Militant Atheism

[Bunyip]

Bizarre.

What I said was "Supporting progressive violence after 9/11 a la Hitchens is though."

Do you agree Hitchens was a vocal supporter of progressive violence, 'bombing people into the future'?

Do you agree that he was a journalist, not a militant? Or do you need to look up 'militant'?

 

[Shad]

Wow. What can I say?
So people who lose faith as a consequence of years of abuse are jerks, and 'pop culture atheists'?

It is an irrational motive as emotions are not guided by reason. Beside it was a person doing these things no one else. The only reasonable conclusion is that the person in question was a jerk.

You know what mate, that is just about the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. When you need to sink that low, just stop.

Pointing out irrational motives is not sinking low. It is calling it irrational, nothing more than this. I just refuse to appeal to irrational motives as reasons for a generalization. Apply this to other situation. Some African-american treated person X badly which produced an emotion response. This response creates a conclusion from a specific into a generalization. It is irrational for racism as much for atheism. Do you dismiss an idea, say democracy, because of 1 bad apple?

You seem offended by my rejections of her irrational reasons. This does not make the abuse she suffered less or moot. It just means her atheism is not grounded in reason.

 

[Shad]

Since I could find no actual definition for "pop culture atheist", it's just something Shad made up, so...

I doubt I came up with it. However it fits many atheists that never looks at any reasons for their views or use irrational motives as excuses. I could change the term to the new wave of atheism under the guise of "New Atheism", their term not mine. Still the idea is not hard to figure out. Look up the meaning of pop-culture as a secondary parameter to atheism in which atheism functions as the culture. It is function description. I use the phase as I wish to distances myself from current trends of atheism which uses irrational reasons, popularity and the media as much as those they argue against have done. It is the dumbing down of atheism for consumption by the masses.

 

[Bunyip]

It is an irrational motive as emotions are not guided by reason. Beside it was a person doing these things no one else. The only reasonable conclusion is that the person in question was a jerk.




Pointing out irrational motives is not sinking low. It is calling it irrational, nothing more than this. I just refuse to appeal to irrational motives as reasons for a generalization. Apply this to other situation. Some African-american treated person X badly which produced an emotion response. This response creates a conclusion from a specific into a generalization. It is irrational for racism as much for atheism. Do you dismiss an idea, say democracy, because of 1 bad apple?

You seem offended by my rejections of her irrational reasons. This does not make the abuse she suffered less or moot. It just means her atheism is not grounded in reason.

Well I don't know her, so would not want to offer a judgement.

 

[Shad]

Well I don't know her, so would not want to offer a judgement.

I am just making a single judgment on a single view she has. This does not carry beyond said view. Beside everyone has irrational idea and views points. The issue, from my pov, is that when a view is pointed out to be irrational people become offend as a knee-jerk response rather than considering reevaluating said view. This is why bad ideas stick around for so long and can still be popular in different areas.

 

[Ouroboros]

It is part of pop-culture atheism that does not bother to look at reasons for/against theism/atheism and any view generates is applicable to the whole group. It just means the X amount of people of set Y are jerks.

Pop-culture atheism. That's a way of putting it. I sometimes call it vogue atheism. It's fashionable and in style in the younger crowd to be atheist today. Seen it in my kids and their friends. Unfortunately, they rarely try to study up on the finer details or discussions, and then when they get into debate... well, it gets very heated, but no cigars.

 

[Ouroboros]

I am just making a single judgment on a single view she has. This does not carry beyond said view. Beside everyone has irrational idea and views points. The issue, from my pov, is that when a view is pointed out to be irrational people become offend as a knee-jerk response rather than considering reevaluating said view. This is why bad ideas stick around for so long and can still be popular in different areas.

True. And I never learned to avoid those myself. I have an addiction to these discussions. It's sad really. And you're right, the knee-jerk reaction just prevents people from actually reading or trying to understand what is being said. I'm starting to have serious doubts that online forums ever really provide anyone with much insights or learning. It's more of just getting a hit of the "drug" and no one ever change.

 

[Ouroboros]

I doubt I came up with it.

You didn't. Some search results showing this:

https://www.facebook.com/popcultureatheist

And I found a couple of sites using the term "pop atheist" (which is a short form of pop-culture). This one was interesting:

http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/pop-atheism-vs-academic-atheism/28753

However it fits many atheists that never looks at any reasons for their views or use irrational motives as excuses. I could change the term to the new wave of atheism under the guise of "New Atheism", their term not mine. Still the idea is not hard to figure out. Look up the meaning of pop-culture as a secondary parameter to atheism in which atheism functions as the culture. It is function description. I use the phase as I wish to distances myself from current trends of atheism which uses irrational reasons, popularity and the media as much as those they argue against have done. It is the dumbing down of atheism for consumption by the masses.

+1

 

[Cephus]

I doubt I came up with it. However it fits many atheists that never looks at any reasons for their views or use irrational motives as excuses. I could change the term to the new wave of atheism under the guise of "New Atheism", their term not mine. Still the idea is not hard to figure out. Look up the meaning of pop-culture as a secondary parameter to atheism in which atheism functions as the culture. It is function description. I use the phase as I wish to distances myself from current trends of atheism which uses irrational reasons, popularity and the media as much as those they argue against have done. It is the dumbing down of atheism for consumption by the masses.

