| |
| Atheism |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| Obviously |
 Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 5:58 am Post subject: Atheism |
 |
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 1221
Location: Norway
|
Intro:
I wish to bring up a few perhaps controversial points which I think deserves a bit more discussing about. Strong atheists are accused often of showing little respect to religion with their arrogance and are said to be no better than annoying religious fanatics who impose their view on others.
Is atheism good or bad? Maybe both? Will atheist zealots emerge from these harmless discussions and debates and become no different from any other religious zealots?
I actually wanted to take this topic up earlier, but I was too lazy 
Claims About Atheism:
Outspoken atheists like: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens (to name perhaps the most outspoken ones) are said to be no more different than fundamentalist christians who are imposing their view on others. They show no respect whatsoever to religion and are outright attacking religion with their books and opinions on programs and the like. Calling religion "superstitious" and "delusional". They should keep their opinions to themselves. Stalin was an atheist, look how that worked out.
Minions of these outrageous atheist leaders appear everywhere imposing their opinion on things and bashing religion for no reason at all. They're arrogant and ignorant, not even considering the position of the theist and debate religion everywhere constantly. They're obsessed with their hatemongering and smugness, they're just as bad as any christian fundamentalist or radical muslim you might find. And they're absolutely sure they're right.
Why can't atheists leave believers alone?
Apologies if this is disproportionate
Questions
* Are these claims right, or are they blowing this out of proportion?
* Does atheism have the potential to become too extreme, or perhaps it is already?
* Are outspoken atheists like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris being unfair, or do they have good reasons for their "religion-crusade"?
* Are atheists generalizing religion based upon a few fanatics? Are they being too hard on religion?
* Can the "No true scotsman" fallacy be applied to atheists claim that Stalin didn't do what he did because he was an atheist?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rules
I imagine this will be a heated debate. Please consider all possibilities and discuss reasonable with eachother. Back up claims with reference if needed and consider your opponents position as well as your own.
Thank you.
_________________
"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."
-- Albert Einstein
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."
-- Albert Einstein
Last edited by Obviously on Tue Apr 08, 2008 6:47 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Bunbury |
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 6:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 850
|
| How is Dawkins imposing his view on others? Certainly he has strong views, but as far as I know he isn't infiltrating the government. Is he? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| 425 Chaotic Requisition |
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 6:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Doctor
Joined: 18 Jun 2007
Posts: 3331
Location: England, UK.
|
As a believer I've seen his book, from a few pages, I saw where Q gets his style from. Dawkings (with his intelligence) puts the wrong words in when he describes religion, that in itself is evidence that he is aware that he is doing it and should know better. He's doing it to get a reaction, for goodness knows reason.
As long as atheists don't insult me, I won't insult them. But I believe in karma, so I will stand up for myself and religion if it is insulted.
Bunbury try to stay rational and adress a serious matter. Read his boook from a religious point of view, you'll see he's imposing. To feel the same way, read the religious fantics books, and you'll see. Jehovah's witness' are a good example. No offense to them, I don't mind them expressing their views, I infact like it and wish for them continue. But in the eyes of an atheist, I'd find what Jovo's do a bit insulting, or offensive in some way, but I'm not so I don't, they're just being helpful, their intentions are good. So let them be, they want to help us. Unlike some atheists like Dawkins who seem content in just addressing religion but having no positive outcome for both parties. He's just like that kid in the school ground who keeps copying everythign you say, and twisting it.
_________________
"Victory is in trying. Defeat is in not". - SVRDW. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Bunbury |
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 6:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 850
|
| Anyone got an answer to my question? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Obviously |
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 7:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 1221
Location: Norway
|
| 425 Chaotic Requisition wrote: |
| Read his boook from a religious point of view, you'll see he's imposing. |
How can you read a book and say: "Hmm, this book is imposing its view on me" 
_________________
"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."
-- Albert Einstein
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."
-- Albert Einstein |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sunshinewarrior |
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 1019
Location: London
|
Zigackly.
The only problem I have with Dawkins' book is that he is a touch dismissive about some of the classical 'proofs' and their refutations. I know he is a biologist and wants to focus on evolution (a brilliant idea, it's true, with astonishing ramifications) but given the inclusiveness of his subject I think he could have done better by some of the classical ideas.
Otherwise, excellent stuff. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| 425 Chaotic Requisition |
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 12:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Doctor
Joined: 18 Jun 2007
Posts: 3331
Location: England, UK.
|
| Obviously wrote: |
| 425 Chaotic Requisition wrote: |
| Read his boook from a religious point of view, you'll see he's imposing. |
How can you read a book and say: "Hmm, this book is imposing its view on me" |
Like I say, you'd have to be religious to see that. Thats why a lot of religious people don't like him or his book. You won't understand because you're not like us.
