The New Atheists

[millipodium]

"whatever you define as god, I will disprove it"

This is the key to atheist mindset right here. "Whatever gives you hope, I will destroy."

[Dan Rowden]

The diversity of those God beliefs actually undermines your argument for the meaningfulness of this consensus you're talking about.

Dan Rowden

No it doesn't. That's just an assertion of yours.

It does undermine it. The staggering diversity of God beliefs does nothing to help acid's argument. The consesus he speaks of shows nothing more than a universal ignorance of the nature of Reality has existed and has been addressed by the invention of various metaphysical entities. Big deal. It's no more evidence that something exists than the existence of outdated deductive explanations for empirical phenomena prove those explanations are true.


Dan Rowden

[millipodium]

The diversity of those God beliefs actually undermines your argument for the meaningfulness of this consensus you're talking about.

Dan Rowden

No it doesn't. That's just an assertion of yours.

It does undermine it. The staggering diversity of God beliefs does nothing to help acid's argument.

But it doesn't prove atheism either.

The consesus he speaks of shows nothing more than a universal ignorance of the nature of Reality has existed and has been addressed by the invention of various metaphysical entities. Big deal. It's no more evidence that something exists than the existence of outdated deductive explanations for empirical phenomena prove those explanations are true.


Dan Rowden

And I'm sure you've heard that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[acid]

Acid,

Please do not edit your posts after they have been replied to. It's not something you ought to make a habit of. The discussion was going along just fine.


Dan Rowden

why are you going to ban my ip address?

[Nick]

Think of god as whatever it is your saying you don't believe in when you call yourself an atheist.

There are many ideas of what God is, and in order to prove it wrong I need you to give me a description of the God you are speaking of.

"Define god" - how sickening and trite, Nick. Really. You can do better.

What kind of God do you believe in, if any at all? I'm curious to know where you stand on the issue. I've noticed you call other people out quite a bit about where they stand on certain issues, but you never seem to make your stance too clear. Please, enlighten us.

[DHodges]

You know, what's happened so far in this thread is what I was afraid would happen – just an argument of whether theism or atheism is true. The same old stuff.

I’m not interested in that argument. As I’m concerned, it’s a completely dead issue, like arguing whether there really is a Santa Claus, or if Zeus is real. If you believe in a god, you just haven’t given the matter enough serious thought.

I’m interested in the issue within atheism: should atheists be tolerant of religious people?

On the one hand, politically, it seems that being tolerant of other people’s beliefs is the way to go. It’s the polite way. You can believe whatever you want; just don’t bother me about it. And we expect our rights to be respected, if we respect those of others. And this is important, when we are in the minority.

On the other hand, there are limits to tolerance. A line is drawn, and we refuse to be tolerant to certain religious views – for instance, we don’t have much tolerance for radical extremists whose beliefs call for killing us. There are other cases where a line must be drawn somewhere, for instance when a religion calls for taking illegal drugs, or throwing a virgin in a volcano, or other human sacrifice, and possibly also animal sacrifice (e.g., Santeria); and how people treat their children (e.g., Christian Scientists withholding medical treatment). Mainstream religions recognize that there are dangerous cults.

From an atheist point of view, the more extreme examples are not that far separated from mainstream religions. They are both an affront to reason, based on the fundamental problem of believing things for which there is no evidence. Some cases just happen to be more directly and obviously harmful.

Atheists could try to work with “moderate” theists to try to limits those extremes, and this seems like the pragmatic, politic thing to do. But really, this is getting the less crazy people to help us control the more insane group. It’s like saying that it’s okay to be moderately insane, if you don’t hurt other people too much.

Then there is the more hardcore, extreme position of sticking with what we know to be true: all theism is a delusion, an affront to rational thought. If you can believe one crazy thing, you can believe many crazy things. This leads to the more extreme position of the New Atheists, which may be correct, but as the article referenced points out, is politically hopeless; it tends to thrown atheism into being seen as just another religion, with rigidly, fanatically held beliefs (as opposed to the lack of religious beliefs).

So, how do we walk this line, sticking with what we know to be true, without completely alienating the theistic? It seems this has generally been done by not talking about it; by saying “agnostic” instead of “atheist”, by being non-confrontational. By being polite about it.

On an individual level, this is the easy, comfortable thing to do; avoid the subject, even if it sometimes feels like not talking about politics when you live in Nazi Germany. But the reality in the US is that Christians – the majority - don’t make much distinction between atheists and Satanists. It’s dangerous ground; it is a majority that loves to imagine it is persecuted.

But now we see a world situation where religious extremists are gaining power. There are the Islamic extremists, of course, but there is also the entrenched Religious Right in the United States. The Religious Right is just as dangerous, given the nuclear capability of the US. Do we really want that nuclear capability in the hands of people who believe crazy things, who have no commitment to rationality? Can such people be stopped by rational argument?

