Fundamentalist atheists

Post Reply New Topic

Islam fits the bill perfectly.

ruveyn

", it is not based on atheism but usually dictatorship and oppressive ideals. So they don't count as an example."

Okay, what nonatheist part of "dictatorship and oppressive ideals " [THERE is a phrase if you will] singles out "religious affiliations" as a target for "oppressive ideals", rather than "interest in spoerts" pr "bridge club membership"?

Very true. But Islam doesn't speak for all religions. I was under the impression that Hinduism and Buddhism emphasize love and peace. And they aren't alone. It seems to me that neither religion nor atheism are inherently violent, but rather only specific ideological movements (atheist, such as with communism in practice, rather than the whole of atheism not related to those kinds of dictatorial regimes) or specific religions (Islam).

even the hindus and buddhists have their wars and shed their fair share of blood.

Indeed, cue Nanking massacre.

There is very unflattering history of Zen Buddhism and Japanese militarism from the time of the Meiji Restoration through the Second World War and the post-War period. The influence of state policy on Japanese Buddhism, and particularly the influence of Zen philosophy on the Japanese military was unquestionable. Japanese Zen establishment's dedicated support of the imperial war machine from the late 1800's through World War II. Buddhist teaching was used to encourage blind obedience, mindless killing, and total devotion to the emperor. Enemies of Japan were seen as "unruly heathens" who needed to be tamed and conquered or who would otherwise "interrupt the progress of humanity. Going to war, was called "religious conduct."

Two books depict that, Zen at War and Zen War Stories.
http://www.thezensite.com/ZenBookReview ... tories.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_at_War

That unfortunately ended in The Rape of Nanking - six-week period following the Japanese capture of the city of Nanjing on December 13, 1937. During this period, hundreds of thousands of civilians were murdered and many women were raped by soldiers of the Imperial Japanese Army.

I don't fit the "no true Soctsman" like you are claiming. Special pleading, possibly.

People who are atheists do commit crimes and can be hateful. I never said they were not. But solely atheism as a direct cause of violence seems extraordinarily rare. I asked for an example in the United States because I want to see if atheism by itself was the root cause. Communist countries make it harder to see if the atheism itself is causing violence and anger rather than nationalism, fear of persecution, or economy poverty. Not to mention that atheism is forced onto the people so they might very well be religious but cannot be public about it (such as China). That's why I said those atheists do not count. Because there are too many variables. How is that a logical fallacy? Please explain.

So you did not answer my question. Show me a recent example of angry and/or extremist atheist activity within two years in the United States. If you cannot provide an example then don't say things like:



Isn't there a valid reason you are worried and have to hope for the best?



I am guessing you are basing this off of the secular, communist countries and their lowered quality of life, correct?

Atheism by itself doesn't discourage belief. Many atheists I know do believe in something like a better world and fighting for "what is right". They just don't believe in God. I added this just in case you did not realize that.

It's more of an issue of militant anthropocentrism than science vs. religion. A more accurate label would be fundamentalist humanists than fundamentalist atheists. Buddhism and Jainism are atheistic religions, but they don't share the anthropocentric worldview that secular humanists have adopted. What makes them fundamentalists is that, like their superstitious counterparts, they exhibit a black and white mentality and anti-intellectualism that prevents them from having a realistic worldview, and flat out deny any scientific/historical evidence that contradicts their beliefs.

Consider the notion that the world would be better off without religion. It supposes that religion is the main source of conflict and ignorance in the world. But the truth is that of the 1700 documented wars in human history, only 123 could be called religious. Modern science has further shown that humans by nature aren't very good at empathizing with other people who do not belong to one's self-identified group. Even without any deliberate indoctrination, humans would still be distrustful, even hostile, towards outsiders, because xenophobia is simply part of our evolutionary programming. Yet in spite of these facts, humanists assert that they are the exception--they are above the worst aspects of human nature, that they are freethinking rationalists who would never fall into the sort of primitive groupthink and genocidal behavior associated with religious belief. Yet the communist revolutions of the twentieth century refute this notion entirely. In the absence of religion they found something else to BELIEVE in. In the absence of any religious figureheads, they aligned themselves with secular demagogues like Stalin and Jim Jones (believe it or not, the latter was also a militant atheist/communist). Even lesser-known secular ideologies like Objectivism are famous for their strict dogma and devotion to their leaders. In spite of these refutations, humanist thinkers like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris (who has advocated killing people because of their beliefs; even nuking the Middle East) assert that this sort of fanaticism is religious in nature, not that fanaticism is a nature unto itself. For a group of people that claims to value science, they certainly don't seem to take a lot of the facts seriously.

