73 replies to this topic

[ccabal86]

For those that are interested, I highly recommend reading this article: http://quillette.com/2016/09/23/is-the-new-atheism-movement-irrelevant/

 

It's pretty long, but very well referenced and sums up what this whole deal is about and why religion will end the world if something is not done. I'm happy to debate any points with you.

[Fox Fire]

Human stupidity will end the planet. I'm not big on "hollier than thou" atheism. 

[ccabal86]

Human stupidity will end the planet. I'm not big on "hollier than thou" atheism. 

 

You can't have read the article this quickly. Let's focus on debating its points.

[Fox Fire]

 

Human stupidity will end the planet. I'm not big on "hollier than thou" atheism. 

 

You can't have read the article this quickly. Let's focus on debating its points.

 

Maybe I'll read it later but like I said, I'm not big on "hollier than thou" atheism.

[ccabal86]

Can you explain what you mean by "holier than thou" atheism?

[Fox Fire]

Can you explain what you mean by "holier than thou" atheism?

Atheist movements that make it a goal to discredit theism or pretend to have a higher moral stance with no basis for said morality. 

[ccabal86]

 

Can you explain what you mean by "holier than thou" atheism?

Atheist movements that make it a goal to discredit theism or pretend to have a higher moral stance with no basis for said morality. 

 

 

There are very good reasons to discredit theism, and a decent case to be made that secular people in general do indeed possess a higher moral stance. The article elaborates on both of these points, hence why I recommended reading it first. Without that, we will have no substance to our debate.

[Sister Midnight]

I haven't read it yet, but most atheists I know (and I know a bunch) are very respectful and do not act superior, smug, or try to convert me. If I engage them in debate I find their points to be well thought out and logical. They're always willing to agree to disagree in my experience. This has not always been my experience with SOME "Christians."

I will read the article when I get the chance, I'm flying to California tomorrow, perhaps on the plane. But most wars have claimed to be in the name of a deity thru the centuries, although I think they're mainly about xenophobia and the distribution of resources.

[ccabal86]

I haven't read it yet, but most atheists I know (and I know a bunch) are very respectful and do not act superior, smug, or try to convert me. If I engage them in debate I find their points to be well thought out and logical. They're always willing to agree to disagree in my experience. This has not always been my experience with SOME "Christians."

While there are assholes of every kind, and atheists are no exception, I feel that a good portion of those that come across as pushy, arrogant and partisan are actually in a state of panic. Things are not going well in the world and public awareness may not be rising at a pace at which global catastrophy can be avoided.

EDIT: Also, have a great flight!

[Lorikz Kain]

I don't understand why all "religions" and I use that term lightly, are grouped together in a singular entity. They are vastly different and can in no way be quantified together in any meaningful way. Some have commonalities and a few are very closely similar but there are so many disparate theologies that you simply can't group them all together like they are attempting.

 

Plus the article doesn't even try to hide its prejudice as it openly attacks people by claiming those who believe are delusional. That's not even an argument its just an opinion of the writer. If someone wants to make an argumentative piece with facts to back them up that's one thing but personally attacking people while at the same time claiming they "possess a stronger or more ethical sense of social justice than their religious peers" isn't exactly helping their cause :/

 

The statement that, "Religion may become extinct in nine nations" is something of a stretch. First off the sample size is far too small and there haven't been enough concurrent similar social studies to either prove nor disprove this claim. I might concede to the statement that less people are finding a religious affiliation but death of religion is really reaching.

 

Also blaming racism and cultural tolerance on religion? What religion are you talking about because there are a lot of different ones, stop trying to stereotype millions of people. Racism and intolerance isn't unique to any group, its brought on mainly by ignorance and fear. People fear what they don't understand and this leads to resistance and rejection. Education and the sharing of knowledge is what brings people together while fear and ignorance divides. Don't use religion as your scapegoat for why racism exists. Most religions preach acceptance and the spreading of the word to ALL NATIONS AND PEOPLE. Racism would be counter to that.

 

That whole article is an attack on millions of people brought forth by the writers fear of what he doesn't understand. He labels all "religious individuals" together and assumes they are all the same person. The whole thing made me feel like he has some personal hate for me for something other people have and even stuff others haven't even done yet. He keeps talking about a coming apocalypse and terrorism. Frankly he sounds just like the bigoted, racist, fearful of what they don't know or understand "religious people" he was attacking throughout this whole article.

 

I started reading this because I truly was interested in the point of view and wanted to expand my knowledge on what the Atheist Movement was about and all I got was the ramblings of a fearful man attacking millions of people for things they haven't even done O.o

[Samus]

Someone give an unbiased tl;dr please, that article too long..

 

Also even before I consider reading it.. cc, can you educate me about what atheists believe in (if anything) vs other religions?

