The WP Strident Atheists

Post Reply New Topic

Eh, I require applications. pgd has not applied, therefore he is not in. Like.... I don't know why people don't apply, because we are so cool here, but yeah....

Perhaps he is a Groucho Marxist - any group that would etc etc

"The world would not be in such a snarl, had Marx been Groucho instead of Karl" - Irving Berlin

Please tell me why the religious are so terrible that you need to form this faction against them.

Please tell me why the world is so terrible that you need to form factions anxious to escape it.

My intention was to see if this faction follows the same formula of past encounters with hypocritical atheists.

what is wrong with religion?

Is it because it is divides people and causes conflict? that is exactly what you are doing

Is it because it is intolerant of outside beliefs? Your entire motivation for this faction is your intolerance for other beliefs.

Is it a perceived lack of rationality? Religions are less irrational and more look at existence is a different way. If you insist that looking at things in this way is irrational, why is it irrational? Circular logic is generally the medium used to justify seeing religion as irrational. I.E.: "science is the only way to get any kind of answer. If you disagree with me, you must prove me wrong using science." Circular logic is not rational.

Is it the refusal to accept the possibility of being wrong? Most of you admitted that, if presented with evidence of a religion being right, you would immediately disregard said evidence.

My main criticism of atheism is that atheism generally becomes everything it seeks to stop.

That said, I have met atheists who didn't seem to care what I believed in. At least I think they were atheists. One said he was amish on the assumption that if bad Christians go to hell, bad amish go to japan. But they did and said things that suggested they were atheist. But the vast majority of atheists I've met have been extremely hostile towards religion and in doing so become the very thing they hate.

Ok, what is wrong with religion?

Well, actually, I would engage in your criticism of "rationality". That's not something I would generally seek to explain just to a criticism of whether religions are rational, but rather, I have attacked religion at various points using this ground for it. I mean, looking at things in "a different way" seems too relativist. The issue is that there are typical standards for proper beliefs including justification for them, coherence of them, non-ad hocness, adherence to Occam's razor, etc, and those grounds are the ones that it makes sense to criticize it on.

Y'know, religion refusing to admit it is wrong, when we are that certain that we are right, would actually be a good reason for engaging it.

Even further though, I don't actually think that the moral and spiritual teachings of Christianity make as much sense as you would think. That also goes for the other religions. I know that there are efforts by adherents to update the beliefs for their own lives, but honestly, religions tend to be one of the following: ad hoc, hypocritical, or morally absurd. Any of those three is to be attacked. And, moral absurdity is actually way too common anyway, whether it is the Catholic moral absurdities, or those of so many other theologies.

However, to go further, I know that I have personal reasons for distaste towards a lot of religious expression. Most people who have negative experiences with religious people end up with their own personal reason to oppose the matter. And well... I see a lot of religion as hypocritical, silly, and even something I would just oppose on the grounds of opposing a few members of that tradition, sort of a "get them back" kind of thing.(Like voting Republican if you are angry at your dad who is a Democrat) I don't even see that as really wrong either, as most people do have personal reasons for what they do and why.

Whats atheism have to do with it? All humans are hypocritical at times.


Whats good about it? Seriously. Give me an example of something good that religion has done in the last... 10 years, that humanism hasnt, cannot or will not do.



The moment we stated we had no beliefs we were told in no uncertain terms what out fate was. We were ostracised, divided. That is intolerance, even though from one instance to the next, we were the same people.
The real question is: why are you bothered by us congregating? Is forming social groups some special privilege of the religious? Are only you allowed to influence culture and society? Are your beliefs threatened? Why does an atheist group bother you?


How about proving me wrong without using science? Thats right. Get your fingers off the key board. No using plastic keys or silicon microchips. Might as well get your butt out of the ergonomically designed office chair too.

The labors of science have provided you with a wonderful life. You religious people have no sense of respect, no perspective.