Speaking of which, the scientific worldview that humanists champion as the basis of an ideal moral code sounds good in theory, but is not very feasible in practice because (as I have said before) human values dictate scientific study, not the other way around. Think of all the things science has given us to make our lives easier, and then think of all the ways science has made it easier to kill people. Science is neither good nor evil, it is simply a means to an end.

Perhaps what the humanists mean is to have an empirical worldview--create a worldview based on evidence and not faith. Well, there's a problem with the way that fundamentalist humanists interpret the evidence, especially when it comes to their perceptions of religious people. If you use anecdotal evidence in order to form generalizations and stereotypes about entire groups of people, you aren't going to have a very realistic worldview. Just because some Christians do not recognize the theory of evolution doesn't mean they are all a bunch of anti-intellectual philistines. Just because a few Muslims blow themselves up (why Sam Harris believes we should nuke the Middle East) doesn't make Islam a religion of terrorism.

Lastly, there is the way that a lot of humanists cite history as justifying their moral superiority over religion--an interpretation of history that is largely based on lies, exaggerations, scapegoating, romanticism, logical fallacies, even occultism. This is the view of history that unjustly blames religion (and specifically Christianity) for all of the problems that plagued the western world between the fall of the Roman Empire and The Enlightenment. It alleges that religion was the cause of a great social regression known as the Dark Ages that set back scientific progress about a thousand years and created a culture of ignorance and superstition, while espousing a romantic, even reactionary, view of the Greek, Roman, and Egyptian societies whose ancient wisdom was lost when Catholic church burned the Library of Alexandria because it considered the books it contained to be heretical. The fact is that modern medieval scholars no longer view the middle ages as a period of scientific and social regress. Even during the time of Antiquity, scientific study was funded through patronage. The Romans and the Greeks actually valued science less than the early Christians, as their worldview was one of fatalism and destiny and even more superstitious, whereas the Christians believed that human effort could guide society. And the Egyptians regularly attempted sorcery and human sacrifice to bend the will of the gods in their favor. The Greeks and Romans also had no social welfare programs, regularly practiced infanticide and subjugated women for purely sexist reasons, and although their sexual norms tolerated homosexuality, they also tolerated (if not encouraged) rape and pedophilia, and their ideal form of entertainment involved watching people fight to the death or get eaten alive by animals. As for the Library of Alexandria, I doubt it contained anything of real value. I doubt there was an ancient race of scientific supermen who discovered space travel two thousand years in advance, yet weren't smart enough to figure out an easier way to copy all of their books. The fact is that there never was a great regression after the fall of Rome. There never were any Dark Ages. The lack of scientific progress up until the Enlightenment was more of an issue of literacy and communication. It was because of the printing press and the subsequent increase in literacy that allowed for the explosion in scientific advances, not because of the declining influence of religion.

Another more recent humanistic interpretation of history is the Christ-myth theory. It supposes that the historical Jesus never existed. Not that he wasn't the Son of God, but that he did not even exist as a historical figure. It's a theory that most biblical scholars find absurd, even the secular ones, but has surprisingly gained popularity among circles of so-called "rationalists." I doubt this theory has gained acceptance based on the evidence supporting it (there is none). It has only gained acceptance because it justifies the fundamentalist humanists' presumptions about religion being nothing but a tool to control people.

So I hope everyone can see why one might accuse an atheist of being a fundamentalist. I know most aren't like this, but some are.

Last edited by TheSnarkKnight on 13 Aug 2011, 7:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

or maybe.... false charge of fallacy.


Yeah, like that would benefit your position somehow.

