A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"

I have seen some posters here that were objective about their non belief and about religion in general, that get accused of being militant, so I am at a loss for a solution to this quagmire.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Faulty generalizations once again. Religious people's ancestors also include individuals like Descartes, Isaac Newton, Leibniz and Lord Kelvin. Even regarding Darwin, just historically, many religious people welcomed his theories and most were unmoved one way or another. (There's a large literature on the reception of Darwin's theories in the 19th century.)

And off we go on another of Sciforums' idiot left-political rants in which perceived political enemies become little more than caricatures, card-board targets to be filled full of righteous bullets.

Like Tiassa, maybe you need to look in the mirror. You're another one who seems to be a mirror image of the haters that you hate so passionately.

If you intend to argue instead of simply "venting", then argue well.

Don't just preach to the militant atheist fringe that already agrees with all of your opinions. Don't reduce everything and everyone to good-guys and bad-guys, to caricatures and stereotypes.

(Life is a bit more complicated than a video-game.)

Learn something about religion. Try to better understand its scope and what it actually encompasses. Learn about its history and about the complexity of its interactions with the larger culture surrounding it, including science. There's a vast and fascinating literature on that.

Instead of condemning religion in general, pick out particular religious beliefs and practices that you disagree with and then try to craft persuasive explanations for why you feel as you do. Don't imagine that just because the thing you don't like has something to do with "religion", that all religion and all religious people must be aware of it, agree with it and somehow be guilty of the same thing. (That's just stupid.)

Put some effort into focusing your arguments more precisely on targets that might arguably deserve your wrath. Don't just fire hysterically in all directions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well hopefully this old dog is never to old to relearn! I am open so teach me something because right now I am torn between Aqueous' argument and Yazata's argument.

 

I would say "to each their own". If someone believes something different from you, that's just fine. Unless they are somehow infringing on your rights, then leave them to their own opinions. When one starts infringing on another's rights just because of a difference of opinion, then that one needs to be held accountable and made to understand that such behavior is unacceptable for any reason, excluding imprisonment of those guilty of criminal behavior.

 

I think that it is about religion, but the possibility of intelligent and dispassionate discussion of the phenomena of religion and religiosity is being hijacked and distorted pretty grievously, by human psychology.

The thing is, people care about religion. They care very much.

For many religious people, religion symbolizes their highest and most cherished values. They have large parts of their identities invested in it, defined in its terms. And those identities, those values, hopes and dreams, are what many people feel most inclined to fight to protect from perceived threats real or imagined.

While I think that most atheists are highly secular and don't care a whole lot about religion one way or the other, there does seem to be a minority of atheists who care about religion with a deep and violent passion. They are often just as passionate about religion as the more virulent "religionist", except that for these atheists, religion symbolizes everything that they hate, loathe and oppose.

It's religiosity turned upside down, on its head. I think that we see expressions of it here in this thread.

Discussion about politics seems to me to be even more vulnerable to subversion by similar psychological forces. (In the contemporary world, politics is the new religion for many people, the repository for their values, hopes and dreams, a major foundation of their self-identities.)

It seems that political conversation, especially by anonymous voices on the internet, is almost never intelligent or dispassionate. There's rarely any attempt to stand back and to look at things objectively. (We might see that when Westerners are discussing the politics surrounding the Thai monarchy or something distant and alien like that, but not when they are discussing their own 'hot button' issues.) People almost immediately choose up sides and start ridiculing, caricaturizing and smiting perceived enemies right and left.

I'm entirely serious when I say that both religion (including atheism in its anti-religion form) and politics can sometimes be occasions for the same kind of defensive psychological group-solidarity dynamic that we see displayed more full-frontally with gang-bangers, killing perceived enemies because they were wearing the wrong color clothing.

 

Chill out you militant atheist types.!!!

Besides... its not as if all "superstitious-believer-types" actualy let ther beliefs affect ther lives... an except on Sunday (incert other holey days) live as rational thankin people.!!!

After all... when kids believe in Santa its fun to go along wit it an share in ther excitment of magical-like stuff... so for the adult believer types who do have the need to share ther superstition as if its fact... jus thank of them as adults who still believe in Santa... an share in ther joy.!!!