Maybe this issue has become too big, and we can no longer afford to be polite about it. But how to do that, without becoming completely marginalized, just another special interest group? How to promote rationality itself, no matter who ends up benefiting? Is that possible?

I see this kind of like issues about the environment. Slowing the destruction of the environment will cost something – but in the end it will cost less than the cost of ignoring it. Containing irrationality will cost also something – maybe quite a bit. But if it can not be contained, it will continue to spread, and likely will cause another world war, one way or another.

[Tharan]

Well written. But Zeus IS real, BTW.

[Nick]

I don't think any religion ought to be tolerated. It is simply false information and when something is wrong it should be treated as such. But like I said in my first response to this thread, athiests will not make much progress in promoting rationality on athiesm alone.

[Leyla Shen]

Dave,

Religion is incidental to irrationality (unreason). Irrationality is not incidental to religion.

You wrote:

I find it interesting that even among people who are atheists, it is apparently rude to say you are an atheist. There are arguments against atheism on social grounds, or political grounds - but there don't seem to be any arguments based on the actual truth of the matter.

The question regarding your above statement would then be, how rational are these “atheists”?

It’s a bit like the Christian who attempts to covertly infiltrate a group with his idiotic beliefs whilst pointing the finger at some other similar group, which he knows so well for very obvious reasons, and thinks--in all his retarded intellectual growth--he has revealed something of significance to the world by doing so. (Not to mention the moron who tries to breastfeed him out of a tight situation.)

If there are no arguments based on the actual truth of the matter--in this case, the actual truth of God--there is no more truth to the matter than the calibre of the arguments you are seeing, which therefore become equally irrational and, consequently, a matter of tolerance or intorlerance.

When God becomes a politician and not truth, humanity becomes incidental to personal delusion and not reason.

.

[DHodges]

If there are no arguments based on the actual truth of the matter--in this case, the actual truth of God--there is no more truth to the matter than the calibre of the arguments you are seeing, which therefore become equally irrational and, consequently, a matter of tolerance or intorlerance.

When God becomes a politician and not truth, humanity becomes incidental to personal delusion and not reason.

I take that as a vote for not tolerating irrationality, whatever form it takes. And when it comes to my own thought, I agree.

But (out in the world of the lesser jihad, so to speak) isn't there something to be said for choosing one's battles, working where the most can be accomplished - working against the largest irrationalities? Might that sometime mean pragmatically ignoring (tolerating) smaller irrationalities, at times?

Might it also mean sometimes presenting people with only the amount of truth that they are ready for, where the entire truth might be overwhelming?

Might not delusions need to be dismantled bit by bit?

[Dan Rowden]

Acid,

Please do not edit your posts after they have been replied to. It's not something you ought to make a habit of. The discussion was going along just fine.


Dan Rowden

why are you going to ban my ip address?

If you make a habit of it, yes, you'll be banned. Deleting the content of one's posts is a banning offense on pretty much any discussion board you'd find and it is here too. So, like I say, don't make a habit of it.

[acid]

then you should make it so you can't edit your posts after somebody responds to them. then you can't totally ruin a thread by manipulating the discussion after you already posted in it.

[Leyla Shen]

Dave, you wrote:

But (out in the world of the lesser jihad, so to speak) isn't there something to be said for choosing one's battles, working where the most can be accomplished - working against the largest irrationalities?

One’s battles are already chosen for him: cause and effect. The battle you fight at any given moment is the battle through which you stand to accomplish, or not accomplish, most.

If you consider the belief of others in an anthropomorphised God as the largest irrationality, yet you find yourself working mostly to keep a roof over your head, how do you reconcile such a distinction?

Might that sometime mean pragmatically ignoring (tolerating) smaller irrationalities, at times?

Well, I wouldn’t equate pragmatism with toleration. I think the important distinction here is that if one is consumed with fighting a larger irrationality, it would be irrational to abandon it for the sake of fighting a smaller one. But I am more interested in hearing your reply to the above question, at the moment. I think it might take this in an interesting direction.

Might it also mean sometimes presenting people with only the amount of truth that they are ready for, where the entire truth might be overwhelming?

Yes.

Might not delusions need to be dismantled bit by bit?

Yes.

.

[Jamesh]

Might it also mean sometimes presenting people with only the amount of truth that they are ready for, where the entire truth might be overwhelming?

Might not delusions need to be dismantled bit by bit?

This is a problem I have with some of my relatives and their friends. I don't bother attacking the social side of their religion, but I do get stuck into their spiritual beliefs.