PS Why do you all suck up to Dakwins, he's a bloody arsehole!
_________________
"Victory is in trying. Defeat is in not". - SVRDW. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| BumFluff |
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 1:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 06 Mar 2008
Posts: 394
Location: Canada
|
The only religious people that would buy Dawkins book and be affected by it are those religious types that already question their beliefs. If you are set in your beliefs then you won't be turned one way or the other. That's why quite a lot of religious debates between a believer and a non believer end up like two horses buttign heads never wanting to stray from their paths.
_________________
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt" - Bertrand Russell |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| pavlos |
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 2:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 25 Oct 2007
Posts: 117
Location: liverpool
|
atheism is only rearing it's head more later, mainly due to religous nutjobs of which there are quite a lot.
and it is long overdue.
some people say that religious fantasies/beliefs should be left alone, as they make people happy, and people with religious fantasies/beliefs are easily controled.
however because religous fantasies/beliefs are taken seriously this make them the most dangerous of all.
religion can alleviate anxiety and distress and the fear of the unknown, however we know from history religious fantasies/belief restrict our freedom, sometimes under penalty of death. the likes of Dennett, Hitchin, and Harris, only have the floor today because in the past they would have been killed, anything that can make people see sense has got to be a good thing.
_________________
A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| 425 Chaotic Requisition |
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 2:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Doctor
Joined: 18 Jun 2007
Posts: 3331
Location: England, UK.
|
Oh great the dogmatic fanatic is back.
_________________
"Victory is in trying. Defeat is in not". - SVRDW. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mitchellmckain |
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:56 pm Post subject: Re: Atheism |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 06 Oct 2005
Posts: 1987
Location: Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
|
| Obviously wrote: |
I wish to bring up a few perhaps controversial points which I think deserves a bit more discussing about. Strong atheists are accused often of showing little respect to religion with their arrogance and are said to be no better than annoying religious fanatics who impose their view on others.
|
What do you mean by a "strong atheist". If you mean someone who goes around saying that religion is a disease that ought to be exterminated at all costs for the well being of the human race, then I would say that their fanaticism and self-righteous judgement of others makes their similarity to the "religous fanatics who impose their view on others", rather blatantly obvious.
| Obviously wrote: |
Is atheism good or bad? Maybe both? Will atheist zealots emerge from these harmless discussions and debates and become no different from any other religious zealots?
|
Atheism is GOOD. Diversity of thought and opinion is not only good it is ESSENTIAL for the survival of mankind, much in the same way that a diverse genetic pool is essential for the survival of a species. Getting stuck in a one way train of thought would be the death of human intellegence much like an evolutionary dead end is doomed to extinction. But atheists who are incapable of respecting diverse viewpoint in the same way of religious zealots are indeed a blight on the life of human intellegence.
| Obviously wrote: |
Outspoken atheists like: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens (to name perhaps the most outspoken ones) are said to be no more different than fundamentalist christians who are imposing their view on others. They show no respect whatsoever to religion and are outright attacking religion with their books and opinions on programs and the like. Calling religion "superstitious" and "delusional". They should keep their opinions to themselves. Stalin was an atheist, look how that worked out.
|
I can only speak to Richard Dawkins, who as a spokesman of science has been confusing the issue of science with anti-religious rhetoric. He is provoking an escalation of conflict which is likely recoil upon the public perception of science. He is an intellegent man and I think He is capable of and should excercise greater concern for the public well being rather than just what will simply gain him more attention and sell more of his books.
| Obviously wrote: |
Minions of these outrageous atheist leaders appear everywhere imposing their opinion on things and bashing religion for no reason at all. They're arrogant and ignorant, not even considering the position of the theist and debate religion everywhere constantly. They're obsessed with their hatemongering and smugness, they're just as bad as any christian fundamentalist or radical muslim you might find. And they're absolutely sure they're right.
|
Whether they are absolutely sure that they are right is irrelevent. Even smugness (which is hard to define anyway) is a matter of personal choice and not public censure. BUT hatemongering and the lack of respect for the diversity of human opinion in counter to the interests of a free society and should most DEFINITELY provoke strong outrage and opposition.
The atheist must be judged by the same standards as any Christian or muslim by their behavior including the respect they offer other human beings regardless of the difference of opinions. Surely we cannot afford the delusional thinking that a person is good just because he says he is an atheist any more than we can afford the similar thinking that a person is good just because he says he is a Christian. That many Christians are guilty of this is something that the election of Bush Jr. has made me suspect.
| Obviously wrote: |
Why can't atheists leave believers alone?
|
Why can't theists leave non-believers alone?