No. We seek answers knowing we are going to be wrong sooner or later. Thats the whole basis of rationalism. We break our ideas against perception of reality so that we can form newer ideas that are closer to truth. This is more about you wanting to be right.

What is your god going to say when you are before him with these words? "Yeah, I thought a bit with that brain you gave me, then I decided I was right, and so I stopped. But the brains real nice, and if you want to give it to someone else, its almost mint condition."



A lovely straw man. How is it that a lack of something can seek anything? a-theism: without god. How is there any goal implied there? Now the strident atheists might have goals, but we had to form a group, you dont get that from pure atheism. Your claim is like saying the absence of light seeks to eliminate all color.



Sounds more like he was a technophile and a joker. We actually dont care what you believe either. We care that the tenets of your faith are overly concerned with what we believe. Or more correctly, that we dont believe what it wants us to.

Ooooooo... LOT to respond to.

First off, I would like to apologize if my last post came across as insulting as it was and is not my intention to insult anyone no matter how much or how little I disagree with them. I was hoping someone would respond with a given reason that I could examine and see if it was hypocritical, but since Fuzzy responded with a counter-question and I was fairly certain if I didn't respond I would just be ignored, I posted what I was trying to do and came across much more insulting than I wanted to. Do I blame Fuzzy for this? If Fuzzy had responded in the manner anticipated I would be in a stronger debate position. Fuzzy's response was good debate strategy. I cannot fault anyone for good strategy no matter how much it inconveniences me.

Master Jedi: You seem to hold no delusions that atheism is in fact an evangelical religion, at least as far as hard atheism goes and don't see evangelism as intolerance and thus being evangelical isn't hypocritical to you, that's a lot more than I can say for many of the atheists I've had the... experience of meeting. Pat yourself on the back.

However, I question the idea that atheists "don't discriminate". I've been insulted by atheists for believing differently than them. Atheists have killed people for and/or oppressed people because they believed differently than them. Have Christians done stupid violent things? Well, people claiming to be Christians definitely have, but since Jesus wanted us to stick to non-violent forms of resistance Christians can, if you'll excuse my interesting choice of words, wash their hands of it because they did something Jesus specifically told them not to do. The culture of insulting (and I don't mean criticizing, I mean insulting) religion among atheists suggests that religious people aren't real people and it's ok to hurt them. You seem to hold us responsible for what stupid people claiming to be affiliated with us do, but you have several times come across as very insulting towards religion. I'm not sure this was your intention, and your last response suggests it wasn't, but if you ask me it would be advantageous to tone down your outrage when dealing with religion because if we have to take responsibility for what stupid people do, so should you. Make it clear that even though you disagree with theists, it is not ok to hurt them physically or psychologically. Will that change how any given atheist acts? probably not. but it's the principle of the thing. Also, nobody has ever been converted by an insult.

Awesomelyglorious: I'll admit some of the religions I've studied were pretty ad hoc, but those were dead religions. I do not find Christianity ad hoc. Could you please explain why you think it is? (if indeed you do, and you weren't referring to another religion)

as for "a different way" I could go on a long quasi-solipsist rant that would eventually conclude that physical evidence is not needed for God because I have more reason to believe a creator God exists (to explain the origin of my consciousness) than I do to believe the physical word exists, but I want to save that thesis for later. point is that Atheism's argument for religion being irrational stems of the belief that the "rational" way to define your convictions is to take external forces that are dynamic and for all you know, may not even exist and make those your convictions. This doesn't strike me as rational. That's not to say external experiences are valueless, but they are the brick and mortar: they need a foundation.

setting aside for the moment wether revenge is moral, I question the idea of being hostile to a religion for revenge. would you be hostile to all (top of my head example) hockey fans because a hockey fan wronged you at some point in life?

Fuzzy:

That doesn't mean hypocrisy is acceptable.

