need to create meaning where none exists. Without that capacity and that very deep need, we wouldn’t just be lacking religion, we’d be lacking art, love, civilization itself.
Our capacity to create meaning where none exists makes us truly unique, special and precious creatures unto ourselves (certainly no other creature in the universe gives a shit about us) but that very deep need to create meaning where none exists also makes us kind of pitiable as well as kind of dangerous.
And yet we created god in our image. Not the other way around. At least if you believe in a Western tradition.
Haw! I have often said the same. Religion by rote craves a God that is bigger than ourselves, but just barely.
Don’t have my bible handy (fascinating book, that) but in terms of scripture it’s pretty explicit. Those who don’t accept Jesus as Christos or Messiah are the chaff, not the wheat. They are the goats, not the lambs.
This is basic Christian theology.
Judaism doesn’t make explicit claims about the afterlife.
Islam is a lot more ambiguous than the Christian Testament. Although it does explicitly praise Abraham and Jesus as prophets.
If it isn’t clear by now I find all religions repugnant, but Christianity the most so. For all the hard-line Muslims and Jews out there, only Christianity explicitly condemns non-believers to eternal damnation.
But I find religion fascinating as one facet of our truly amazing, entirely human capacity and very deep human need to create meaning where none exists.
I’m pondering this part. Tell me what you mean by “create meaning”.
Quaker, I think that what a number of commenters on this board would say, myself included, is that you are defining God in such a way that you are essentially declaring yourself to be an atheist. You may not consider yourself one, but from my perspective you seem far closer to atheism than theism. I could, for example, say that God is a fundamental property of the observable universe – let’s say I call my TV “God”. I don’t consider myself an atheist (because the TV is God in my eyes), but it would be ludicrous for an atheist to deny the existence of my TV – rather, he would say that it’s odd and seemingly inappropriate to label it “God”.
Simply put, I don’t think that putting the God label on observable events fundamentally changes the nature of those events. It seems, to me, to be an unnecessary layer of complexity, a violation (albeit a small one) of parsimony. That said, I could be persuaded otherwise if I could see how the outlook gains you explanatory power of the world.
I accept and believe that your thoughts on this are well considered, because you seem to be a reasonable and intelligent fellow. However, you must recognize that the common Christianity (ie, not yours)of this nation is just plain stupid. I know that that offends some people to say that, but it’s absolutely true. Look at what idiocy Frank has spouted around here – I’m afraid his type is far more commonplace.
Don’t have my bible handy (fascinating book, that) but in terms of scripture it’s pretty explicit. Those who don’t accept Jesus as Christos or Messiah are the chaff, not the wheat. They are the goats, not the lambs.
This is basic Christian theology.
Maybe for some. Certainly not for all.
At any rate, even if we stipulate that it’s true, it takes nothing away from the point OW makes in this post. The stridency and uncompromising absoluteness expressed by the so-called “New Atheists” approaches that of religious fundamentalism.
Since it’s impossible to prove a negative the burden of proof always lies on those making fantastical claims.
is that you are defining God in such a way that you are essentially declaring yourself to be an atheist
My response would be: No, you are declaring a definition of God by which I become an atheist. I started out down a path of careful explanation, then jumped waaaay ahead because you asked me a direct question which I tried to answer simply.
Let’s put it this way: Suppose a primitive society tried to explain thunder. And suppose they explained it as the cough of an invisible magic bird.
You can doubt the bird exists, but you can’t deny the thunder.
Taking out the stuff about Quaker (who I respect immensely) this is a really well stated argument.
The 1st Amendment guarantees both.
However, you must recognize that the common Christianity (ie, not yours)of this nation is just plain stupid.
Lots of people are bad at math. It’s not math that is stupid.
Some students of math accept superficial explanations unquestioningly and without seeking deeper understanding. Some completely misapprehend the subject matter, claim expertise, and misapply the little knowledge they possess.
None of this is arguable, but it doesn’t make the case that math doesn’t exist.
All religions, Christianity included, are an attempt, using the limited capacities of the human mind, to explain the nature of the universe. So is science. Neither is adequate to fully explain what we observe.
The stridency and uncompromising absoluteness expressed by the so-called “New Atheists” approaches that of religious fundamentalism.
Yeah, except that religious fundamentalists are wrong.
QiaB: Well, of course I can’t deny the thunder. And I wouldn’t dream of it – I strive to modify my worldview to fit the facts. But what I can show those villagers of the actual cause of the thunder, and explain to them that we have never seen or detected this giant bird they are using as an explanatory tool. Would they not be wrong to continue to insist that the bird exists?
The issue I still have is one of parsimony. What does labeling everything as God get you? From my perspective, it seems a needless addition, the equivalent of a weird, superfluous floating variable in a scientific theory.
Pissing in someone else’s corn flakes doesn’t make you Galileo.
And just for the record, I’d like this carved on my tombstone please.
Ok. Then your argument that A = B, and B exists therefore A exists still stands as intended, and is still silly as I explained. At the very least, you’re going to need to expand on this. I understand that your original statement was not meant as a definitive argument, but only a quick, bald assertion, but I’m not betting it gets any better.
The issue I still have is one of parsimony. What does labeling everything as God get you? From my perspective, it seems a needless addition, the equivalent of a weird, superfluous floating variable in a scientific theory.
Well, you don’t have to label it God. We have an apparent universe. As far as I’m concerned, we can just call it that.
Science is full of floating variables, especially at the quantum level. They act as a sort of placeholder for phenomena we can’t adequately explain. We’re aware that the floating variables are made up and incomplete, but the phenomena exist all the same.
In short: We have a universe. The universe is ordered. We have consciousness. Whether you attempt to explain the phenomena of the universe as physics or metaphysics is irrelevant.
Haw!
I lost track of which original assertion you’re talking about. Catch up with the discussion below, with mambochicken.
So far, your own claims regarding religion have nothing to back them up other than that you don’t like religion or the people who have it.
There is no meaning to life or in the universe. None. Our existence, as individuals and as a species, is not imbued with any meaning by some force beyond ourselves. That’s the world as it is. Our existence and the existence of the universe is meaningless.
I know you might feel deep down inside that there is a reason for us being here and the universe has a purpose. And I totally recognize that this is a powerful, transformative feeling. But that’s all it is: a subjective yearning for something that isn’t there.
But if there’s no meaning in the world, what is the source of this yearning?
This feeling didn’t exist in ancient, primitive man when survival was the only thing that mattered. The only meaning to life was to stay alive long enough to reproduce, which is not really a meaning but an objective without meaning, as we understand the term, it’s a purely biological impulse.
The feeling that the universe has a meaning and so I have a meaning first required the construction of the concept “I”. God, gods, spirits, entities etc. all came after. “I” came first and filled the universe with meaning beyond “I.” And in so doing, “I” didn’t feel so fucking alone and pointless because “I” unleashed it’s incredible powers of imagination and creativity in the process: All art emanating, in large part, from the earliest forms of religious or spiritual expression or ritual.
With “I” was born meaning. Before “I” there was none. And, of course, behind all the stories we tell ourselves, whether you call them “religion” or “science” or whatever, there’s still no meaning to our existence or reason for the universe. None except the one’s we create.
There is no meaning to life or in the universe.
