The Evangelical Atheist

[spidergoat]

One could argue that the problem isn't atheism at all, but rather religion and ideology.

[S.A.M.]

One could argue that the problem isn't atheism at all, but rather religion and ideology.

Clearly we all belong in the matrix.

http://collabatwork.com/blog/wp-cont...-blue-pill.jpg

[spidergoat]

I don't know what that means.

[S.A.M.]

I don't know what that means.

Reality is too much?

a future in which reality perceived by humans is actually the Matrix, a simulated reality created by sentient machines in order to pacify and subdue the human population while their bodies' heat and electrical activity are used as an energy source.

[spidergoat]

I still don't get it. I mean, I understand the concept of the matrix, but how does that relate?

[S.A.M.]

I still don't get it. I mean, I understand the concept of the matrix, but how does that relate?

If you delete religion and ideology, you're better off in simulated reality.

[iceaura]

If you delete religion and ideology, you're better off in simulated reality.

How about if we delete government-backed theism and coerced superstitions ? Is our reality then so bleak ?

[S.A.M.]

How about if we delete government-backed theism and coerced superstitions ? Is our reality then so bleak ?

Based on social trends, there's always virtual reality.

[spidergoat]

If you delete religion and ideology, you're better off in simulated reality.

That is quite an interesting statement. Why is a simulation better than a reality with no religion?

Secondarily, atheism says nothing about wanting to rid the world of religion. It's only a personal disbelief in a certain kind of myth.

[Turduckin]

btw: Fraggle does not speak for science, atheism, or secular intellectual positions in general, when he rejects spirituality and religion along with deity. That's his own take on a multi-faceted and complex issue. Meanwhile: You seem to have taken from the quoted statement almost the opposite of its apparent meaning. The rejection of claims of absolute knowledge, the assertion that all knowledge is contingent and everyone must demonstrate at least consiistency with evidence, is the major point of it.

To assert that something cannot exist simply because there is no evidence for its existence, it itself an absolutist position even within the sandbox of science. (Absinthe of proof isn't proof of absinthe.) If it escapes into the larger world of human experience, its equivilent to any other dogma and should be dealt with as such.

Why didn't I take the blue pill.

[spidergoat]

There are degrees of probability, hence the FSM analogy. Even Dawkins acknowledges this rather trivial point that religious people never fail to point out- there is the slightest possibility of even the most unlikely things. There is evidence against the God hypothesis, and no evidence for it (apart from necessarily suspect personal anecdotes).

[S.A.M.]

That is quite an interesting statement. Why is a simulation better than a reality with no religion?

I don't know, do you?

I'm just describing what I see.

Secondarily, atheism says nothing about wanting to rid the world of religion. It's only a personal disbelief in a certain kind of myth.

Yeah right. Hence this topic.

[iceaura]

To assert that something cannot exist simply because there is no evidence for its existence, it itself an absolutist position even within the sandbox of science.

And since no one with any sense - certainly none of the people in this discussion here, or Richard Dawkins, or anyone else with credibility - does that, we don't have to worry about such foolishness and can go back to our discussion of evangelical atheism.

I'm just describing what I see.

Seeing what you describe, as well, it seems.

[Turduckin]

The context of that quote, and the nature of Cromwell's own beliefs and actions, are enlightening in this context. As with other religious fundies, he did not recognize the effects of the affliction in himself..

You got the point. I was going to mention the multiple levels of irony this morning, but I had to get to work.

Next is the issue that not all fundies are religious (or even theistic).

[spidergoat]

I don't know, do you?

I'm just describing what I see.

It seems to me theism describes the Matrix model more faithfully, which is probably why the movie seems to appeal to my religious friends much more than me. You see, Theism describes another reality, the afterlife, in which physicality is an illusion, and anything can happen.

Atheism is a model in which the natural world is all there is.

Yeah right. Hence this topic.

Perhaps atheism is only percieved as evangelical because we are reacting to the imposition of religion on us. I don't see atheists standing on street corners handing out tracts.

[S.A.M.]

It seems to me theism describes the Matrix model more faithfully, which is probably why the movie seems to appeal to my religious friends much more than me. You see, Theism describes another reality, the afterlife, in which physicality is an illusion, and anything can happen.

Atheism is a model in which the natural world is all there is.

And yet secular societies are more escapist, less community and other-oriented.

Perhaps atheism is only percieved as evangelical because we are reacting to the imposition of religion on us. I don't see atheists standing on street corners handing out tracts.

Maybe you're not hitting the right street corners.

http://www.labonnemusique.com/blog/b...mutforsmut.jpg

Do you know even romance novels have atheists as heroes and heroines these days? And thats Victorian historicals!

[spidergoat]

And yet secular societies are more escapist, less community and other-oriented.

Going to church isn't escapist? Drinking in a bar is far more real.

I acknowledge that a shared mythology creates a more coherent community life, that's probably the function of religion. The advantage of this seems to break down when these communities react to other communities with contradictory myths.

[iceaura]

And yet secular societies are more escapist, less community and other-oriented.

An example of seeing what you describe.

Including the apparent assumption that escapism and commnity/ other-orientation are in opposite directions on one scale.

I've seen quite a bit of community-oriented escapism, most of it religious in implementation. Ever been to a revival meeting in a town without a sewer treatment plant ?

[Turduckin]

There are degrees of probability, hence the FSM analogy. Even Dawkins acknowledges this rather trivial point that religious people never fail to point out- there is the slightest possibility of even the most unlikely things. There is evidence against the God hypothesis, and no evidence for it (apart from necessarily suspect personal anecdotes).

I'm arguing that its a dogmatic form of arrogance to believe that science has anything to say on the matter - pro OR con. I'll agree with Dawkins insofar as using Bayes theorem to justify the existence of God is ridiculous. I'm against the whole movement within Christianity to warp science into proving the existence of God (An impossiblility). But I'm equally against the movement among those within the scientific community who would warp sience in an attempt to disprove the existence of God (a more impossible impossibility).

In light of what arrogant people can accomplish on both sides of the divide, I don't think the point is trivial. It's the one piece of ground we have that both sides could stand on.

[iceaura]

I'm arguing that its a dogmatic form of arrogance to believe that science has anything to say on the matter - pro OR con.

It's not a dogmatic form of arrogance to believe that science has quite a bit to say about some of the claims for deity advanced by theists over the years

such as the claim that without deity nothing could have come alive, or the claim that because deity is perfect the orbits of the planets must be perfect circles, or the claim that the order of human society and the nature of human character is specified by the desires of a deity.

And such claims are the common venue of intrusions by people wielding "science" in their arguments.

It is a dogmatic form of arrogance, on the other hand, to say that such and such a realm of human understanding is forever off limits to any contribution by scientific methods or arguments. Tht remains to be seen - in all cases.