I cannot name something that humanism "will not do" in any manner that will convince you because you already believe humanism can and will solve all the world's problems, or at least your statement implies something to that effect. Neither of us know what humanism is going to do. Humanism is a chariot with no reins. wherever the subconscious undercurrents of society will go, Humanism will follow. If those currents go to a dark place (i.e. "euthanizing" aspies), humanism will follow and insist that society's efforts are righteous and justified. You cannot have a dynamic moral code. It is fallacious.

It less bothers me and more strikes me as atheists behaving in a religious manner. I have met many atheists who where in denial that they treat atheism like a religion. I wanted to see if that was the case here.

Did I say science was evil and to be abhorred? HELL FREAKING NO!! ! I LOVE science. I just think there is more to the human destiny than what science says there is.

I was not making an accusation, I was asking a question. and I would appreciate it if you refrained of accusing me of not thinking because I think differently than you do.

That is why I waited until you formed a group to suggest that atheism is hypocritical: Your goals are as far as I can tell the goals of a religion. Whatever it is you are trying to prevent theists from doing you are moving closer and closer to doing yourself.

So you think evangelism is wrong then? the strident atheist's goal is a form of evangelism. In joining the strident atheists, you are being hypocritical.

As far as I can see, it is throughout the religion. After all, in order to explain evil, what is invoked is a magical tree with the ability to cause a person AND ALL DESCENDANTS to be cursed with sin, even though, an apparently omnipotent being would seem capable of reversing the issue for the later generations. In order to remove the evil from the world, we have to have a God who kills almost every single living thing on the planet, even though such a being would have means of persuasion well beyond what you or I could do. In order to save mankind from this God's own judgement, he has to incarnate himself and then sacrifice himself, even though more flexibility exists in most other frameworks to deal with crimes, including within US law. And, well, the temptations of the world are explained by a devil who has no rational reasons for being the evil person in this situation, as the position Satan had to move into requires extreme irrationality to move into that position, (he has no chance of winning and he has to know this) and when you combine this with the angels who many Christians believe fell into darkness with Satan, this becomes even more ridiculous. The test of Job seems an exercise in waste, as God has no real reason to form an agreement with Satan on the matter. The hardening of Pharaoh's heart really seems more like it is evil. Even further, a large number of supposed Messianic prophecies do not work. The shift in ethics between Christianity and Judaism has some degree of arbitrariness, as the very theological structure shifts significantly, but the rationales make little internal sense.(saying that Christ's atonement solves this doesn't impact the fact that the changes happen before the death of Christ) Finally, the issue of God's sinlessness and man's entire responsibility seems questionable given that classical theism(which is standard in Christian circles) has significant difficulties avoiding the conclusion of theological determinism given that God's foreknowledge, given that it includes a recognition of the consequences of all creative acts, includes the reality that God, if he impacts the right variables, can attain perhaps ANY kind of outcome he wants from reality. And well... the whole issues of salvation in Christian theology does not make sense, as the Christian has to assume that there is a "natural/neutral" position that mankind is driven to towards regarding God to exist, so that God is not responsible for how much distortion the original sin did, otherwise, God could easily make man more or less sinful by nature(he is omnipotent) and thus decrease the degree of sin, and even increase the number of people saved. I mean... perhaps you question all of my examples here, but I don't think they are ALL silly, as standard Christian rationales really do seem weak on these issues in my mind, and these include a lot of issues.

EDIT: Also to be fair, when I think of "ad hoc", I usually really only think of responses to the problem of evil, which, while they try to outline a logical possibility, are usually not very plausible, and pretty much just ad hoc. (without even entering the question on whether many of them would work on their own terms)


The problem is that you couldn't ever make your argument. You see, there are a large number of positions that do not include God, but that would allow for consciousness:
There is the oft-hated Idealism, which assumes that consciousness IS the basic building block, while material is not.
There are all sorts of other notions of spiritual beings as well, as God, has a lot of unnecessary baggage to make the point.