In Conclusion:::

In the hands of responsible adults... whats so bad wit bein mor supportive of ignorance.!!!

 

Nothing More Than the Obvious

It should respect the virtues of atheism.

Among our evangelical atheistic cadre, there is no connection to other people. This can become a psychological dysfunction, and in some cases it already is.

I would ask you to please consider a Christian. Let's go with Mike Huckabee, since I've already used him as an example. He identifies as a Christian; part of his politic demands accommodation of his outlook according to that Christianity. There are any number of legitimate criticisms we could make about how his identity as a Christian is incongrous unto itself.

Okay, now change subjects for a moment; we will merge the two shortly.

I want you to imagine, please, that you are sitting around with a Christian whose faith is wavering. They're asking you about the world, about morality, about simple concepts like right and wrong.

Take a look at Spidergoat's point: "trying to convert the religious over to reason".

If you go back in the Religion archives, you'll find the depth of my loathing for institutional religion and gods of faith. Balerion's early response to this thread reminds that in order to morally satiate the atheistic portion of our membership, I should never have tried to move on to something more functional in my relationships with religious people in the world.

So here we come to the question. If Spidergoat's outlook on converting the religious to reason is fair—and I generally think it is—that sense of reason is pervasive, not selective.

We have Christians in this country advocating un-Christian behavior. One can say what they want about my focus on theAmerican Gay Fray, which history will show ended in Utah in December, 2013. But what about the Republicans who claim Christian faith means we shouldn't feed the hungry?

Now here's where the whole thing gets sticky in the question of atheism.

Now, I am among the plenty who would criticize such an identification of Christian faith. Our atheists at Sciforums would, seemingly disagree; they have expressed that there is no connection between the faith itself and the faith identity.

Furthermore, notice the juxtaposition; Huckabee's faith is open to criticism at all behavioral levels it applies to.

This is the reason our atheists want to reserve their atheism to the mere proposition. While irrational religion is open to criticism for hypocritical expressions in downticket considerations, the rational rejection of that theistic presumption ends right there; you'll note that in both principle and example, the rational atheist has no concomitant obligation to actually be rational.

Functionally, this is problematic, much like a man masturbating furiously and wondering why his wife isn't getting pregnant. (Hint: He's doing it wrong if the question is knocking up his wife. If he leaves the question at simply getting off, he's doing just fine.)

Thus, we have a problem:

(1) Atheist rejects irrational belief in God, criticizes downticket decisions derived from that irrationality.

(2) Atheist supports other downticket irrationality, sees no obligation to be rational against his or her own emotions.​

If the goal is, as we might derive from Spidergoat, converting religious people to reason, atheists evading the downticket obligations are only inhibiting that progress.

Still, though, no matter how many "atheists" might buy into that problematic process, the problem is not allowed to reflect on those who describe themselves as atheists. In other words, they demand of others what they refuse to give themselves.

And as to all this rational thinking? It would be nice to see some evidence of it. Take Balerion's tinfoil rants as an example. If he tried some rational thinking instead of letting his emotions drag him along like the Griswolds' dog, he might actually come up with a post actually worth responding to. Nonetheless, any response I give him that has to do with logic and reason will find its brains dashed against the wall of his religion. Indeed—

"What bigotry? Support your bullshit accusations with citation, please."​

—he makes an impossible request, since rational argument takes a back seat to emotionally-driven hissy-cows. We see it in his tit-for-tat defense of Pastafarian bigotry; we see it in his early response to this thread. And then he wants to fisk posts in order to bog down this discussion in reiterations of what has already been said, because it's easier than acutaly applying some rational context of reading comprehension?

No, really, try this one on:

"Your hypocrisy is astounding, T. Seriously, calling someone else a wannabe sociopath and criticizing their lack of sympathy while shit like that came out of your own mouth barely a week ago takes balls. Huge ones. Like, the kind rednecks hang from their pickups."​

I certainly understand his outrage, but it is irrational.

The people of Seattle, just as the folks in Albequerque are about to experience, and Americans in cities and small towns across the nation have been through, find themselves in a difficult situation in which the police department is allowed to commit murder with impunity. The day that happened, every police officer in the state of Washington became a mortal threat to any given individual.