---in other words, silly question---
However there is a difference between atheism and anti-religious rhetoric just as there is a difference between theism and anti-atheist rhetoric. I have not seen much evidence of anti-athiest rhetoric recently but I have seen a lot of anti-religious rhetoric. The attacks of the religious upon religious freedom (with there efforts to impose their personal moral commitments upon others and their theology upon science) can be considered provocation but not justification. Our interest MUST be peace and not an escalation of the conflict as if any side could actually win - the only really posible result is that we ALL LOSE.
| Obviously wrote: |
* Does atheism have the potential to become too extreme, or perhaps it is already?
|
It has nothing to do with atheism any more than it has to do with religion. The problem is people - for it is the people who get carried away with whatever ideology to the point where they do not show respect for others.
| Obviously wrote: |
* Are outspoken atheists like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris being unfair, or do they have good reasons for their "religion-crusade"?
|
I would consider some of the things Dawkins has said bigotry for it is something I have had to overlook in order to read his books and profit from some of his insights in science.
| Obviously wrote: |
* Are atheists generalizing religion based upon a few fanatics? Are they being too hard on religion?
|
I would make no such generalization. Some atheists are acting like bigots and obnoxious idealogues just like many religious fanatics, yes.
| Obviously wrote: |
* Can the "No true scotsman" fallacy be applied to atheists claim that Stalin didn't do what he did because he was an atheist?[/i]
|
If it is applicable to Christian denials in regards to the Crusades then it is applicable to this as well. It is the hypocrisy of pointing it out in others while doing the same thing yourself which is outrageous. The Christian has a much right to talk about the "true Christian" as the atheist has a right to talk about the "true atheist". But as a result, this idea that religion is the source of all evil in history is just pure hypocritical trash.
_________________
See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pong |
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 08 Apr 2008
Posts: 1412
|
I converted to what I'd call "hardened" atheism many years ago, from what now seems a sinkhole of increasingly complex disbelief systems. I had to go to theists, to learn what happened there. It was Faith.
"Moderate" and "reactionary" atheists, as I'd mark them, won't embrace their fundamental sloppiness and wrongness. They have no Faith, only desperate & artificial rationalizations. Which is not to predict they'll lose this debate, since Faith must lose at this game. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| prasit |
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Bachelors Degree
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 495
|
Pong wrote:
| Quote: |
| They have no Faith, only desperate & artificial rationalizations. |
Can you elaborate more how they expressed their desperate and artificial rationalizations?
_________________
Einstein is not always right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pong |
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 08 Apr 2008
Posts: 1412
|
| prasit wrote: |
Pong wrote:
| Quote: |
| They have no Faith, only desperate & artificial rationalizations. |
Can you elaborate more how they expressed their desperate and artificial rationalizations? |
Better yet, I can speak for myself, since I was first a moderate atheist (an irreligious kid) and later a reactionary atheist (you know, the kind upset by Christianity).
Because I had no easy answers (God made it so) I felt compelled to figure things out on my own. I grew this belief that the human mind, and indeed humanity, free of religion, was capable of anything. Human intelligence could lead the way. We'd simply map all things knowable, adjusting life to fit the ever expanding reality. My atheistic world was rational.
Well, I never got to attacking religion, but my system did begin to show holes over time. I faced them soberly, tried to patch them up with yet more of the same. For example, I felt a little "wrong" about devouring the flesh of other mammals. This became an intellectual problem, even a political one. There were always people ready to engage in elaborate discussion about it. I guess I went through half a dozen rationalizations for my behaviour: Animals are inferior, the rules don't apply, we're doing them a favour, they'd eat us if they could... I was growing desperate with this and other problems. Yet nothing seemed to patch the holes. Of course I projected utmost conviction in my perfect solutions, whatever they happened to be for the moment.
It was all artifice. I began to realize, that I'd reasoned such a tangle, explaining myself and the world around me, that my system of beliefs had no practical merit, except - that's odd - it excused a lot of attitudes and behaviour (good & bad) I already had and probably would have regardless of what I thought. I began to note the passion driving supposedly cool intellectuals, and I wondered if they weren't just deluding themselves. My own beliefs were "sophisticated", which meant complex, which I knew to be a sign of bad propositions shored up at great lengths.
That's enough for now. Satisfied, Prasit?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Obviously |
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 12:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 1221
Location: Norway
|
Sorry for being late in replies. My computer kinda crashed and I've been busy reinstalling a lot of software so I haven't found time to make elaborate responses. 
| 425 Chaotic Requisition wrote: |
Like I say, you'd have to be religious to see that. Thats why a lot of religious people don't like him or his book. You won't understand because you're not like us.