[ccabal86]

First, the disclaimer. Obviously an internet article cannot be long enough to give a fullscale explanation of the "New Atheist" perspective, but it's good enough to get a debate rolling. If anyone's interested in the subject, I highly recommend reading at least 3 books (Dawkins: The God Delusion, Hitchens: God in Not Great, Harris: The End of Faith), as they are provocative, yet very well argued. I also find it amazing and amusing that all three essentially come to similar conclusions even though they approach the questions from a different angle (Dawkins the scientist, Hitchens the public writer/journalist, Harris the philosopher).
 

I don't understand why all "religions" and I use that term lightly, are grouped together in a singular entity. They are vastly different and can in no way be quantified together in any meaningful way. Some have commonalities and a few are very closely similar but there are so many disparate theologies that you simply can't group them all together like they are attempting.

 
While the theologies are indeed different, at the core all religions share the same nasty foundation: They claim to hold the key to the TRUTH. They claim that if you accept their explanations, you will have the answers to all the questions worth asking and more. They do not try to convince you of course, they ask for your FAITH, in other words to take their claims at face value, without questioning, asking for evidence or second-guessing. Of course, since their truth is absolute, by this definition everyone else who thinks differently (even just a little) is wrong.

A gummy bears come in many colors, but at the end of the day, they are all gummy bears. You MIGHT argue that Buddhism is somewhat different, but it has its own dogmas too.
 

Plus the article doesn't even try to hide its prejudice as it openly attacks people by claiming those who believe are delusional. That's not even an argument its just an opinion of the writer. If someone wants to make an argumentative piece with facts to back them up that's one thing but personally attacking people while at the same time claiming they "possess a stronger or more ethical sense of social justice than their religious peers" isn't exactly helping their cause :/

 

If I were to believe that cats are actually infiltartion units of a malicious galactic civilization that will rise up once they receive the command to do so by their overlords, you would be right to ask what evidence I have to support this theory. If I have none, yet continue to firmly believe my being right, you would be right to call me delusional. This should not change if I have a million peers ascribing to my beliefs. Why do people call flat earth theorists delusional, and Christians not? They have exactly the same amount of evidence to back their "Truth".

As for the moral question, the author is referencing an actual, scientific study: https://secularpolicyinstitute.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf Is this this 100% conclusive? Of course not, nobody claims that. But it's something to base an argument on.

 

The statement that, "Religion may become extinct in nine nations" is something of a stretch. First off the sample size is far too small and there haven't been enough concurrent similar social studies to either prove nor disprove this claim. I might concede to the statement that less people are finding a religious affiliation but death of religion is really reaching.

 

Bit of a stretch, true. Even if there are some observable trends in this direction. But it is amusing how you immediately turned to scientific reasoning ("sample size is far too small", "haven't been enough concurrent similar social studies") when it illustrates your point while conveniently ignoring it at the previous point
 

Also blaming racism and cultural tolerance on religion? What religion are you talking about because there are a lot of different ones, stop trying to stereotype millions of people. Racism and intolerance isn't unique to any group, its brought on mainly by ignorance and fear. People fear what they don't understand and this leads to resistance and rejection. Education and the sharing of knowledge is what brings people together while fear and ignorance divides. Don't use religion as your scapegoat for why racism exists.

 

While religion isn't the root of all evil, I think we can assert with confidence that it does NOT help in the grand scale of things. We can harken back to the paragraph about being the beholders of the TRUTH versus all the other infidels who are WRONG. Black VS White. Few ideals advocate an In-group VS Out-group mentality more than religions. This is especially troubling because:

 

Most religions preach acceptance and the spreading of the word to ALL NATIONS AND PEOPLE.

 

This is FACTUALLY wrong, the worst offenders being the Abrahamic religions. Just read the holy texts. Sure you can cherry pick the parts you "like"...but then you're kind of bending over backwards to get the narrative you want, aren't you? Why not just take out the principles you think to be good and valuable and dump the rest?.
 

That whole article is an attack on millions of people brought forth by the writers fear of what he doesn't understand. He labels all "religious individuals" together and assumes they are all the same person. The whole thing made me feel like he has some personal hate for me for something other people have and even stuff others haven't even done yet. He keeps talking about a coming apocalypse and terrorism. Frankly he sounds just like the bigoted, racist, fearful of what they don't know or understand "religious people" he was attacking throughout this whole article.
 
I started reading this because I truly was interested in the point of view and wanted to expand my knowledge on what the Atheist Movement was about and all I got was the ramblings of a fearful man attacking millions of people for things they haven't even done O.o

 

And then this is your opinion. Is the article provocative? Yes, I suppose that's what the writer was going for.