Even further, I would actually cleave closer to eliminative materialism than I would ever to the idealism. The brain and conscious experience do not to me seem as solid as many people do, but rather very wobbly. I would even claim to see the wobblings of the brain in my own life. I also know that scientists have observed all sorts of absurd conclusions that do seem to establish quite firmly that neurology is most likely responsible. I mean, some notion of substance dualism to me, at this point, seems to just be giving up on a hard problem.

Are you saying that atheism assumes the stability of the laws of nature? I don't see this as absurd. Taking these as basic, seems no worse than taking anything else. Even further, I actually don't believe in most notions of foundationalism much. I think they are kind of... well... old and dead philosophical concepts. In the end, no foundation can really be justified on its own terms, due to things like principle of sufficient reason being violated, or circularity.


Well, I am not sure that morality really figures much into something like this. I don't physically spit spit on religious people. Instead, I just show a greater willingness to argue a position because of an opposition to certain individuals. Given that the effects of my actions are not immoral as far as I can tell, my motivations are thus not that relevant, especially since in my mind, they are just a human silliness. I am not "hostile", I am argumentative. Also, it depends on the wrong, but yes, I might say mean things about hockey because of a hockey fan who wronged me. Why not? I associate the hockey with them on a psychological level, so unless I am being outlandishly cruel, expressing dislike for the sport is a perfectly acceptable way to express distaste for that hockey fan. In fact, you could even argue that this makes more sense, as a like of hockey is often not a position on truth-claims. That being said, I don't rely just on hatred for my position, but rather I use reasons.

Honestly, I don't really see most Christians as being different in why they are Christian. Most of them don't have any real reason, but rather, if you dug down to the core of it, it is really just because they have good experiences with their church, and were raised to be religious, outside of the more intellectual ones, any reasons given by them are smoke-screens. That's not surprising, however, it is worse than I am, as I have good reasons(in my mind) to oppose the religion, and this is not even talking about my personal experiences.


The problem is that in practice, Christianity hasn't shown itself as much better. Slavery was that belief of the South supported by a number of pastors. The Southern Baptists were even formed in part to support slavery. Even further, it is not as if fascism was raised up in the dens of godlessness, but rather Germany was the birth place of Lutheranism and Luther's own anti-semitism were summoned up for this cause. While some churchmen may have opposed the Nazis, it is clear that a great deal more did support.

Even further, given how easily Christian morality in the US is driven towards supporting policies without much connection to Christianity at all, such as seen with the US Republican party drives the point home even in our own lives. I mean, sure, there is a Bible, but it is a big book that few people care to read for understanding the truth of it, and for the most part, it is always read in favor of whatever society wants to support already. I mean, the book has been used to justify excesses of wealth, nationalism, revolution against Britain, support of Britain, anarchism, redistributionism, authority, anti-authority, moralism, degrees of anti-nomianism, etc.


I don't really see this. I suppose I have in the past, and depending on the form of humanism, I have different opinions.


Well, I am a minister for the first church of atheism. (Ok, the group is actually just an effort to get around marriage laws, not actually establish a religious life for people) That being said, I am unsure of your case. Atheists are not trying to establish a hegemonic political power, or even to create dogmatic ethical rules. I mean... I suppose we could argue that atheists often replace functions often assigned to religion with their own structures, but, I would also think more is necessary to be a religion. Religions have their soteriology, their eschatology, and even their dogmas, yet atheism is not really big on salvation, the end times, and it is relatively weak on dogmas as well. I suppose we could say that some atheists are dogmatic, but, I'd have to say that this is a failure on their part more than a trait of atheism.

So you think evangelism is wrong then? the strident atheist's goal is a form of evangelism. In joining the strident atheists, you are being hypocritical.[/quote]

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 30 Dec 2010, 9:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

I've been insulted by feminists for believing differently than them, and I consider myself a feminist. Insulting those who disagree with you has nothing to do with one's metaphysical mental framework.



Have any of them done so in the name of atheism? There have been secular governments which have killed and oppressed people in the name of the state, or in the name of 'the people,' but it's pretty rare for people to be killed in the name of a lack of belief. And it's pretty common for them to be killed for a lack of belief.
Statism, while not a religion per se, is a form of faith.