So it's sort of the same reason I reject SYG laws. If the people of Seattle threw down and mopped SPD off the face of the Earth, that would be horrifying. But the question of whether it is right or wrong? That's in the eye of the beholder. Does one believe that proactive self defense is legitimate? Then yes, wiping out the Seattle Police Department would be acceptable. Does one reject such violence? Then no, they cannot endorse such an outcome.

As much as he wants to lob some hissy-cows over my statement, his complaint is only valid if we restrict our view of history to only the things he wants us to think about, instead of the actual established record.

Something about the question of reason and irrationality goes here.

My outlook is consistent with the logic I've expressed over the years; that our neighbor wishes to overlook this fact should be his problem, not the rest of ours.

Or we might consider:

No, your sin is that you're full of shit. This is just another vapid, half-assed "Look at me" moments, where you mete out judgment on everyone without getting your hands dirty with reasoned arguments or supporting citations. You have zero interest in actually having a discussion--otherwise you might have responded to what Grumpy actually said rather than pulling out Stock Response #2 by calling him a bigot, and why you won't even address Aqueous Id's post.​

Should I really have to point our neighbor back to the posts preceding the one he complains about? Or can we reasonably expect a rational consideration to respect the established context?

And as I noted in the discussion about my sentiments regarding the police, "I don't want to live in that kind of society. But that's what I get if I accept certain arguments in that public policy debate." And what is our neighbor's obligation to consider that statement? None, apparently.

Again, a question of reason and irrationality.

After all, only he knows what other people think. This is his version of rational discourse.

And he wants me to respond to Aqueous Id? Very well: Sorry, AI, but after your fuckup in the police discussion—

"At the same time you have recently surprised me with a few blanket statements (atheists are morons, cops are corrupt) which to me are incongruent with that sense of justice, in that it's unjust in these cases to generalize to a stereotype." (Boldface accent added)​

—I am unsure what part of the post Balerion refers to deserves rational consideration, given its apparent basis in histrionic misinterpretation.

So, what is my rational obligation to honor other people's irrational projections?

As I see it, if this is a coincidence of identity labels in rational people, it is hard to understand why they need such remedial instruction in logic.

Or we might consider—

"I'm stunned that I'm going to the bother of writing this, honestly. Even if you do reply, it won't be anything more than the baseless accusations of bigotry and ignorance you're famous for. More likely, you won't respond at all, because as I said, for you, this isn't about the discussion. It's about taking weak-ass pot shots at an idea that frightens you. You're not even really upset about the alleged bigotry--it's just an empty insult, after all, one you refuse to substantiate with citation or argument--and no one in their right mind would call others a bigot, or talk of banging their fists on the table while having themselves regularly made statements such as this:"​

—whether or not our neighbor accounts for history, or just desperately wants something to fight about.

The thing is that Mississippi, as a state, keeps doing this sort of thing. There is an historical reason the Christian betrayal of Christ in Mississippi, that pursues a hateful and supremacist outcome, is not surprising. One of the more recent examples is when the Bryant administration signed TRAP laws, and instead of giving the usual platitudes about women's health, actually bragged that they were trying to end abortion in Mississippi. To the one, when you do that, you're definitely going to lose in court. To the other, that outcome also just feeds the sense of oppression; how dare those courts hate Christians so much!

Nothing new here, compared to history. But apparently our neighbor has some problem with that assessment, even if he can't express himself coherently on that count.

So let us come back to your question: What do I want the conversation to look like?

Well, hey, someone asks me the basis of my moral outlook, I talk about the myth of Sisyphus; indeed, it is canonical to me that, "One must imagine Sisyphus happy". Or, how many times do I raise the question of a "dialectic of neurosis"? Furthermore, it is well-established that I believe that "nothing ever begins", a seemingly irrational argument until one acknowledges the presence of metaphor and explores the context. Indeed, this one could be of functional value to any number of my atheistic neighbors at Sciforums, except that it would mitigate a certain portion of culpability among current generations of religious people, a prospect that seems unacceptable to our community's evangelical atheistic bloc.