[Samus]

This is FACTUALLY wrong, the worst offenders being the Abrahamic religions. Just read the holy texts. Sure you can cherry pick the parts you "like"...but then you're kind of bending over backwards to get the narrative you want, aren't you? Why not just take out the principles you think to be good and valuable and dump the rest?.

 

I think the problem here is cherry picking. I can't speak for other Abrahamic religions, but Christianity.. Texts you're MOST LIKELY referring to are found within the OLD Testament portion of the Bible. Without an understanding of the differences & purposes of both of them, it won't really make sense.

[ccabal86]

Someone give an unbiased tl;dr please, that article too long..

 

Also even before I consider reading it.. cc, can you educate me about what atheists believe in (if anything) vs other religions?

 

To keep it very short (since I have to go to bed) you have the "Hard Atheists" and the "Soft Atheists". Hard Atheists are the essentially religious people that happen to believe that there is no god. They are 100% convinced of this and even if Jesus Christ himself came down from heaven in an 18-wheeler in front of their very eyes, they would still hold on to that belief.

 

Soft Atheists (most of atheists today) are critical thinkers who like to base their opinions on evidence. They tend to be sceptical of unsupported ideas and say no ideology should be immune to criticism. If you want to sum it up in short:

 

"There is no evidence that would suggest the universe is governed by a supreme being. Therefore, until such evidence becomes available, this scenario is not worth considering. Instead let's set out from what we DO know. Well, that's not much. We need to find out more."

[ccabal86]

 

This is FACTUALLY wrong, the worst offenders being the Abrahamic religions. Just read the holy texts. Sure you can cherry pick the parts you "like"...but then you're kind of bending over backwards to get the narrative you want, aren't you? Why not just take out the principles you think to be good and valuable and dump the rest?.

 

I think the problem here is cherry picking. I can't speak for other Abrahamic religions, but Christianity.. Texts you're MOST LIKELY referring to are found within the OLD Testament portion of the Bible. Without an understanding of the differences & purposes of both of them, it won't really make sense.

 

 

In some way, the New Testament is indeed better than the Old...but then again, not without its cruelty, as it introduces (or rather fully fleshes out) the concept of Hell...a place designed to exact ETERNAL punishment for a finite (and sometimes rather small) offenses against a being that supposedly has infinite "love" for its children, even the wayward ones.

[Robert2424]

I really shouldn't get involved into this thread. I seen people be very cruel and bias on both sides. But more so from the atheists. I went to a high school where the students were very open about what they believe. As the only person who wore a cross to my school. I'm a big enough guy that nobody tried bullying me, but there were groups of people in my school every time I saw the would shout hail Satan. Now, I know these people are atheists and they don't believe in Satan or God, so they did it for whatever there reason but tried to mostly ignore them. Then there were individuals who try to talk to me pacficly to put down and disprove my beliefs. I always was respectful and never really was one to argue unless it was friendly debating. Especially during that time where I was very much so still in my shell.

I find the topic interesting though.

I do find some individuals are very nice and not on a mission to disprove what I believe. Therefore regardless of what a person believes they should be taken by a case by case basis instead of painting them all with the same brush.

[Sister Midnight]

Someone give an unbiased tl;dr please, that article too long..

Also even before I consider reading it.. cc, can you educate me about what atheists believe in (if anything) vs other religions?

Atheists follow no dogma. Some band together and make a dogma out of not believing in deity, I am told. All the ones I know (and that includes several family members) simply don't believe there is a deity or an afterlife, and they don't really care to discuss such things unless it comes up.

The most moral person I have ever known was an atheist, btw. She died with her children around her, truly at peace with her mortality, content that she had lived a full life, and confident that when her life ended there was no soul and no heaven, hell, God, or devil. She was so generous and decent that even in death she tried to do good: she donated her body to a medical school so that future doctors could learn from it and thus improve the world.

I share this with you because anyone who thinks that religion or spirituality are the only ways people can be good and moral should have known this wonderful woman and they'd realize people don't necessarily need to believe in anything but their ideals to be good. Almost every atheist I know of is very concerned with living a moral life and doing good in the world. I've met a good number of theists, people who follow a religion, who were sleezy and unscrupulous. I'll bet most of us have.

Please note that I am not saying I'm an atheist, I am discussing the ones I know.

[Samus]

 

Someone give an unbiased tl;dr please, that article too long..

Also even before I consider reading it.. cc, can you educate me about what atheists believe in (if anything) vs other religions?

Atheists follow no dogma. Some band together and make a dogma out of not believing in deity, I am told. All the ones I know (and that includes several family members) simply don't believe there is a deity or an afterlife, and they don't really care to discuss such things unless it comes up.