And before you replying as I can expect a possible fallacy charge: I really don't care and I don't take it seriously, the accusation some give towards their opponent (or me for that matter) of fallacies, given that, generally, they use whatever interprepation of a fallacy they can get, to support their own bias and argument and as a means to try to dismiss their opponent. Not to mention this leading towards the fallacy fallacy. Sometimes (or perhaps most) on internet forums this is something to lol about. (In other words, fallacy charges are many times questionable and should not be taken that seriously [misinterpretation and misuse is not rare], especially when the problem is communicaction)


As for my position, on militant atheists or "new" atheists, meh...... The reality of the universe, which is the subject is about is independent on how theists (or some theists) and how atheists (or some atheits) are.

And the history example you provided, I don't see the relevance, but it's something that theists can use to attack the "militant atheists".


What is a good belief and what is a bad belief, and what is this better chance? To correspond with facts or is it utility or is it something else?

Hello, youngsters!

Have any of you ever heard of the Soviet Union or any of the other Marxist-Leninist regimes that controlled various parts of Eurasia during the 20th century?



I think they might qualify as fundamentalist atheists.

They certainly destroyed a lot of churches and killed a fair few religious folk.

First of all, a lot of "fundamentalist theism" is actually just greed, nationalism, racism or some other form of hatred/need to conquer in disguise. Joan of Arc used God as an excuse to rid France of the English (not saying she was a bad person, but still, it was a good excuse). Many Muslim nations have used God as an excuse to attack Israel (and vice-versa). The Crusades used religion as an excuse to wrest land from the Arabs, who had, originally, wrested it from the Christians for the same reason. the Inquisition used God as an excuse to feed power-hungry clergymen.

But it's fair to say that, if suddenly everyone were an atheist, a lot of these sorts of conflicts would still happen. Instead the excuse might be "trade rights," or "race," or some other fabrication. Therefore, I believe theists are unfairly maligned for "causing" historical conflicts, because, historically speaking, a large chunk of wars latched on to the most convenient excuse available. In other words, most people in recorded history adhered to a religion, and there were many wars... but that doesn't mean wars or violence are, necessarily, the product of religion. I believe they are the product of idiots who, when deprived of the religion excuse, will simply move on to something else convenient. Maybe we'll see wars started to "punish polluters" (we've already seen some eco-terrorism) or wars started to "convert the masses from the idiocy of religion" (oh wait... Communism already did that one...), or punish the "patriarchal imperialist regimes" for perceived mistreatment of women.

So your saying that when the league of militant atheists burns down a church and shoots the priest we cannot say that it is related to atheism?

There is no major religion exempt.

Of course is is related to atheism. But that example of fundamental atheist activity was over two hundred years ago and did not happen in the United States. I want a recent example in the United States within two years, why cannot you provide one?

Here, I will provide one example of fundamental Christian violence and anger within two years. There are lots more examples but they are older so they do not qualify:

The Murder and Attempted Murder of an Abortion Doctor

And don't say that they aren't "true" Christians and that true Christians would not do that. Remember, that is the no Scotsman fallacy.

Their own ignorant conflation of "strong atheist" with "atheist", proper,
is what leads to so damned many messenger-bag-carrying-Starbucks-drinking hipster ATHEISTS declaring themselves "agnostics" in the first place.

I've yet to meet someone describing themselves as agnostic, full stop, who was actually an agnostic, merely:

1. Obstinate Theological Non-cognitivists
2. Atheists who don't know what "atheism" actually means

Last edited by ValentineWiggin on 11 Aug 2011, 2:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

No, we can say it is related to anti-theism.

There are no acts, violent or otherwise, related to a NON-belief,
merely an affirmative one, or opposition to an affirmative one.
To assert ACTS are resultant of inherently-PASSIVE states of mind is a bit non-sensical.

It is amazing when you consider the awful double standards there are regarding this.

Take your "militant" or "fundamentalist" atheists, like Dawkings. OMG he wrote books in which he says evolution is scientific fact! That's so awful.

Now take your militant religious people. Yes, those guys bombing abortion clinics.