PS Why do you all suck up to Dakwins, he's a bloody arsehole! |
I wouldn't understand even if I was religious. If I don't want to read the book, then I won't. That way it isn't imposing anything, you have a choice to read it or not. Maybe there's some insulting parts or something, but I found Dawkins' book quite analytic and interesting. Do you feel like some parts are misrepresentive? Why do you find Dawkins an arsehole?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mitch, I found myself in much agreement with a lot you said, but there's perhaps a few things I would like to examinate a bit more.
| mitchellmckain wrote: |
| What do you mean by a "strong atheist". If you mean someone who goes around saying that religion is a disease that ought to be exterminated at all costs for the well being of the human race, then I would say that their fanaticism and self-righteous judgement of others makes their similarity to the "religous fanatics who impose their view on others", rather blatantly obvious. |
I haven't heard any atheist say they want religion exterminated "at all costs" yet, however, I'm keen to put up an example of what I see as an strong atheist:
Pat Condell
Would you find his points valid or extreme? What about his approach? To get the most of what this guy is about I would recommend watching "Why debate dogma?" and "What's good about religion?".
| mitchellmckain wrote: |
| I can only speak to Richard Dawkins, who as a spokesman of science has been confusing the issue of science with anti-religious rhetoric. He is provoking an escalation of conflict which is likely recoil upon the public perception of science. He is an intellegent man and I think He is capable of and should excercise greater concern for the public well being rather than just what will simply gain him more attention and sell more of his books. |
I think he is concerned with the public well being, but perhaps he's exercising the wrong approach. It's a good point that his anti-dogma (I would rather say) can be percieved bad and thus science is also percieved to be bad. I say anti-dogma because he's mostly attacking alternative medisin (wich he brilliantly remarked once "when alternative medisin works, it stops being alternative and merely becomes medisin". Note that this is not a direct quote), radical islam and fundamentalist christians. I don't think (but my memory could be fooling me) he has much problems with intelligent theists who don't impose their views on others and mostly keep their faith to themselves. But I would agree that his approach might be dividing people rahter then make them understand eachother.
| mitchellmckain wrote: |
| The atheist must be judged by the same standards as any Christian or muslim by their behavior including the respect they offer other human beings regardless of the difference of opinions. |
I know you probably don't think so, but I have to ask nonetheless. Do you believe all ideas are created equal? Where is the line to be drawn? You do have ridiculous ideas (for these times) like for example: the earth is flat, the devil makes us sick and the like. Should we perhaps draw the line within current knowledge about the world? By the line I mean what ideas are bad and to be dismissed and what ideas are good and should be considered.
| mitchellmckain wrote: |
| The problem is people - for it is the people who get carried away with whatever ideology to the point where they do not show respect for others. |
Should we always respect others? What about the other extreme, tolerance of intolerance?
| mitchellmckain wrote: |
| I would consider some of the things Dawkins has said bigotry |
How come? Could you provide some examples?
| mitchellmckain wrote: |
| If it is applicable to Christian denials in regards to the Crusades then it is applicable to this as well. It is the hypocrisy of pointing it out in others while doing the same thing yourself which is outrageous. The Christian has a much right to talk about the "true Christian" as the atheist has a right to talk about the "true atheist". But as a result, this idea that religion is the source of all evil in history is just pure hypocritical trash. |
Upon thinking about it you're probably right. I always imagined that communism was the real cause for the anti-religiousity. If Stalin was a muslim or a christian, he would probably erradicate everyone else who wasn't, but flipping this argument upside down, it can be applied to christian leaders as well (what if they were atheist), but perhaps not. Religious leaders did things in the name of their faith, atheist leaders didn't do what they did in the name of atheism, or?
There seem to be a little difference, but perhaps I'm mistaking or overanalysing it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pong, I wish to respond to you too if that's ok
Your example of eating mammals is weird in my view. It's is natural for us humans to eat meat and we've done so for a long time. Different species often eat different species and sometimes species of the same kind as well. It's only natural, so there's no rationalization needed for such a thing. Anyhow, I don't see how a belief in God would help anyway for something like this. God is often used as an evasion from problems rather than a solution.
| Pong wrote: |
| I felt a little "wrong" |
This is not rationalization. Personal convictions is different from objective reasoning. Whether or not you believe in something, this will remain a problem of your own, and you can simply solve it by not eating mammals.
_________________
"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."
-- Albert Einstein
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."
-- Albert Einstein
Last edited by Obviously on Thu Apr 10, 2008 1:12 am; edited 4 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
  |
Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next |
Page 1 of 3 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