Didn’t help. I’m still puzzling on “meaning.” In the recognition of an apparent universe, and in the absence of what is commonly termed a “personal” God, I’m having trouble with it.
I guess you could say I don’t know the meaning of meaning. Heh.
Basically, yeah. If you find Hitchens or Dawkins annoying, or me for that matter, bully for you.
But here’s what I’m not doing — trying to take away your rights to marry, your rights to love whom you wish, your rights to proper medical care for a woman based on medicine, not superstition, suggesting you be stoned to death for adultery, or suggesting your daughter should have her clitoris sliced off.
Oh, but I’m so mean and nasty and arrogant. Boo-hoo.
Quaker, at the risk of attracting Frank’s attention and response, he actually provides a pretty good contemporary example of what I’m talking about. Here he is describing intelligent design:
What Frank is doing here is taking a human activity — building airplanes — and mobilizing it as an allegory for the universe: People create jets and those are complicated, and since the universe is complicated, it must have also been created by something or someone.
If there’s a better example of man creating god in his image, I don’t what is.
(Ironically, this argument is then mobilized to support the claim that god made man in his image, thus masking the original human creativity that set the whole thing in motion.)
But if your kid is dying of a treatable disease do you take her to an accredited doctor or a faith healer?
But here’s what I’m not doing — trying to take away your rights to marry, your rights to love whom you wish, your rights to proper medical care for a woman based on medicine, not superstition, suggesting you be stoned to death for adultery, or suggesting your daughter should have her clitoris sliced off.
That’s nice. Me neither.
I guess you could say I don’t know the meaning of meaning. Heh.
Well, what is the meaning of meaning? That’s a good question that I don’t know if I can answer here in any “meaningful” sense.
In short: We have a universe. The universe is ordered. We have consciousness. Whether you attempt to explain the phenomena of the universe as physics or metaphysics is irrelevant.
In other words, whatever gets you through the night.
I think that’s just about right.
Yeah, I get that.
But here’s the thing. We do have a universe. It is ordered–it is coherent, not random.
That’s pretty amazing.
As best as our science can tell us, this order emerged from an initial cataclysm tens of billions of years ago in which molecules of the chemical elements we observe today were rapidly formed in an immense cloud of expanding vapor.
The order of the universe is awesome. There is, within the universe itself, some force, some property that compels order and sustains it. Our science describes that property in terms of physical laws. (Or the laws of physics. Whatever.)
Now some folks want to attribute the property of order in the universe to an “intelligent designer” and by that, I think lots of those people mean the God of the Old Testament–a unitary being who cares for mortals individually and personally and judges their actions including where they park their junk at night. (And I think that’s where you were headed with the discussion of “creating meaning”, yes?)
While this view is common in fundamentalist Christianity and even mainstream Christianity, it is not characteristic of all Christianity and certainlly not of all religion.
Suppose you remove the notion of a personal God–the giant moral daddy who hears our prayers and smites our enemies and punishes our sins. Even without that God, we still have an awesome universe, ordered through the agency of magnificent, unexplained forces. To my mind, our curiousity about that universe, our understanding of its workings, our exploration of our place within its order is, in fact, religion. (OK, so if you’re of a scientific bent, you dress it up as cosmology.)
I do not accept that science and religion are at odds any more than the Italian and Russian languages are at odds. Both are descriptive of human observation. Both communicate common experience.
Neither do I accept the notion of a personal God, a supergalactic Santa who sees me when I’m sleeping and knows if I’ve been bad or good. However, that does not diminish the mystery of universal order or demand the reduction of every property of the universe to simple mechanics.
I’d take to a doctor. What’s your point?
My point is that not all perceptions of or interpretations of the universe are born equal, which you seem to be implying. Of course pre-modern cultures had different explanations for natural phenomena. Religion definitely served a vital purpose at one time in offering up explanations for the unknown.
Of course, you could try and state clearly your definitions of a) religion and/or b) religious belief, because all you’re really presenting is a watery and muddled mysticism/pantheism.
And I find that preferable to the doctrinal bigotries of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, et al., but you really aren’t advancing this conversation by restoring to cryptic remarks.
resorting, even
Okay Frank, putting aside the already broken premise that a collection of inanimate, artificially machined parts are equivalent to naturally occurring organisms shaped over billions of years of evolution, who made the designer?
If complexity is the rationale for asserting that there must be a divine power, doesn’t it then stand to reason that that divine power is so complex as to suggest an even greater, more powerful designer? And if there is a more powerful being, wouldn’t that suggest an even greater level of complexity, necessitating an even greater, uber-creator? When does it end?
That’s quite a hole you’ve leapt into.
but you really aren’t advancing this conversation
You’ll excuse me if I don’t accept your authority on who is “advancing this conversation.”
A “watery and muddled mysticism/pantheism”? I’m explaining what I observe and what I believe.
You’re welcome to do the same if you can rise above the impulse to engage in flaming.
And I have no idea what relation any of that has to what I would do if my daughter was ill.
That observations of phenomena made by trained scientists and doctors carry, objectively, more explanatory power and thus more practical “weight” than those made by mystics or religious nut-jobs.
The point is that it’s all well and good to live in a universe of varied phenomena where we each get to have our own subjective interpretations of such, but in practical terms it’s asinine to claim that all interpretations of phenomena are equal.
Of course, you’re doing a poor job of presenting your own position beyond “I agree atheists are too often mean and nasty people, not at all like the nice Christians who want my wife to die simply because she’s carrying a child with genetic defects that will kill both of them.”
But of course it would be ridiculous for me to characterize your bizarre rants as “shrill”.
The point of the original post was that “new atheist” movement types have adopted the zeal and rhetorical style of religious fundamentalists. You’re doing a great job of validating that point.
Frank, I linked a video explaining this a while ago, but I’ll link it again.
No thanks. I am under no obligation to indulge you to the same extent mambochicken has indulged you. Mambochicken, frankly, is much more gullible than I am, and much more your bitch.
Good luck, buddy. Good luck to us both.
But in terms of substance so-called New Atheists advocate for public policies based on fact, reason, and science, not superstition and faith-based “logic.”
So in perfectly Fox-style “Fair and Balanced” fashion, it’s the mean and nasty ol’ atheists who are to blame, and not the actual lunatics who advocate for things like women not being allowed to see doctors, genital mutilation, murder of gays, stoning of adulterers, etc.
What a perfectly ass-backwards world you inhabit.
Your churches and temple are burning and you ll have only tears and ashes at the end.
We ll make sure that the next generation don’t have to be enslave by delusion.
Reason is winning, your gods are dying and we don’t need to do anything.
People are getting away from your non sense.
We don’t need to oil our guillotine, you are doing it for us but bashing christian is easy and funny,
and we ll have to do it now when there is still christian around . It won’t last unfortunatly.
Yes, because not agreeing with your dogmatism automatically equals what I can and can’t talk about. And you show up every day.
atheism is not a religion
It has beliefs, unprovable ones at that, so, actually…
All I’m arguing in favor, as I am with Israel/Palestine, is for people to respect each other’s views. Apparently this is an evil thing.
Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. Any gods. If someone can offer observable, testable facts that a god exists, I’ll reevaluate my position. But the burden of proof is not on me to prove that gods don’t exist, the burden is on the theist to show that their particular god does exist. I think the vast majority of theists would prefer that we didn’t remind them that we exist; witness the number of around the country. After all, we’re challenging their dominance, and some of the flock may stray if they hear or read dangerous ideas like, “there probably aren’t any gods, so relax and enjoy your life.” We’re being critized for merely speaking out.
bah…meant “witness the number of atheist billboards around the country that are vandalized.” Must proofread.
Are you Asatru or a member of one of the other Norse faiths?
Maybe they appear arrogant because they’re RIGHT.
Example: if I were to tell a geologist that the earth is flat, he would laugh in my face! Not because he’s arrogant, but because he’s RIGHT!
Wait, what? You’re an atheist who worships the Norse gods?
For fuck’s sake, Max, what are you talking about? More gullible? You have no idea what you’re saying. Point me to where you think I’m displaying gullibility, please.
Unlike you, the geologist can offer something other than “Because I say so” to back up their arguments.
Well, you don’t have to label it God. We have an apparent universe. As far as I’m concerned, we can just call it that.
In short: We have a universe. The universe is ordered. We have consciousness. Whether you attempt to explain the phenomena of the universe as physics or metaphysics is irrelevant.
If this is your position, then we don’t really have an argument on this point, other than a semantic one (that I think it’s needlessly complex to label observable events in the universe as “God”). When we’re referencing the battle between theists and atheists, we’re typically not talking about your brand of “theology”, Quaker. We’re talking about the lunatics who think that Adam and Eve lived in Eden and got banished because they ate an apple, and that Jesus rode dinosaurs, or that becoming a martyr gets you 72 virgins in paradise, etc. We’re talking about the anti-intellectual, anti-science jackasses who seek to prevent stem cell research and subjugate women simply because of their interpretation of “holy” books. We’re talking about people that make specific claims about the nature of their God without any evidence to back them up. It’s lazy, often-dangerous thinking, and its hard for me to believe that in 2010 there are people out there who think that there’s a God who gives a damn about who you have sex with, and when. The weird, paternalistic figure that they imagine is just a creepy voyeur.
I think that if you were to have a conversation with one of the prominent “New Atheists”, like Dawkins, he would probably just accuse you of slightly murky thinking, and agree with me that under conventional criteria you’re far from a theistic POV.
Now, you and I have another difference with respect to the brashness of atheists – it is not appropriate to label them as fundamentalists, or even compare the two. The two aren’t even close, no matter how arrogant, rude, or argumentative the atheists are perceived to be. They occupy completely different platforms – one is on the side of reason, and one is on the side of faith. It’s not fundamentalism to ask for evidence for fantastical claims. It’s not fundamentalism to think that certain beliefs are stupid.
Neither is adequate to fully explain what we observe.
Wholeheartedly disagree. If it’s in the realm of observable reality, it’s seen by science. Nothing outside observable reality is even worth talking about, because we can never know it.
Actually, many geological arguments support atheism. Things such as the age of the earth, the existence of dinosaurs, the evolution of man, etc.
I don’t have to just “say so” to argue for atheism. There’s a huge amount of scientific evidence that supports it.
Unlike you, the geologist can offer something other than “Because I say so” to back up their arguments.
Isn’t “because I said so” the principal argument in favor of any of the thousands of competing and contradictory versions of theology? Is there as much division among geologists on what rocks represent as there is among religions?
What a perfectly ass-backwards world you inhabit.
Backwards from the world you inhabit, Jaim? I’ll accept it with honor.
I think that if you were to have a conversation with one of the prominent “New Atheists”, like Dawkins, he would probably just accuse you of slightly murky thinking, and agree with me that under conventional criteria you’re far from a theistic POV.
I actually once saw a quote from Dawkins regarding the sorts of perspectives we’ve been discussing. He explicitly excluded them from his sharper criticisms. Wish I could find it again.
Actually, many geological arguments support atheism. Things such as the age of the earth, the existence of dinosaurs, the evolution of man, etc.
I think you’re confusing “Biblical literalism” with all religion.
We’re talking about the lunatics who think that Adam and Eve lived in Eden and got banished because they ate an apple, and that Jesus rode dinosaurs, or that becoming a martyr gets you 72 virgins in paradise, etc. We’re talking about the anti-intellectual, anti-science jackasses who seek to prevent stem cell research and subjugate women simply because of their interpretation of “holy” books.
Once again, you’re abusing set theory. The people you describe are not representative of even a fraction of the spectrum of religious thought.
We’re talking about people that make specific claims about the nature of their God without any evidence to back them up.
Yes we are. I’m just including one particular type of specific claim that you won’t: the claim that the nature of God is null. Claiming that without evidence is no different from making any other claim without evidence.
And calling people names in the process doesn’t make the name caller logical. It just makes him a big jerk.
It’s lazy, often-dangerous thinking, and its hard for me to believe that in 2010 there are people out there who think that there’s a God who gives a damn about who you have sex with, and when. The weird, paternalistic figure that they imagine is just a creepy voyeur.
I can agree with that. What I won’t agree with is that this is, of necessity, an element of religious thought or religious belief.
Please tell us which parts of the Bible are meant to be taken literally, and which parts aren’t.
And if some parts are mere metaphors, maybe the entire Bible itself (God included) is just a metaphor.
Please tell us which parts of the Bible are meant to be taken literally, and which parts aren’t.
No thanks.
And if some parts are mere metaphors, maybe the entire Bible itself (God included) is just a metaphor
Very probably so.
Someone gave the Sermon on the Mount. It would be noce to know whether that person was the literal son of God. But in the long run, the important thing is to live by its principles. Same thing with the Ten Commandmants. I don’t know if Moses literally saw a burning bush or if lightning burned the tablets ala Cecil B. DeMille. They’re still good rules to live by. The best explanation of God’s relation to man I’ve seen is the play/movie The Green Pastures.
I hear you Oliver, but it’s bullshit and I think you know it.
It would be noce to know whether that person was the literal son of God.
How literal do you want to be? Leda and the swan literal? That supposes an anatomically correct God.
How convenient for you that you don’t have to provide any of that proof that’s over there somewhere to back up your argument. Being able to say something is fact without showing any of your work is so much more efficient.
Well, probably so except for the “mere metaphor” part. A metaphor needn’t be “mere”. Metaphors can be quite powerful.
And that is how and why the atheist arguments ultimately are no more provable than their theist counterparts. In both cases, “Because I say so” are what they ultimately weather away to.
What, I’m expected to provide geology arguments for the age of the earth, here in this thread? Nonsense.
Well, we’re supposed to be in his image. From what I’ve heard at services, I can’t join the local Presbyterian church until I’m ready to acknowldege Jesus as the ‘son of God’ and my personal saviour. They seem to be pretty literal, but point taken. Yes, I would like to know as literally as possible. Was Jesus God personified? Or was he just a really profound teacher?
Was Jesus God personified? Or was he just a really profound teacher?
My answer: Yes.
From what I’ve heard at services, I can’t join the local Presbyterian church until I’m ready to acknowldege Jesus as the ’son of God’ and my personal saviour.
And there, in a sentence, is why I’m not a Presbyterian or a Christian.
As is the idea that every atheist is also in your face about it.
We do have a universe. It is ordered–it is coherent, not random. That’s pretty amazing.