They are active Christians, of above average intelligence. They say to me that the social side of Christianity, the altruistic side, is a form of placing oneself outside of their own ego demands. I think this is correct. Realising that the world does not revolve around oneself, and acting to help others, is a limited form of detachment from one's ego.

Spiritually they are also changing. Doubts about the Christian God are far more stronger than say 10 years ago. To be honest though I do think that science rather than philosophy is the key factor here. As we learn more about the brain and our connections to animals, then the pressure to be rational about the Christian god builds up.

To be honest I feel that successfully teaching others about reality, will create an abundance of nihilists and self-centered folks, rather than enlightened people with few animal desires. Great harm could befall humanity. Only when society is ready at the global level will the QRS form of enlightenment spread.

Where there are huge wealth discrepancies between countries and individuals, the promotion of enlightenment will fail. We first have to evolve to be non-attached to wealth, which will only be achieved by having an over abundance of same. We have to become bored with trinkets and sex, and until this occurs only those who have suffered enough will seek alternatives.

[DHodges]

If you consider the belief of others in an anthropomorphised God as the largest irrationality, yet you find yourself working mostly to keep a roof over your head, how do you reconcile such a distinction?

The God belief is a large irrationality, sure. But it doesn't get to the heart of the matter: why do people have such a need to believe such irrational things? If you take away the particular belief, but not the underlying cause, some new belief will just arise to replace it.

I think this underlying need to believe arises from a set of related psychological causes (among others):

Desire to belong - to fit in with some particular social group, which shares certain beliefs. A need to be accepted by others.

Identity - besides belonging to a group, a person needs to know who they are. Closely related is the human need for purpose or meaning - and the apparent desire for those things to come from outside, rather than from within; for meaning to be objective.

Fear of the unknown - removing uncertainty by making up a story about the way things are, to have a stable world view. Uncertainty causes anxiety.

I don't think religion is just a matter of people being mistaken. Religion satisfies some needs people have, or it would die out on its own.

Well, I wouldn’t equate pragmatism with toleration. I think the important distinction here is that if one is consumed with fighting a larger irrationality, it would be irrational to abandon it for the sake of fighting a smaller one.

I was thinking that it was more important to fight the underlying causes... but now I wonder if those causes are part of human nature, and maybe there are limits to how much it can be changed.

Quinn has made the point (a while back) that for some people, science becomes like a new religion. It gives a world view, and people believe in it, and become blind to its limitations, think it is the answer to everything. Still, it seems like a step in the right direction - but not the final destination.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

DHodges mentioned about the extremists that are not well tolerated, and the religious zealots whose beliefs lead to actions that are harmful to others that are not tolerated to that extreme. Athiest zealots would be just as poorly tolerated, but as for rationality - I'm not sure that it is even possible to be a rational extremist. One could successfully be extremely rational, but I just can't picture a rational extremist.

It is not rational to brow-beat someone with the truth - it just doesn't sink in that way. Like pouring a glass of water into a dry sponge, if you pour gently, it will be absorbed until the sponge is full; if you pour the whole glass full force onto the sponge, you get a sponge that is damp on the outside, dry on the inside, and water all over the counter.

[millipodium]

You know, what's happened so far in this thread is what I was afraid would happen – just an argument of whether theism or atheism is true. The same old stuff.

I’m not interested in that argument. As I’m concerned, it’s a completely dead issue, like arguing whether there really is a Santa Claus, or if Zeus is real. If you believe in a god, you just haven’t given the matter enough serious thought.

I’m interested in the issue within atheism: should atheists be tolerant of religious people?

On the one hand, politically, it seems that being tolerant of other people’s beliefs is the way to go. It’s the polite way. You can believe whatever you want; just don’t bother me about it. And we expect our rights to be respected, if we respect those of others. And this is important, when we are in the minority.

On the other hand, there are limits to tolerance. A line is drawn, and we refuse to be tolerant to certain religious views – for instance, we don’t have much tolerance for radical extremists whose beliefs call for killing us. There are other cases where a line must be drawn somewhere, for instance when a religion calls for taking illegal drugs, or throwing a virgin in a volcano, or other human sacrifice, and possibly also animal sacrifice (e.g., Santeria); and how people treat their children (e.g., Christian Scientists withholding medical treatment). Mainstream religions recognize that there are dangerous cults.

From an atheist point of view, the more extreme examples are not that far separated from mainstream religions. They are both an affront to reason, based on the fundamental problem of believing things for which there is no evidence. Some cases just happen to be more directly and obviously harmful.

Atheists could try to work with “moderate” theists to try to limits those extremes, and this seems like the pragmatic, politic thing to do. But really, this is getting the less crazy people to help us control the more insane group. It’s like saying that it’s okay to be moderately insane, if you don’t hurt other people too much.