This is blatantly a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. If only good people are 'real' members of your faith, then why can't I claim the same for my beliefs? ie, 'Stalin wasn't a real atheist.'

From the outside looking in, I have to accept that someone who claims that 'Jesus Christ is their savior,' is a 'real' Christian, regardless of how they behave; likewise, I have to accept that someone who denies belief in all gods is an atheist.


There are a few high-profile people (notably Sam Harris wrt. Muslims) who do this, and it can be pretty awful. That said, when Catholic leaders (and I come from a Catholic family), both within and without the church heirarchy, claim that ordaining women to the priesthood is as bad as thousands of children having been sexually abused, they deserve to be insulted. Note that I am not claiming that you have said anything on that level.


Quite frankly, I do not see nearly enough of religious people seriously denouncing those who misbehave in the name of their religion. I don't see many Catholics (only ex-Catholics) denouncing the church's conspiracy to protect child molesters. I don't see many Mormons denouncing polygynists who marry off nearly illiterate daughters to men three times their age at the age of 14. I don't see many Evangelicals denouncing those who bomb abortion clinics,* and I don't see many theists of any stripe denouncing the religious coercion of cadets in the various military academies or in the services at large. You, and this time I do mean you in specific as well as Christians in general, just disown them and say that the people who do things like that 'aren't real Christians.'

I have to give the Muslims kudos here: I have heard plenty of Muslims denouncing terrorism and the suppression of women.

*at least, not without the caveat that 'they had it coming.'


Even though I disagree with theists, it is not ok to hurt them physically or psychologically.
However, having one's feelings hurt because one's worldview has been challenged does not count as psychological harm.


While I wouldn't use the term 'ad hoc,' one thing that I don't personally get about Christianity is the whole idea that punishing someone else for something that I supposedly did, somehow makes me less guilty. I mean, if I comitted a murder, I would not be less guilty of murder if the governor sent his daughter to prison instead of me.



No? It works. It works a hell of a lot better than all the praying anyone has ever done to any god that ever existed.


That would depend on the context: If I was harmed by a hockey fan during something specific to hockey and hockey fans, such as a hoodlum riot at a hockey game, then yes: I would look askance at hockey fans for the rest of my life.


This has already been thoroughly answered by AG, so I will just say: you imply that other religious frameworks do otherwise. This is not the case; religions have gone from supporting slavery to claiming credit for ending it, from opposing women's right to vote to claiming support for gaining it, and from opposing civil rights to claiming support for gaining them. Already you have some churches claiming that Christianity supports homosexuals and gay marriages, even while others work tooth and claw to deny any and all rights to gays; in 50 years, churches will claim that the entire gay rights movement was the idea of Christianity from the get-go.


You cannot have an absolute moral code; it is delusional.


It depends on the kind of evangelism you mean. I don't see anything wrong with Christians, or any other religious people, debating and arguing; I do see a problem with Christians going around telling people that they'll go to hell if they don't believe the same thing.
The strident atheists aren't handing out Chick tracts on streetcorners; quite frankly, to many theists, just saying, 'I am an atheist,' is considered strident.

I am joining

Awesomelyglorious:

Original sin is mentioned nowhere in the bible. As far as I can tell the idea comes from a few sentences written by paul, saying Adam brought sin into the world and Jesus took it out. But God says many MANY times that he doesn't punish the son for sins of the father. original sin is not Christian doctrine. I'm not delving any more into your wall of text because I've got a LOT to respond to, but I get the feeling that you may need to do more research on what is actually Christian doctrine.

But I will mention that I awnser the problem of evil with free will. A moral God would not deprive humanity of the right to make their own decisions. That must include the right to make bad decisions.