Our subjective awe at the nature and experience of the universe does not mean that the universe we witness and experience has any meaning or significance beyond the fact that it exists. The meaning it is has is the meaning we create for it, for ourselves, founded in the primal awe we experience in the face of it.
The ordered nature of the universe does not in any way mean that something beyond the universe designed it or set it into motion. Just because people make complex, ordered things does not mean that all complex, ordered things have been “made” in the sense of being willed into existence by a self-aware creator. To believe otherwise is man creating god or whatever you want to call it, in his image.
All of that is just a projection of our awe into the empty void of an existence that doesn’t care whether mankind exists or whether or not I am personally happy and/or good.
As far as I am concerned, science and religion are both human constructed narratives from which we create meaning for ourselves in a universe that existed without us and will continue to exist without us. Science is a narrative that emphasizes our rationality and religion is a narrative that emphasizes our spirituality, both in an effort to make us seem more significant in the face of an utterly indifferent universe.
The key difference is this: Science tells us, we can know and so have significance. Religion tells us that we are known (by some other entity larger than ourselves) and so we have significance.
Both of these are fictions.
We are utterly insignificant in the face of the vastness of existence but we have a deep need to feel significant, in large part, so we can feel significant to each other. I don’t have a problem with that.
Well, you’re the one who said the age of the earth argues in favor of atheism. But if you can be troubled to explain, we could just accept it on faith.
As is the idea that every atheist is also in your face about it.
I don’t recall anyone making that argument.
Religion tells us that we are known (by some other entity larger than ourselves) and so we have significance.
If I follow you, you’re making this statement in the context of what many people call a “personal” God. (See remarks on supergalactic Santa elsewhere, incorporated here by reference.)
While the notion of a personal God is common in mainstream Christianity, it is not a feature of all religion. It is notably absent from several of the major world religions.
You can start by reading this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology
Sorry that geology is such a big subject. That’s the problem with science. Not everything can be explained in a few easy-to-understand sentences.
Touche
Sez Albert:
You can start by reading this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology
No, you can start by making a connection between the age of the earth and atheism. Someone so full of logic and reason should be up to the task.
Shorter the original post: the “New Atheists” are assholes, just like the fundamentalist religionists they vilify.
Good thing I’m an Old Atheist, then. And getting older every day.
Bible says the earth is 6000 years old. Bible says there was a global flood. Bible says dinosaurs walked with humans. Geology refutes all that.
News flash: we are a sorry lot indeed.
OK, that’s too harsh. Some of us are a sorry lot indeed. Unfortunately there seems to be quite a few of us.
Remember before when I said you were confusing biblical literalism with religion?
Yer still doin’ that.
Now that wasn’t so hard, was it? The rest of you take a lesson here.
Remember before when I said you were confusing biblical literalism with religion?
Yer still doin’ that.
I forgot, the Bible is one big metaphor. God included, I suppose.
So, is God just a metaphor for science? If yes, then count me as a hardcore bible-thumper!
According to Quaker, he was. As are we all.
“Because I say so” are what they ultimately weather away to.
Exactly so. And those of us who get so worked up over this and claim the burden of proof lies on one side or the other are ignoring that there is no burden of proof, because there’s no need to try to prove any of it to anybody.
Not necessarily. I mean also “known” in the sense that all religions tell us that we belong or are a part of something larger than the physical existence that bounds our experience. If you believe in all encompassing, impersonal spiritual force, shall we say, that we all come from and return to and remain a part of after we die, even if we are not aware of ourselves as individuals anymore, it’s all the same thing because that impersonal, metaphysical continuum still serves the function of bounding and shaping, and thus defining and giving significance to this phase of existence we call life during which we are conscious of ourselves as separate and individual beings.
Does it not?
Only one of the three things you cite is actually in the Christian Bible.
According to Quaker, he was. As are we all.
Hooray!!
I mean also “known” in the sense that all religions tell us that we belong or are a part of something larger than the physical existence that bounds our experience.
I don’t think that’s true.
If you believe in all encompassing, impersonal spiritual force, shall we say, that we all come from and return to and remain a part of after we die, even if we are not aware of ourselves as individuals anymore, it’s all the same thing because that impersonal, metaphysical continuum still serves the function of bounding and shaping, and thus defining and giving significance to this phase of existence we call life during which we are conscious of ourselves as separate and individual beings.
You lost me at “it’s all the same thing.” What’s all the same thing as what?
“Because I say so” are what they ultimately weather away to.
Total bull. The mantra of science is “don’t believe me? check for yourself!”
Total bull. The mantra of science is “don’t believe me? check for yourself!”
“Science” is usually accompanied by evidence. Got any?
I hope you realize that acting dense is not a great strategy to win an argument.
The easy answer is, “meaning” is the purpose of existence. Why are we here? Why does the universe exist? The assumption is that there has to be some larger purpose. Computers exist because we needed to be able to do math quickly; they have a clear purpose. But why does the lily of the valley exist? There’s no clear reason why, but they do exist. Maybe there’s a reason we can’t fathom, because it’s too deep for our limited minds to grasp. After all, there are a lot of things we don’t understand but nevertheless exist, so it’s reasonable to believe that there is something unknown at work that requires lilies to exist. Religious types gave that unknown force the name “God.” For whatever reason, God needed lilies so therefore they exist. And so you get religion.
Living in a purposeless universe simply offends most peoples’ sense of order. We don’t want to accept that the existential nihilists are right, because if they are then there’s no reason to endure pain. And ultimately no reason to live at all.
Okay. Tell me which religions or spiritual systems hold the belief that we do not exist in any form before we die and that after we die we cease to exist in any form, never to exist again in any form ever and without consciosness of anything and that in between the only meaning of or for our existence is the one we create for ourselves.
Who’s acting? I actually am dense.
The proposition before us is: the age of the earth supports the case for atheism. So far, you haven’t supported this proposition in any way other than to belittle others.
Got anything else?
Buddhism, for one.
Once again, you’re abusing set theory. The people you describe are not representative of even a fraction of the spectrum of religious thought.
I understand that. But I’m trying to make a point that when the so-called New Atheists are talking about the religious, they are almost exclusively talking about one type of religious individual. As you seem to recognize, yourself.
And calling people names in the process doesn’t make the name caller logical. It just makes him a big jerk.
I’ve been called worse. I call ‘em like I see ‘em. If we’re talking organized religion focused on an anthropomorphized deity or deities, then yes, I am comfortable saying that those are stupid ideas, and that the more outspoken and politically-involved individuals of the religion tend to be jackasses. If we’re talking about a more nebulous definition of what “God” is, or if we’re talking about the labeling of everything in the observable universe “God”, then I am not comfortable saying that those are stupid ideas. It doesn’t seem dumb to me, it just seems redundant and circular.
I can agree with that. What I won’t agree with is that this is, of necessity, an element of religious thought or religious belief.
No, not of necessity. You’re correct. But it is sufficient. And it is ubiquitous.
QiaB: I looked for it. Dawkins describes pantheism (in The God Delusion) as “basically sexed-up atheism”. As he defines it, pantheists are essentially atheists, due to their lack of belief in specific gods.