Then there is the more hardcore, extreme position of sticking with what we know to be true: all theism is a delusion, an affront to rational thought. If you can believe one crazy thing, you can believe many crazy things. This leads to the more extreme position of the New Atheists, which may be correct, but as the article referenced points out, is politically hopeless; it tends to thrown atheism into being seen as just another religion, with rigidly, fanatically held beliefs (as opposed to the lack of religious beliefs).

So, how do we walk this line, sticking with what we know to be true, without completely alienating the theistic? It seems this has generally been done by not talking about it; by saying “agnostic” instead of “atheist”, by being non-confrontational. By being polite about it.

On an individual level, this is the easy, comfortable thing to do; avoid the subject, even if it sometimes feels like not talking about politics when you live in Nazi Germany. But the reality in the US is that Christians – the majority - don’t make much distinction between atheists and Satanists. It’s dangerous ground; it is a majority that loves to imagine it is persecuted.

But now we see a world situation where religious extremists are gaining power. There are the Islamic extremists, of course, but there is also the entrenched Religious Right in the United States. The Religious Right is just as dangerous, given the nuclear capability of the US. Do we really want that nuclear capability in the hands of people who believe crazy things, who have no commitment to rationality? Can such people be stopped by rational argument?

Maybe this issue has become too big, and we can no longer afford to be polite about it. But how to do that, without becoming completely marginalized, just another special interest group? How to promote rationality itself, no matter who ends up benefiting? Is that possible?

I see this kind of like issues about the environment. Slowing the destruction of the environment will cost something – but in the end it will cost less than the cost of ignoring it. Containing irrationality will cost also something – maybe quite a bit. But if it can not be contained, it will continue to spread, and likely will cause another world war, one way or another.

What it comes down to is that atheists ultimately feel like tolerating those with a religious view is equivalent to treating a mentally ill person as an equal, because they feel atheism is "rationally true" or the " the real truth" or whatever. They mistakenly believe that the burden of proof is on the theist, but alas, this is not a trial for a man's innocence but a philosophical issue, therefore the burden of proof lies upon whichever man feels he can meet it an any given point to "prove" his side. Ultimately however, theists cannot prove god, and atheists must admit that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[millipodium]

Think of god as whatever it is your saying you don't believe in when you call yourself an atheist.

There are many ideas of what God is, and in order to prove it wrong I need you to give me a description of the God you are speaking of.

What kind of god is it that you DON'T believe in, as an atheist? Same thing.

[Matt Gregory]

Millipodium,

atheists must admit that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Evidence of absence is exactly what absence of evidence is. What other type of evidence could there possibly be for nonexistence?

[millipodium]

Millipodium,

atheists must admit that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Evidence of absence is exactly what absence of evidence is. What other type of evidence could there possibly be for nonexistence?

Absolutely wrong. A man kills a woman with a gun. He covers his tracks perfectly, leaves no residue, collects the bullet, has no motive, has an alibi. There is an absence of evidence. No evidence. There is no evidence. It is absent. There is however also no evidence he DIDN"T do it. It is not evident logically to deduce he was NEVER there. It is not evidence of his absence. Hence, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Though LEGALLY we set a bit of a lopsided standard to give innocence the edge, technically absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

has an alibi.

If it is a true alibi then it can not be that he was someplace else at the time or physically unable to kill her and that he killed her. False evidence is not evidence.

[Matt Gregory]

A man kills a woman with a gun. He covers his tracks perfectly, leaves no residue, collects the bullet, has no motive, has an alibi. There is an absence of evidence.

A bullet hole in someone is evidence of murder.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

A bullet hole in someone is evidence of murder.

The analogy here seems to be:
murder = reality
a particular man did the murder = existance of God

I don't think mil is denying the murder (reality), but focusing on whether or not a particular man did the murder (existance of God)

[Matt Gregory]

That would be comparable to "we know a God created the universe now it's just a matter of figuring out which one".

dead body = reality
murder = existence of God

If he removed all evidence of the murder, then it would look like a natural death, no suspicions would be raised and no investigation would take place, which would be the most rational thing for the detectives (us) to do. There's no reason to treat a death like a murder unless there is evidence for murder.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

That would be comparable to "we know a God created the universe now it's just a matter of figuring out which one".

dead body = reality
murder = existence of God

If he removed all evidence of the murder, then it would look like a natural death, no suspicions would be raised and no investigation would take place, which would be the most rational thing for the detectives (us) to do. There's no reason to treat a death like a murder unless there is evidence for murder.

Yes, I think that analogy is better than the one with a gun, but I think that rather makes mil's point. If a woman was murdered by the perfect crime, is it still murder? The man committed the murder, but he just did not get caught. Mil's suggesting that God exists, but He never got caught.

Would you let your daughter date OJ Simpson?