You ask me what I want from the conversation? I want it to actually be functionally useful, something more than a whine and cheese session for people who consider themselves too dignified to actually be supremacists. Yes, we know there is a shit-ton of problems in our religious communities. And, yes, we know these problems affect other people's lives.

So what do we, as people in general, want?

What does an atheist want?

Consider that oddball thread about "What will we replace religion with?"

Consider some of the answers:

• Aqueous Id: The goal then is to stamp out misery and bring literacy. Once that's in place I would expect all religions to be replaced by charitable organizations. There wouldn't need to be any cosmic philosophy since that's all covered in science class, which all people would receive as part of their basic education."

• (Q): "How about reality? At the very least, it's a start."

• Cris: "There is no need to replace religion with anything. It fullfils no purpose and has no value. Simply ignore it and let it die and we can continue quite happily without its irrelevance."​

Given that the actual answer is that we won't be "replacing religion", but, rather, "replacing current religions", all of these answers are more about personal desire than any rational consideration of the issue.

No, really: Consider the proposition of human society without metaphor.

It's not going to happen.

The functional need is to objectively identify the purposes of religion, objectively identify what can be identified of abstract morality, and combine the two. The idea that there is an objective moral propriety? It's a valid proposition that presently transcends human capability to settle; at the moment, we literally are incapable of translating enough influencing factors to a mathematical or logical model—there are simply too many variables and not enough data to resolve them.

Yet pursuit of that abstraction would, at the very least, be constructive.

Furthermore, the answers from our neighbors about replacing religion demonstrate the lack of pathos I have accused. They apparently have no idea what such a proposition means compared to the human psyche, and as near as anyone can tell, they don't actually care.

In the end, it looks like the old job-security argument. That is, there is a reason one is compelled to speak out, but one has no desire to settle that question, because then they would have to ... what? ... think? ... stop speaking out on this particular issue because it's settled? As I once noted in response to Lindy West, regarding "feminism": "You make an excellent role model for my daughter: That, dear, is an example of how to make things worse."

It's not that I disdain feminism in the slightest. Rather, I would prefer Ms. West stop making it harder for my daughter to recognize her full potential in our human endeavor. That is to say, she's become part of the problem. And as I noted then, "I suppose that’s nice job security, if you can get it."

It's one thing to complain about the problems in the world. But, really, if those complaints actually disdain solutions, they become part of the problem.

So what do I want from the conversation? Nothing more than the rational potential to reasonably and responsibly address the problems facing the human endeavor as a result of obsolete and ignorant religious beliefs.

And this is enough to make me an enemy in the eyes of some of our community's atheists.

Life goes on. And it will be harder on victims of religious injustice for the sake of our neighbors' unproductive attitudes. The longer these problems persist, the more people will be hurt.

So it's my turn to ask: What does any atheist want from the conversation?

If Spidergoat's outlook, for instance, has any propriety among his atheist neighbors, one really does start to wonder where those rational arguments are hiding.

 

Tiassa, I respect you a lot but that is one long rambling post. This seems to be your point:

"What does any atheist want from the conversation?"

An end to the persecution and demonisation of women and minorities.
An agreement that religion will stay out of public policy making.
Religionists should not stop the teaching of truth nor encourage the teaching of lies.
An end to the indoctrination of children.
Equal treatment for everyone regardless of sex, colour, religion or sexuality.

There's probably some other stuff, but Aqueous will be along shortly and he's much better than me at this sort of thing.

 

(Insert Title Here)

All admirable propositions that I support.

My point, however, is that certain behavior is unproductive toward those goals, and I really do think there is too much of that excrement smeared all over the walls. But, as we see, such a consideration is simply unacceptable to some of our neighbors.

It's the same reason I don't support "men's rights" groups, despite the validity of certain questions about sex relations and the law. Those groups tend to be more about male supremacy than anything else.

It's the same reason feminists don't have my blanket support; some are counterproductive, and the label of "feminism" doesn't pass muster. After all, some only reinforce the negative stereotypes about women.

When it comes to the question of religion causing harm in people's lives, my stance is clear. When it comes to the question of supremacism, so also is my outlook unquestionably clear.