My basic problem is this: the Bible has literal and non-literal passages. How do we know which is which? Who decides? If the bible is an unreliable source of infomation, why should we run our lives based on what’s in it?
According to your comments, the existence of God may very well be non-literal!
That’s why the actual age of the earth is important.
I don’t think that’s the same quote I was recalling. I tried searching for it, but without any luck. It’ll come along sometime when I’ve forgotten why I was looking for it.
Dawkins can describe it however he likes. Doesn’t mean anyone has to accept his definition, nor does it mean he is correct. By any definition I am aware of, you cannot be an atheist and believe in any kind of supernatural force present and operating in the universe. So how pantheism can be “sexed-up atheism” escapes me. All that quote does for me is further define “New Atheism” as a reaction to fundamentalist evangelicalism. Perhaps we need to add Social Newtonianism to the lexicon: for every movement there is an equal and opposite counter-movement.
Personally, I find pantheism and deism equivalently nugatory and irrelevant. But I also find them harmless, perhaps even beneficial.
You’re trying to move the goalposts. Please stop doing that.
I was not saying anything about science. I was saying that atheism relies upon “because I say so” just as much as theism does.
Atheists base their beliefs on science, that’s why their arguments always boil down to science. I mean, what else should they base their beliefs on, if not science? The Easter bunny?
@passerby: Quote the exact chapter and verse where the Christian Bible says what the age of the Earth is.
@passerby: Quote the exact chapter and verse where the Christian Bible says what the age of the Earth is.
Please see the following page. (Oh, I forgot, the Bible is only literal if it isn’t wrong):
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=bible+age+of+earth&l=1
Everyone has to make that decision for themselves.
Fun, isn’t it?
You have, so far, not offered so much as a single proof of your hypothesis, much less one that conforms to the scientific method. At best all you’ve done has been to engage in the affirming the consequent fallacy.
Give me an example of an atheist saying “because I said so.”
Oliver, I wholly disagree with you here. I think that the New Atheists, a group in which I gladly claim membership, are making a very simple point: if you want to have your own personal delusions, fine. But keep it to your goddamn self, and if you make a claim about reality, you better bring the evidence. I always say it as “Evidence or GTFO.”
And since religion always makes claims about reality with literally NO EVIDENCE AT ALL, the New Atheists are making the very reasonable demand that they GTFO.
I’d like to see some evidence that we’re remotely the flip side of the coin from the people demanding we kill gays, that women are inferior, and that we should wage holy war against Islam. Or did you mean some other wackjob fundamentalists?
You mean other than the example you provided when you wrote “Maybe they appear arrogant because they’re RIGHT”, but either wouldn’t or couldn’t back up your claim?
Asking people to “respect” other’s beliefs is not evil. It is misguided, but not evil.
Of course, it sounds nice and civil and fluffy for everyone to respect everyone else’s beliefs. When you think about that more closely though, you see that is actually part of the problem.
Respect for beliefs should be earned, not just automatically given. A belief should have justification for it via evidence, logical analysis, factual support, sound argumentation, etc. Saying that a belief is based “on faith” is the antithesis of that, and beliefs based on faith do not deserve respect.
The actual content of the belief is important to whether or not the belief should be respected. Respect should not be auto-given to any belief that anybody might pull out of their butt. Should we “respect” a Muslim jihadist’s belief in killing the infidels? Should we “respect” a fundamentalist Christian’s belief that gays should not be allowed to marry each other? Should we “respect” a fundamentalist Christian’s belief that gays should be stoned to death?
Sam Harris wrote a wonderful book on this topic: The End of Faith. We do not give respect to people’s other beliefs on a variety of subjects, even if it is possible that they are true. We do not automatically give respect to everybody’s conspiracy theories, even though it is possible that they are true. Having just the possibility of being true is not enough to warrant belief or respect. Actual evidence that the belief is true is needed for that.
Brian
You are arguing that people who in much of this country are a hated and despised minority (Bush Sr. once said it was impossible for an atheist to be a good American) to be more tolerant of the people who hate and despise them. In essence, you are arguing that atheists should be more Christ-like than actual Christians, who, thus far, you have not encouraged to be more tolerant of atheist viewpoints.
You are also, whether you realize it or not, arguing that people who worry about global warming should defer to people who don’t care about the issue because they think the Rapture is imminent. You are arguing that feminists should pay heed to Paul’s commandment that “wives should submit to their husbands” and that gays should be open-minded about people who think they are “abominations.” You are arguing that people who want peace between the Israelis and Palestinians should defer to the good faith views of people who think that the Jews are entitled to all the land currently occupied not just by the Palestinians but by Jordan because of the covenant between God and Abraham, a view recently reaffirmed by Chuck Schumer.
I don’t know whether there is a God or not, whether the universe I can see is all there is or whether there are greater mysteries beyond human ken. But when someone tells me that such mysteries can be answered by reference to the 3000 year old folk tales of Neolithic shepherds, I am dubious. When I find that that same someone can then point to some out of context verses to show why I should vote the way he wants and/or give him 10% of my income, I’m done-right suspicious.
The fact is, all of the scientific evidence is on the side of atheists. To be blunt about it, science is “right.”
If I had ever said anything about the Christian Bible (and I write “Christian Bible” rather than just “Bible” because I am not a Christian, in case anybody was wondering), then your comment about literalism might be something other than the strawman fallacy.
Regardless, the link you offered is proof that people make claims about what’s in the book, but not that the book itself makes that claim. If you’re going to make an argument based on the book making a claim about the exact age of the Earth, then you need to provide chapter and verse where it does so if you want your argument to deserve being taken seriously.
You do realise that saying all the evidence is on your side while not bothering to provide any is a “because I said so” argument, yes?
If I had ever said anything about the Christian Bible
Read your own comment, you said “Christian Bible”, not me!
The chapters and verses you request are all here:
http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm
Go read a science book, that should be all the evidence you need.
Sorry theists; the burden of proof lies with the believer.
Show me there’s a god or there just isn’t one. And then show me why your brand of bronze-age superstition is more correct than the other guys.
Call that arrogant all you like. It doesn’t make it any less correct.
Perhaps we need to add Social Newtonianism to the lexicon: for every movement there is an equal and opposite counter-movement.
Zow! Yes.
Rather, your lasrt reply was all the evidence we needed that you are incapable of supporting your own arguments.
The field of science is composed of thousands of arguments. It’s a practical impossibility for me to enumerate those here.
While the fact that the parenthetical explanation of why I was typing “Christian Bible” rather than just “Bible” should have made it clear that something was missing from my reply to you (specifically the words “being literally true”), I do apologise for confusing you by not typing out the full statement that I intended to type.
Regardless, you’re still failing to provide the part of the Christian Bible that says what you claim it says. Posting links to things that aren’t in the Christian Bible only proves that somebody other than the people who wrote the Christian Bible made claims about it.
Both sides are dogmatic fundamentalists. One just happens to have far more power. But its the same damn coin.
No, it is not the same damn coin. Atheists are not actually pushing to only allow homosexuals to marry, we are not trying to get kids to recite a daily pledge to the flag saying that there is no god, we are not claiming to be in psychic communication with an interdimensional being, etc., etc., etc.
It is not that we are pushing for comparable things as religious fundamentalists but we just lack the political power. What actually is true is that we are not pushing for comparable things as religious fundamentalists at all.