If you rely solely on external influences (by which I mean society, people, etc. not the laws of nature. I don't know how you can use the laws of nature to create a moral system unless it was something stupid like the old pagan religions) then you are not an individual: you are a puppet of the collective. That is why a moral foundation is needed. I have studied other religions and picked Christianity because it was most in-line with my foundation. You could argue that this is only so because I grew up in a christian family, but I would argue that arbitrary rejection of the status quo is no more free thinking than arbitrary acceptance: If I dismiss a religion solely because it is the status quo, I am still a puppet of the status quo.

I know that people have argued that Christianity supports things it doesn't, but the difference is that there is actual information to debate what is morally right or not: someone can be proven wrong.

imagine a world where scientific theories where debated with absolutely no data one way or the other. That is my perception of humanism. One of the biggest problems I have with atheism is that it has no moral compass. Everything is equally valid.

LKL:

They may not have done it in the name of atheism, but the fact that atheism has no convictions is the problem. If stalin was a member of a religion that said "Don't kill millions of people" he would not have killed millions of people. Because he was atheist, hey, no sin no foul right?

You make the error of assuming that all Christianity is is accepting Christ. This is not true. Christianity has a moral code that must be adhered to. You cannot murder people or have sex with children and be a Christian any more than you can eat meat and be a vegetarian.

Atheism however, has no moral code. You can murder millions of people and still be an atheist.

You are not less guilty. You are forgiven.

First off, you never argued why an absolute moral code is delusional. second, Christianity is more like an interpretable code.

No, you aren't.

Ok, fine!

Updated list:
Awesomelyglorious
Fuzzy
skafather84
Sand
Master_Pedant
DentArthurDent
Exclavius
Ergo Proxy
manifoldrob
Cheeseroyale34
LKL
MONKEY
Bethie
just_ben
MasterJedi
01001011

You mean it is not explicitly mentioned. That being said, original sin isn't really just "punishing the son for the sins of the father", but rather it is belief that Adam's sin tainted future generations by making them prone to sin, as such, I think you misrepresented original sin.

Finally, your comment "I get the feeling you may need to do more research on what is actually Christian doctrine", is wrong. Original sin is Christian doctrine in probably every major Western Church. It became the official position after Augustine's arguments with Pelagius, and stuck with the Catholic church while also generally embraced by the Reformers in the Reformation. I mean, I suppose you could be Eastern Orthodox and really mean that the proper doctrine is "Ancestral Sin", but that is so similar to Original Sin that the comment isn't really worth making. If you mean "Christian doctrine" as something outside of what the churches actually believe, then I don't know what to say, but I'd sooner just go with what they do believe.


Right... and I consider the argument weak, as I already noted:
"the Christian has to assume that there is a "natural/neutral" position that mankind is driven to towards regarding God to exist, so that God is not responsible for how much distortion the original sin did, otherwise, God could easily make man more or less sinful by nature(he is omnipotent) and thus decrease the degree of sin, and even increase the number of people saved"

I mean, you might say that I used the notion of "original sin", but, even if we disregard that, the basic point still stands. There is no a such thing as a neutral standpoint to choose from. God could have created people more or less willing to engage in sinful acts, because regardless of free will existing, human beings still find certain behaviors to make very little sense, so... why not have that be the sinful behaviors?


Well, I don't think most people propose that anyway. Most people also will uphold the conscience as well.



Well, the argument still isn't rebutted. The point being made about you growing up in a Christian household really is one that suggest that maybe you actually are just a puppet of these outside influences to begin with, with your conscience just being molded by Christianity, thus causing your conclusion to carry no more weight than anything else.

Even further, if you dismiss non-foundational moral beliefs due to being a puppet of the collective, then aren't you still a puppet of that status quo? After all, your dismissal of non-religion seems at odds with your defense of believing a status quo religion.


Well, ok? But many of the people who argue have been Christian. Whether Christianity supports those things is not something I would argue, especially given that there might not be an answer.


I am not sure that humanism must be relativism. From what I understand, most humanists put a lot of emphasis on empathy as data.