 

Sorcerer, truth be told, should that be provided to anyone regardless of belief (again, so long as it does not impinge on the freedoms of another)? Wasn't that one of the founding principles of the USA:

I mean... yeah, sounds to me the "live and let live" approach is what SHOULD be going on. Separation of church and state and all that.

Now, yeah, I see some serious issues... like how a lot of our southern brethren are removing the ideas of evolution and other proven facts from science courses and replacing them with "and this is the jesusaurs rex" rendition of creation... but who's to say creation and evolution cannot go hand in hand? Maybe some greater power flicked a marble, started the big bang, then sat back with a bowl of extraplanar popcorn and a bottle of pop to "watch the lulz unfold"...

 

If you lived in the south (as I do) the answer is obvious, the fundamentalists who are trying to have their myth taught in the science classes of our public schools.

 

I'm glad you support them, I thought you would.

Well, if we can't yell at them let's start burning down the churchs instead, that may get their attention.

I don't pay attention to men's groups or feminism so I can't comment on that.

I hope you don't think I'm a supremacist. My stance is clear: religionists can do what they like as long as they abide by the points that I've mentioned. I promise not to take away their bibles or korans.

 

Behaviors you won't enumerate. Again, broad generalizations and accusations without support or citation. You're just looking for an excuse to knock atheists. And because of your title, you're allowed to get away with it.

 

That's Up to Each Individual

Well, that's sort of up to you. To wit, if I ask how an atheist accomplishes those goals, will you tell me it has nothing to do with atheism?

Where I get down on the movement (that doesn't exist despite the solidarity of speaking of atheists in the plural) is that it wants what it wants of other people, but sees no role in helping them get there. The appearance is that the complaint is mostly about hounding other people until they satisfy the one.

In any other circumstance, we are expected to disdain such behavior. In the context of our community, I wonder why our atheists need special dispensation from that custom.

Functionally, it looks like this:

(1) Start with a religious perspective: There is no morality without God.

(2) Add an atheist response: Bullshit.​

This much is clear, and the response is appropriate. Where things go afoul is in what comes next:

(3) How does one explain that morality without God (atheist morality) in a way that communicates the point to the religious person?

(4) Has nothing to do with atheism. Stop talking about it. What's the matter, did someone says something uncomfortably true about Islam?​

Okay, we get it.

What that equals in life:

We are atheist at birth, by nature. The concept of God must be taught to us. We need to stop this indoctrination of children. But once they're indoctrinated, fuck 'em, we owe them no help in accommodating our demands that they do the right thing according to our outlook.​

And, you know, I don't care if someone holds that view explicitly. Indeed, they're even welcome to enforce it implicitly while drowning in a sea of neuroses, which is a common human behavioral outcome and nothing to be specifically ashamed of.

But, no, I'm not going to pretend that conscious reiteration of principles leading to that outcome are in any way virtuous.

There are some appeals I shouldn't have to make, but since I've already made one in this thread—

If you go back in the Religion archives, you'll find the depth of my loathing for institutional religion and gods of faith.​

—I might as well throw in another one: Look, in the question of whether or not God exists, I'm functionally on the side of atheists. In the question of religious influence in civil law, social attitudes and prejudices, and effects on human communities, I side with the atheists. But I'm not atheistic enough for the atheists because ... why? Because I think atheistic argument can play a constructive role in settling these issues? And by atheistic argument, I don't mean simple affirmations of atheism, but, rather, detaching religion as an identity politic from the complaint and examining it in a functional context in order to seek solutions.

However, even in that case, the atheistic obligation to rational argument apparently ends at one's identification of atheism.

And, apparently, because atheism is yet so rational, it is apparently exempt from psychological consideration.

Any other such argument of principle similarly self-insulated would be viewed as dysfunctional. To that, my only question is why atheism should be exempt.

Just as it seems logical that the followers of a "Prince of Peace" would be, well, you know, peaceful, so also might we expect that an identity politic invested in rational argument would be rational. But like the self-identifying Christians who look to Paul and the Old Testament, thus elevating Yahweh Sabaoth, God at war ("God of Hosts", a battle cry of the Hebrews under the Ark of the Covenant), so also it seems rather quite incongruous to see such vocal advocates of rational argument staking such embittered, irrational arguments.