Again, please stop trying to equate the two sides as if they are equivalent. They are not.
Brian
Neither are most christians pushing for those things. Now, politically active, conservative christians? They are. Broad brushes, etc.
Please tell me where there’s a website containing the Christian Bible, and I’ll see if those chapters and verses are in it.
Your continued failure to enumerate any of them brings us back to your argument being nothing more than “Because I say so”.
So I’ll bow out of this branch of the thread now.
Google for it.
Buddhism, for one.
I don’t think that’s accurate. The whole Buddhist concept of samsāra and the cycle of suffering and rebirth is anathema to what I’m talking about. What I’m saying is that we exist only once for a brief period of time and then exist no more, regardless of what we do on this planet. There is no coming back to try again until you get it right and escape the cycle of suffering and rebirth through enlightenment.
At the same time, the Buddhist concept of no-self, is not the same as what I’m talking about. No-self is still existence, it’s existence without identity as part of the infinite, ever evolving flow of consciousness. What I’m saying is that there is no eternal, infinite flow of energy to which we belong and which we would recognize if only we weren’t blinded by the self and “I”.
What Buddhism does is what all religions do: bracket off the period we are alive as somehow meaningful and significant as it the period during which we can achieve enlightenment and escape the cycle of suffering and rebirth that all beings are trapped in.
It is, in other words, just another attempt to create meaning for this existence where none exists.
We begin to exist when we are born and we cease to exist when we die. We do not go on to some other plane of consciousness or transform into something else. We simply cease to be. Accepting that fact doesn’t change that fact at all, you will be “escape” it by becoming enlightened.
I have found a copy of the King James Bible online, and it contains the verses pertaining to the age of the earth, as mentioned above.
Living in a purposeless universe simply offends most peoples’ sense of order. We don’t want to accept that the existential nihilists are right, because if they are then there’s no reason to endure pain. And ultimately no reason to live at all.
I think that sums up my points here pretty well. The idea that we are here for a very short period of time for no reason at all freaks people out. It freaks people out on an existential level because, as I tried to describe above, the whole experience of conscious perception is so powerful and, even more, so powerfully centered around us, that is the concept of “I,” that it is very hard for anyone to perceive, let alone accept, the idea that “I” will one day cease to exist in any form, at any level, and never exist again, ever.
Then it freaks us out because we are left asking ourselves, “That’s it? I suffered through all this pain and struggle only to cease to exist forever?” Which leads to the question “Why live at all, and if so, how?”
I’m not totally up on my Sartre but I think he has one or two things to say on the subject.
That’s just ducky.
Now, how does that prove that atheism is right? Take your time.
Alas, upon further research I find that the term “Social Newtonianism” is already taken; and with a somewhat different definition than I imagined. Another opportunity for fame thwarted…
it is very hard for anyone to perceive, let alone accept, the idea that “I” will one day cease to exist in any form, at any level,
It is the position of many Buddhists and some Hindus that “I” does not exist and never did.
I’d be an arrogant agnostic, but there doesn’t seem to be any consolation prizes for the “not sure” crowd. Couldn’t they just be sent to agnostic purgatory for a while until the arrogance wore off?
Anybody ever been able to decipher CTMU?
Well “we” say they’re full of it.
What I’m saying is that there is no eternal, infinite flow of energy to which we belong and which we would recognize if only we weren’t blinded by the self and “I”.
You can’t prove that, of course.
It is the position of many Buddhists and some Hindus that “I” does not exist and never did.
Yes, but that’s because they believe that “I” blinds us to the reality that we are all actually part of a larger flow of consciousness that encompasses all things. We aren’t. We don’t really belong to a larger infinite flow of energy that “I” blinds us to. When we die we cease to exist as anything. Period.
I’d be an arrogant agnostic, but there doesn’t seem to be any consolation prizes for the “not sure” crowd.
Well, maybe you could start evangelizing not-sureness. Advocate for uncertainty.
We don’t really belong to a larger infinite flow of energy that “I” blinds us to. When we die we cease to exist as anything. Period.
Sez you.
If you don’t believe you’re not sure you’re going straight to limbo!!
Maybe?
And that’s why I don’t have a problem with people clinging to their various fictions.
But remember, if the Buddhists are right, the Christians are wrong and vice versa etc. across all the various religious, spiritual traditions.
Whatever the nature of existence is, there can be only one description of it that will describe it accurately.
The plethora of attempts across time to explain the nature of existence in spiritual terms is, in my view, strong evidence that they’re all fictitious constructs.
If the Greeks weren’t right with Zeus and Pals, it’s only because they’re fiction had less use value over time than the other competing fictions which bested it. History tells us that at some point in perhaps the distant future, Christianity and perhaps every other major religion, will be consigned to the history books and millions of people will believe in something else. This has been the fate of enough belief systems through out human civilization to suggest a basic pattern.
Just like all of these traditions, Christianity/Islam/Buddhism etc. etc. will all be extinct as living religions or practices long before anyone will ever “prove” any of them to be correct.
History bears that out.
This is true, and maybe that’s all you want the atheists to admit.
Let’s put it this way. There is no objective, empirical proof of an afterlife or of a supernatural force of which we are a part. Personally I would love it if Teilhard de Chardin turned out to be right and we all were evolving towards unity of consciousness; that at least would be some kind of purpose. I would love it even more if my consciousness transitioned to a higher plane upon my death, while still retaining the concept of “self.” But since there is no empirical proof of such things, I am incapable (as a person who values rationality) of believing in them. It may turn out that we are all Flatlanders oblivious to dimensions beyond our own (string theory certainly seems to suggest this), but I have to live here as I am now and with the resources at my disposal, and those so far seem to point toward the absence of the supernatural in this universe.
Or is that if you believe you’re not sure…
But remember, if the Buddhists are right, the Christians are wrong and vice versa etc. across all the various religious, spiritual traditions.
Whatever the nature of existence is, there can be only one description of it that will describe it accurately.
Disagree. The universe is great. The minds of men are small. There cannot be even one description that is more than minimally accurate.
Neither are most christians pushing for those things. Now, politically active, conservative christians? They are. Broad brushes, etc.
The more liberal religionists do not have the same social/political agenda as the fundamentalists (though there is plenty of overlap, motivated by religion), they also present problems to making progress. They also claim to be in communication with this other-worldly being, and they legitimize the religious beliefs of the more fundamentalist theists. They debate with the conservatives about which parts of the religious texts are literal or metaphorical, but implicitly give credence to the idea that it is good to hold these religious texts as authoritative in the first place. That dogma is exactly what should be challenged, but the moderates instead grant it and cast those of us that do challenge it as the extremists. They are what can be called “enablers” of the fundamentalists.
A while back I remember watching a liberal theistic evolutionist and a YEC debate each other, and the YEC ended up convincing this other fellow that YEC is true. She did not do it with scientific arguments showing that the earth is 6,000 years old, but she did it entirely on convincing him that the bible said that the earth was 6,000 years old. It showed me that even moderate, liberal theists have their problems. They are fundamentalists-in-waiting, because they still operate under the premise that we are supposed to treat religions with reverence (that they have not earned, but just expect to get anyway).
Brian
This sounds like a job for Majikthise and Vroomfondle.