Then you should be able to provide a link for where you got the idea. Otherwise, we'll just assume you made it up out of whole cloth. And atheists didn't come up with the label "new atheism" either. Atheism has always been here, it isn't new. The only thing that is new is the fact that theists can no longer shut atheists up with threats or violence or legal prosecution. The religious got far too comfortable being in control by default, now that they can't hide behind the law, now that they can't threaten people to shut them up, they can't force them out of their communities, they can't get them fired from their jobs, they can't out-and-out murder them, now the religious are looking like the fools they are because they can't actually demonstrate their claims, but instead of acknowledging the truth, that religion is an irrational belief, you're trying to point fingers at atheists and pretend that we're mean because we don't let you be in charge.

Try again.

 

[outhouse]

Only religion can make good people do bad things is nonsense.

First you said/implied Dawkins said this and were wrong.

Then you stated its nor correct, and were wrong.

NOW you move goal post to a literal interpretation saying its not the ONLY way good people can do bad things, and that WAS NEVER up for debate or even questioned.

 

[outhouse]

Amongst new atheists religion

You might want to look up the definition of religion. You will find your in error again, and that atheist do not belong to any religion.

We are not unified as a group of any kind. Because some want to have small groups does not make it a religion.


As a whole atheism is an individual lack of belief in mythology.

 

[Cephus]

First you said/implied Dawkins said this and were wrong.

Then you stated its nor correct, and were wrong.

NOW you move goal post to a literal interpretation saying its not the ONLY way good people can do bad things, and that WAS NEVER up for debate or even questioned.

The idea actually comes from Steven Weinberg: Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

 

[outhouse]

The idea actually comes from Steven Weinberg:

I know.

It was not implied that way originally, and attributed to Dawkins as an example.

Religion is an insult to human dignity

I disagree with him on that.

Religion can be, but "is" is not substantiated

With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

He has a point there. Without religion you get a more clear definition of good and bad people. With religion good people can turn bad.


In context it is generalized as the evils and dangers of fanaticism and fundamentalism that twist good people into a false reality.

 

[Cephus]

I know.

It was not implied that way originally, and attributed to Dawkins as an example.

I know, I mentioned it because you brought it up.

I disagree with him on that.

Religion can be, but "is" is not substantiated

I don't buy that at all. All irrationality is an insult to human dignity. That goes for religion, that goes for astrology, that goes for people who believe in Bigfoot, etc. Stupidity is not something people ought to be proud of.

He has a point there. Without religion you get a more clear definition of good and bad people. With religion good people can turn bad.

In context it is generalized as the evils and dangers of fanaticism and fundamentalism that twist good people into a false reality.

Religion can push people to do things without thinking about them because they've been indoctrinated to think that anything the religion says automatically goes. I don't think that all of the people in ISIS or Boko Haram are evil, but they are doing horrible things because they accept their religion uncritically. This isn't limited to religion, that's one place I might disagree with Weinberg, but religion is certainly a major problem.

 

[outhouse]

All irrationality is an insult to human dignity.

But all religion is not irrational.

 

[Cephus]

But all religion is not irrational.

Believing in anything for which there is no objective evidence is irrational.

 

[outhouse]

Believing in anything for which there is no objective evidence is irrational.

Again religion is factually not irrational.

That belief is only a small part of religion, it is not "religion as a whole"

Religion is about the lessons and morals that guided ancient people to better lives. Religion today is more positive then negative.

The positive side factually is not irrational in context.

 

[Milton Platt]

Just curious about what it be...

"All that science can only do is to discover the sophistries put in place by God. Apparently, the ultimate goal of atheism is to negate all moral standards and to make humanity a little closer to animals."

http://www.newzimbabwe.com/columns-24021-Atheism+Blind+men+arguing+about+sunset/columns.aspx

The sign of the individual you show is not representative of atheism. It represents his opnion and nothing more. I think his point was that if there were a Jesus to actually come back, it would be better to dispatch him again immediately because the result of his first life was much unrest and bloodshed, including his own.

As to the topic, please define militant atheism? I know what militant theism is. They cut off people's heads and fly planes into buildings and marry children and rape women. In times past they tortured people with the rack, hot irons, removing fingernails, burning them at the stake.

 

[Cephus]

Again religion is factually not irrational.

That belief is only a small part of religion, it is not "religion as a whole"

Religion is about the lessons and morals that guided ancient people to better lives. Religion today is more positive then negative.

The positive side factually is not irrational in context.

I entirely disagree. Those lessons and morals are only valid insofar as they are demonstrably and factually accurate. Coming to the right conclusion for entirely wrong reasons is still not a good idea.

 

[Bunyip]

I am just making a single judgment on a single view she has. This does not carry beyond said view. Beside everyone has irrational idea and views points. The issue, from my pov, is that when a view is pointed out to be irrational people become offend as a knee-jerk response rather than considering reevaluating said view. This is why bad ideas stick around for so long and can still be popular in different areas.

I don't know the woman, and so can not comment. Although I do think that your characterising the loss of faith through abuse as 'pop culture atheism' is about the most ridiculous thing I have ever read in my life.