Sure, it's perfectly within their rights to do so, but so much for progress. And therein lies my disdain for this vocal, evangelical atheism.
____________________

Notes:

Mantyla, Kyle. "Boykin: When Jesus Comes Back, He'll Be Carrying An AR-15 Assault Rifle". Right Wing Watch. February 19, 2014. RightWingWatch.org. April 14, 2014. http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conte...mes-back-hell-be-carrying-ar-15-assault-rifle

 

If your assertion is that all "religionists" are guilty of whatever this "persecution" is supposed to be, then the assertion would appear to be both factually mistaken and frankly ridiculous. In reality, many religious people are at the forefront of the struggle for human rights.

And if your assertion is that only some subset of "religionists" are guilty of whatever this "persecution" is supposed to be, then your condemnations of "the religionists" need to be dialed back, from targeting all "religionists" to targeting only those who can be shown to be guilty of whatever it is.

In other words, if you want to condemn traditional Muslim 'honor killings', then I'll join you in strongly condemning those who practice and try to justify such things. But nothing justifies expanding that condemnation to include everyone who is religious, such as American Episcopalians or Thai Theravadins, who have nothing even remotely to do with the practice.

I didn't expect either of you to like it. Nevertheless, I think that it's accurate.

But you do seem to think that all "religionists" are complicit in something absolutely horrible. That's where your faulty generalization occurs. With Tiassa, it's lumping all atheists together as some imaginary "supremacist" movement. In terms of informal logic, you're both making the same elementary mistake, you're just making it from opposite directions.

If it's nobody's business, you shouldn't have mentioned it.

You're the one who suggested that atheist militancy is the result of a "desire not to be persecuted or demonized". As I recall, you've written before that you live in the UK. From my own knowledge and experience of the United Kingdom, it's hard for me to picture an atheist being persecuted or demonized by "religionists" there. (Certainly not in the parts of England that I'm familiar with.)

And for what it's worth, I live in California, in the south San Francisco bay 'Silicon Valley' area. And no, I've never once in my life experienced any religious persecution or demonization here either, despite my quite openly being an atheist. Frankly, nobody cares a whole lot, not even my family.

 

You're far too long-winded, Tiassa: people are busy.

So you're telling me that instead of everyone leaving everybody else alone to do their own thing in peace, by means of the passing of laws, it's my job to try and help people who have been religiously indoctrinated overcome their problem? I'm responsible in some way for them, as if they were children and not adults? Extending your argument then I'm responsible for every drunk, crackhead, obese person on the planet? Man, I'm so busy I don't have time for anything else.

What rational argument do you want to have that I haven't already explained? Let's go through it one more time - it's really easy:

All people are the same. Discuss.
Everyone is entitled to the same basic human rights. Discuss.
That includes getting laid. Discuss.
No one should be persecuted or demonised. Don't discuss, we did 600 posts on that already, and there are still some who are holding out.

Listen, Tiassa, to that last point. We all discussed something so basic that it should have taken 6 posts and it took 600 and there's no end in sight. How much longer do you want to talk about it? These people are not susceptible to reason or they would have agreed to that immediately. Do you want to spend some more of the only life you'll ever have discussing the other points 600 times, and never reach a conclusion?

It's quite clear: there should be proper laws separating religion and state, and guaranteeing proper freedoms under the law for all people, and stopping organised religion from interfering in policy making, and the more noise people make in that regard the better.

 

I think you need to dial back your Politically Correct meter. Seriously, "the religionists" is an accurate term for the people committing these actions. It's a useful descriptor. Stop looking to take vicarious offense where none is intended.

It isn't. You falsely equate being concerned with religion as religiosity itself, and suggest secularism as being the opposite of such a concern. This is simply not true. Atheists who don't care about religion aren't "more" atheist than those who do. Arguing against religious initiatives that threaten to retard society is not religiosity, or militancy.

You don't find the "angry atheist" palatable? Fine. But don't start tearing them down as something other than they are. You're doing nothing more than making the "not a true Christian" claim that is made on the other side.

 

This and That

Need a little more straw, there?

• • •​

Sorry to give the subject some thought. I'll spare you the indignity of further consideration.