Personally I would love it if Teilhard de Chardin turned out to be right and we all were evolving towards unity of consciousness;
Some cosmologists who support the “big crunch” theory of the fate of the universe believe that’s precisely where we’re headed.
I’d be an arrogant agnostic, but there doesn’t seem to be any consolation prizes for the “not sure” crowd.
Saying anything for certain on this topic, no matter how articulate or eloquent the discourse, is arrogant. The only non-arrogant ones are the ones who admit they have no idea if there’s a god.
Yes, but that’s because they believe that “I” blinds us to the reality that we are all actually part of a larger flow of consciousness that encompasses all things. We aren’t. We don’t really belong to a larger infinite flow of energy that “I” blinds us to. When we die we cease to exist as anything. Period.
Well, to be fair, we don’t just poof out of existence when we die. We become food for bacteria and other small organisms. So in a way, we are a part of a larger flow of energy, but in a superficial sense. I certainly label it as a “flow of consciousness“, unless you wanted to redefine the term to suit your perspective (in much the same way that I think labeling God as “the observable universe” is a redefinition of the term).
I wonder if Quaker would probably point to that as supporting his point. I also wonder whether The Lion King is a favorite movie of his.
I haven’t found your anecdote to be the case at all, Brian. The liberal ‘religionists’ I’ve known tend overwhemingly to be the Quaker in a Basement, St. Augustine live-and-let-live/the-nonsense-bits-are-metaphorical types. An astronomer I spoke with on a few occasions simply believed that God (or ‘the sky fairy’ if you prefer) set the universe in motion via the Big Bang, for example.
This. Is. Awesome.
Disagree. The universe is great. The minds of men are small. There cannot be even one description that is more than minimally accurate.
Well, my whole point has been that the “minds of men” are actually quite great in terms of the elaborate systems of belief we’ve developed to make sense of an infinite universe. We’ve looked into the void and filled it. That’s pretty impressive in my book.
But when you get down to it, either Jesus is the son of god as the Christians believe or he isn’t, as the Jews believe.
Either you go to heaven where you are reunited with all your deceased loved ones who recognize you as you, or you lose consciousness of self altogether and are reabsorbed back into an eternal flow of energy.
These concepts are each diametrically opposed.
A quantum particle may exist in two places at the same time but that’s not the same as saying Jesus and Buddha can both right.
Jesus and Buddha cannot both be right if either of the belief systems on which they’re based are to continue in the same form that they have today.
The fact that they are incompatible is evidence to me that they are fictions.
If you believe there’s a possibility that Christianity may have part of it right and Buddhism got another part of it right and shintoism another, well, that only tells me that all of these beliefs systems are up for interpretation and so are little more than fictions that we interpret the meaning of or remix however we wish to fit our own personal needs.
Which is as good an explanation as any other. It still gives me no reason to waste my time worshipping such a being and giving money to its priests. I’d much rather be playing mindless clicking games on Facebook. Or commenting on blogs.
A quantum particle may exist in two places at the same time but that’s not the same as saying Jesus and Buddha can both right.
Yes. There is a fact of the matter. There is a truth. Whether we can know that truth is a whole ‘nother thing.
On a more practical note…
I understand blind faith and I understand blind faith arrogance. But what is it that makes the arrogant blind faithers (of either deist or theist variety) need to push their beliefs on others, even when they themselves don’t have all the facts? What characteristic is it that makes our village wingnuts keep pushing and fighting even after they’ve exhausted all facts and logic? I know there’s ignorance and pride involved, but even I know the difference between acknowledging painful fact, and preaching self-comforting fiction.
Saying anything for certain on this topic, no matter how articulate or eloquent the discourse, is arrogant. The only non-arrogant ones are the ones who admit they have no idea if there’s a god.
I don’t think that’s completely true. The ones who just throw their hands up in the air and say, “Well, heck, I just don’t know, and that’s all I can say,” are wimpy. If you want to be intellectually honest about it, you would say, “Well, the Christians are overwhelmingly likely to be full of shit. As are the Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastrianists, ancient Greeks, Romans, etc.”
Any given belief structure that purports to state the existence of a particular God or gods is almost certainly false. Why? Because there is literally an infinite number of potential gods that could exist. I could invent one right now! And my invention, on the spot, would be just as likely to be true and correct as Yahweh. This is where some evidence for your conventional religionists would be most helpful.
I’m a Dawkins-style atheist. I don’t believe in any gods. But I’m open to seeing some evidence. The ones who are truly arrogant are the individuals that think they have God on speed-dial, that he responds to their requests, and looks over them as they go through life; the ones that think they have a special place in Heaven waiting for them because they are in God’s good graces, while they know they will watch other people burn in eternal hellfire for not believing what they believe.
THAT is fucking arrogance.
I haven’t found your anecdote to be the case at all, Brian. The liberal ‘religionists’ I’ve known tend overwhemingly to be the Quaker in a Basement, St. Augustine live-and-let-live/the-nonsense-bits-are-metaphorical types. An astronomer I spoke with on a few occasions simply believed that God (or ‘the sky fairy’ if you prefer) set the universe in motion via the Big Bang, for example.
The problem is that they are using the same sorts of language and concepts that the fundamentalists use, which gives credence to the idea that there is merit in their positions. They are “enablers” of the fundamentalists. No, they do not say that the bible is the literal word of the god, but they still give (and commonly expect the rest of us to also) the bible reverence, credence, and respect as a default, just because it is a religious book. When atheists like me read the bible and decide that it is for the most part the writings of superstitious, primitive, bronze-age bigots and is not worthy of being taken seriously in our modern society, we are called “extremists” or “fundamentalists” by the moderates. That is not helping us.
The solution is to acknowledge that the bible has occasional anecdotes of nice stories, but for the most part is crap. We should acknowledge that basing any beliefs “on faith” is a piss-poor method of obtaining knowledge. We should acknowledge that respect for any beliefs should be earned by the merits of the belief, and not just given automatically to any belief that someone classifies as “religious.” Both the moderates and the fundamentalists resist doing that and call us extremists for advocating it, and both of them are obstacles to our society really moving forward with progress and civil rights advancements. They both insist, to different degrees and in different ways, on keeping us chained down to bad ideas.
Brian
I am sorry for the bad formatting of my replies. The quote tags are something I have not gotten down yet. It is something I am working on, but I am new to this blog software and am unsure how to use it. Most of my time has been spent on discussion forums, which operate differently.
Brian
I don’t believe in any gods. But I’m open to seeing some evidence.
Wimp!
Well I don’t know if wimpy is the word I’d use. It’s not something I spend a lot of time pondering because it doesn’t affect anything I do, and I know that no matter what I do, I’ll be stuck here on earth for my remaining 0-50 years or so without the answer. The only time I can manage to get worked up over it is where it intersects public policy. If a Christian tells me they think I’m bound for eternal damnation, my response is indifference. They’re welcome to that opinion. In a strong atheist tells me the burden of proof is on me to disabuse them of their notions of strict scientific materialism, my response is indifference. I’ve no interest in convincing them of anything.
(TL, DR version: It may be less wimpiness/intellectual laziness than it is a pragmatic admission that internet threads can get filled up and we can yell at each other over beers from here until the end of time and end up where we started.)