The most moral person I have ever known was an atheist, btw. She died with her children around her, truly at peace with her mortality, content that she had lived a full life, and confident that when her life ended there was no soul and no heaven, hell, God, or devil. She was so generous and decent that even in death she tried to do good: she donated her body to a medical school so that future doctors could learn from it and thus improve the world.

I share this with you because anyone who thinks that religion or spirituality are the only ways people can be good and moral should have known this wonderful woman and they'd realize people don't necessarily need to believe in anything but their ideals to be good. Almost every atheist I know of is very concerned with living a moral life and doing good in the world. I've met a good number of theists, people who follow a religion, who were sleezy and unscrupulous. I'll bet most of us have.

Please note that I am not saying I'm an atheist, I am discussing the ones I know.

 

interesting, thanks for sharing

[Kitkat16]

 

There were lots of problems with this article. I'm not keen on having a general religious argument over the internet as it is a waste of time. However I shall make a few points.

 

1. It assumes that religion is the cause of all evil in the world, and that the eradication of religion will lead to world peace and nobody using biological weapons. To which I can only reply that the Soviet Union was atheistic, and that it was also one of the most evil regimes in the history of the world. My point is not that atheism leads to Soviet-esque authoritarianism. I simply mean to say that atheism in itself does not solve the problems of the world. I can easily see the Soviet Union dropping nuclear weapons on Western cities were it not for the principle of mutually assured destruction. The real problem is not with religion, but with human beings. Atheism alone will not save us from destroying ourselves with modern technology.

 

2. I disagree with this quote from Bertrand Russell: "You will find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step towards the diminution of war, every step towards the better treatment of minorities, or every mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has ever been in the world has been consistently opposed by the organised Churches of the world."

 

Honestly, I've held a low opinion of Bertrand Russell ever since I read Why I Am Not A Christian (which was poorly argued) but this quote only lowers my estimation of him. It is an appalling generalisation. Christianity was an extraordinarily positive force in Roman society. For example, babies were not considered human until accepted by the paterfamilias of the family. Unwanted babies were left on rubbish heaps where birds would peck at their eyes and in particular baby girls were exposed. The Church prohibited the practice of exposure, and Christians were known for rescuing such children from the rubbish heaps and in the end succeeded in stopping the practice of exposure altogether. 

 

The evangelical church was also at the forefront of the abolition of the slave trade in the UK during the 19th century. Look up William Wilberforce and the Clapham Sect. The Clapham Sect were a group of Christians who advocated for the rights of indigenous peoples across the empire, introduced a minimum wage, passed laws prohibiting child labour, introduced the RSPCA for the protection of animals, introduced the concept of the 40 hour week, advocated for prison reform, and started schools. 

 

I could go on, but I really can't be bothered. There are hundreds of examples across history where the Christian Church has had an enormously positive influence on the world. To say otherwise is simply ignorant, and I can't be bothered dealing with bigots.

 

3. Harris' quote here: "No culture in human history ever suffered because its people became too reasonable or too desirous of having evidence in defense of their core beliefs." Lol. Look up the French Revolution, where shrines were literally set up to worship Reason (no, I am not exaggerating, there was a cult which worshipped the concept of reason) and where thousands were massacred via the guillotine. The Enlightenment was rationalism in a nutshell, and it led to atrocities beyond count.

 

There's much more I could say, but again I really can't be bothered engaging with this sort of crap, sorry.

[ccabal86]

I really shouldn't get involved into this thread. I seen people be very cruel and bias on both sides. But more so from the atheists. I went to a high school where the students were very open about what they believe. As the only person who wore a cross to my school. I'm a big enough guy that nobody tried bullying me, but there were groups of people in my school every time I saw the would shout hail Satan. Now, I know these people are atheists and they don't believe in Satan or God, so they did it for whatever there reason but tried to mostly ignore them. Then there were individuals who try to talk to me pacficly to put down and disprove my beliefs. I always was respectful and never really was one to argue unless it was friendly debating. Especially during that time where I was very much so still in my shell.

I find the topic interesting though.

I do find some individuals are very nice and not on a mission to disprove what I believe. Therefore regardless of what a person believes they should be taken by a case by case basis instead of painting them all with the same brush.

 

The people you met there might have been atheists, but there were also assholes, plain and simple. They would have probably been like that regardless of thier religion.

 

Now the thing is, it doesn't really matter what people believe in private, everyone is free to live their lives as they see fit. Unfortunately, it rarely ends there and it spills over into politics and policy. A state-wide ban on assisted suicide for example is often the direct result of actions by religious lobbyists ("only God may end life") and by that they force their beliefs on others that may not share them. If someone is religious and they wish to endure the suffering themselves should they be in that position one day, it's their choice. But to deny others the sought release from torment through a ban is nothing short of evil.