In spite of everything I’ve read on the subject, some really brilliant stuff on both sides (much of which is paraphrased or expounded upon upthread), absolutely none of it is at all convincing either way. However I’m right there with you that it’s extremely likely that each of the worldly religions is almost totally wrong. And certainly the God-on-speed-dial people are as arrogant as they come.
Because there is literally an infinite number of potential gods that could exist.
Does this suggest that there is something beyond matter? If there are an infinite number of possible gods, isn’t there only one way there could be none at all?
I imagine that’s some sort of psychological fallacy I’m not spotting.
Wimp!
Heh. Well, I would probably be termed a strong agnostic (or a weak atheist). My comments on people being wimpy are referring to the weak agnostics. I am comfortable saying that any given belief structure that is not based on observable evidence is a crock, simply because of the odds. It’s in much the same way that in psychological science, if you find that there’s less than a 5% chance of an effect happening by chance, that it is in fact real. Same thing here, except instead of p<0.05 I would say that p < 0.00000000001 for say, Roman Catholics to be correct in their interpretation of the world. Same with Hindus, same with Presbyterians, same with the Mennonites, repeat ad nauseum. The chance of any of them being correct is so tiny, you might as well treat them like they're bogus.
That said, more data is more gooder. I'll always look at the data.
The only time I can manage to get worked up over it is where it intersects public policy.
Yes, yes. This is where I get especially irritated as well. I find the conversation fascinating at all times, but when the whims of a person’s particular God are coming into public policy, I get very unhappy, very quickly.
(TL, DR version: It may be less wimpiness/intellectual laziness than it is a pragmatic admission that internet threads can get filled up and we can yell at each other over beers from here until the end of time and end up where we started.)
There’s likely a lot of truth in this.
Because there is literally an infinite number of potential gods that could exist.
Does this suggest that there is something beyond matter? If there are an infinite number of possible gods, isn’t there only one way there could be none at all?
Well, then I think it comes down to defining what “God” is. For example, if the God that exists is a monkey-like creature with three legs, severe arthritis, and an inability to interact with humanity or have any impact on our world whatever… is it still a god?
On another note, it might be better to say that there are two spheres: God (or gods) exist(s), or does not. In the sphere of it existing, there are infinite numbers of potential gods. In the sphere of it not existing, there are (obviously) no gods.
Are the two spheres of equal likelihood? In the absence of any evidence, I guess the conclusion must be yes.
Look, I feel comfortable saying that I honestly don’t know if there is a God or not. I think that if you actually talk to Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett or any other intellectually honest person calling themselves “atheist,” they’ll tell you the same thing.
And, frankly, if you want to redefine God into a component of the Universe, or as another name for the laws of nature, then I can get behind it—even though I think another, less-loaded term would be better—that, however, is not the traditional view of God as expressed in almost every religious text, and it is this other view that we New Atheists are attacking.
God (and here I use “God” as a stand-in for the pantheon of our entire history, ok?) as a concept has existed for thousands of years, and it has had that entire time to dominate the discourse and establish itself into every nook and cranny of our understanding; if something was inexplicable, it was God. We were supposed to be able to talk to it and have a measurable effect in reality. Can we all agree that this was traditionally the case?
People with disease died if it was God’s will, it rained if God deigned it good, God created everything just as it was when whatever religious text was written. Right? Can we agree that I’m not overstating the original religious case?
Slowly, though, God’s domain started to get smaller and smaller. It didn’t make the sun come up; the entire universe didn’t revolve around Earth; God didn’t have a direct hand in creating animals, etc. At around the same time, we as a species began to gain greater and greater control of the manner in which the universe operates. The advances we’ve made in this century are so spectacular that we’re now able to exert control over the very building blocks of life itself with very consistent results and predictions. What this amounts to is that we really are, at this point, able to talk to the universe and have it answer back. It blows my mind sometimes, honestly.
I think the reason that the New Atheists are trying to disabuse people in the thrall of the major religions is because they have failed at their mission statement, and failed spectacularly. And as most religions almost all contain highly depraved, disgusting demands, we should cease our dependence on them and move humanity into an era where we listen to the universe, even if we don’t like the answers we get.
If you answered my questions to you, I would feel compelled to answer your questions to me. Alas, you didn’t, and I don’t.
With 280+ posts, nobody has offered the quote, “calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair-color.”
The lack of anybody having called atheism a religion might have something to do with that.
“I’m not acting, I actually am dense”.
How Socratic of you :{)
“Hooray!”
What did I just hear? Was it that of God in you giving a holla back?
Well, will you answer a question from ME? Because I would like to hear the answer also.
Just pretend QuiB isn’t here and tell me….
It is really quite simple. Atheisim is just the belief that there aren’t any gods. Show me some proof that there are, and I’ll reevaluate my position. From my chair in front of the ‘puter it seems that the majority of theists (and not necessarily the ones on this thread) are offeneded by the fact that I stand up and say, “I don’t believe it.” If that is arrogance, well, I guess I am arrogant.
To quote myself:
My basic problem is this: the Bible has literal and non-literal passages. How do we know which is which? Who decides? If the bible is an unreliable source of infomation, why should we run our lives based on what’s in it?
According to your comments, the existence of God may very well be non-literal!
That’s why the actual age of the earth is important.
Was it that of God in you
Haw! It appears you know the Quaker way of saying it.
You can tell those who are well educated in the religion they claim to espouse if they understand that the Ten Commandments are Jewish law, intended to be binding on Jews, only, not gentiles. Gentiles are not commanded to keep the sabbath, honor their parents, avoid making graven images, or avoid covetousness. (Bearing false witness is also not explicitly forbidden by the Noachide laws, which strikes me as strange.)
As for the Sermon on the Mount, either it contains wisdom, or it doesn’t. If it contains wisdom, it contains wisdom whether spoken by a person with no connection to God or any gods, or the literal Son of God.
For me, it’s the doctrine of the Redemption. It simply doesn’t make any sense. It’s like saying if you cut into a tapestry, it can’t be mended until someone finds another, more perfect section of the tapestry and hacks at it with a dull, jagged blade until that section is completely ruined, just so we can see the tapestry re-weave itself.
The idea that man has a sinful nature is one I can accept – the idea that it requires a transformation to go beyond it is one I can accept. The idea that torture is mandated and must be paid, either by each person, or by some proxy, is insanity. You don’t fix something wrong by causing pain.
You can be an arrogant agnostic. A weak agnostic is one who feels that the existence of God (or of gods) is in question, and the answer is meaningful. (An atheist who lacks belief (rather than believes in the lack) does not feel the answer is meaningful – the key difference.)
But a strong agnostic’s beliefs can be summed up as “I don’t know – and you don’t either, no matter *what* you claim!”
If it contains wisdom, it contains wisdom whether spoken by a person with no connection to God or any gods, or the literal Son of God.
Or even if the speaker referred to himself as son of god in the sense that we are all children of god in the sense that we are all part of the same team. “Don’t be a douche, we’re all in this together,” would seem to be timeless and unassailable advice, although I’m not sure what the dude was talking about when he singled out cheese-makers. That was weird. But I don’t pretend to be an expert on theology.
By the way, anyone see what Rep. King recently said about identifying illegal aliens? What a douche.
Three hundredth!!
Elvis is not dead.