New Atheists?

[ppp]

It never would have occurred to me that a being could have created the universe.

I don't know if it would have occurred to me. Cannot say for certain. But humans (of which I am one) have a tendency to anthropomorphize and invest everything with agency; even when we know better. It is not hard to see why we (probably) began with animism and just scaled up from there to a super-dooper-anima.

Look at Paley's Watchmaker argument. It is a flawed argument, but it has held on for a reason. It is so damned intuitive.

 

[Windwalker]

At long last, the demonized and marginalized skeptic has a chance to answer his demeaners and slanderers, and they don't like it. They describe it as militant, never thinking of how oppressive they have been to atheists for as long as they could be, and implying that the atheist is irrationally and inappropriately angry (see ad iram fallacy), a zealot, religious, a fundamentalist - kind of amusing when you consider the source.

Anti-theism/New Atheism seems a little less about standing up for Atheism, like Atheist Pride marches or such which would promote atheism as a positive, as it is about hitting back, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. While that can be satisfying to those who have been marginalized, is that really about recognition, or revenge?

I imagine the LGBTQ movement responding to their marginalization with an Anti-Hetrosexual group. "Straights Suck!", and all that. Does that help the cause, or harm it?

I am an antitheist, by which I mean that I oppose the incursion of organized, politicized religions into the lives of the unwilling, and am willing to give arguments here on RF and elsewhere for why secular humanism is a better worldview than the Christian one, the one that has been the chief source of atheophobic bigotry in this American's world.

I wouldn't call that anti-theism. I oppose those things at least equally as much you do. I find the "Christian right" anything but Christian in their actions. That's not love. That's power politics. They need to actually be more theistic in their attitudes and actions, considering that, "God is Love," and those who love are considered as God's children, and all that.

I am not the enemy of the individual theist - just his religion and the institutions that promulgate that bigotry, and only until it is diminished in its cultural hegemony such that it has no more influence in the lives of unbelievers than any other religion. The antitheist will lose interest in religion altogether at that point.

I'm against religious hypocrisy. So was Jesus. He would have agreed with both you and me. These folks both of us are repulsed and offended by, are the equivalent of the Pharisees of Jesus' day, now just calling themselves Christians. Same wolves, same sheep's clothing.

Just wanted to jump in and add a couple thought here for perspective's sake.

 

[lukethethird]

I don't know if it would have occurred to me. Cannot say for certain. But humans (of which I am one) have a tendency to anthropomorphize and invest everything with agency; even when we know better. It is not hard to see why we (probably) began with animism and just scaled up from there to a super-dooper-anima.

Look at Paley's Watchmaker argument. It is a flawed argument, but it has held on for a reason. It is so damned intuitive.

I don't know, the notion that the universe was created by a being is something so insane that it has to be repeated over and over every Sunday, believers have to convince themselves that they believe because they are told by their religious leaders that faith is a virtue, blessed are those that believe without seeing.

People honestly believe not only in a creator but that his son came down to earth to sacrifice himself for our sake. That is so preposterous. But of course it's non-believers that have a closed mind, how could it be otherwise?

 

[lukethethird]

Anti-theism/New Atheism seems a little less about standing up for Atheism, like Atheist Pride marches or such which would promote atheism as a positive, as it is about hitting back, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. While that can be satisfying to those who have been marginalized, is that really about recognition, or revenge?

I imagine the LGBTQ movement responding to their marginalization with an Anti-Hetrosexual group. "Straights Suck!", and all that. Does that help the cause, or harm it?


I wouldn't call that anti-theism. I oppose those things at least equally as much you do. I find the "Christian right" anything but Christian in their actions. That's not love. That's power politics. They need to actually be more theistic in their attitudes and actions, considering that, "God is Love," and those who love are considered as God's children, and all that.


I'm against religious hypocrisy. So was Jesus. He would have agreed with both you and me. These folks both of us are repulsed and offended by, are the equivalent of the Pharisees of Jesus' day, now just calling themselves Christians. Same wolves, same sheep's clothing.

Just wanted to jump in and add a couple thought here for perspective's sake.

"God is love" is hijacking love by the religious. Non-believers can't know love because they don't have God in their hearts, they are better off dead.

 

[ppp]

I don't know, the notion that the universe was created by a being is something so insane that it has to be repeated over and over every Sunday, believers have to convince themselves that they believe because they are told by their religious leaders that faith is a virtue, blessed are those that believe without seeing.

People honestly believe not only in a creator but that his son came down to earth to sacrifice himself for our sake. That is so preposterous. But of course it's non-believers that have a closed mind, how could it be otherwise?

Good point. I very rarely have to be reminded of the things I have accepted as true.

 

[firedragon]

Please name them because i for one don't believe that is a true statement. You can, if you are too embarrassed, pm me your list. Then we can ask them whether that is a true statement or not

Nope.

 

[ppp]

Anti-theism/New Atheism seems a little less about standing up for Atheism, like Atheist Pride marches or such which would promote atheism as a positive, as it is about hitting back, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. While that can be satisfying to those who have been marginalized, is that really about recognition, or revenge?

"Religious apologists complain bitterly that atheists and secularists are aggressive and hostile in their criticism of them. I always say: look, when you guys were in charge, you didn't argue with us, you just burnt us at the stake. Now what we're doing is, we're presenting you with some arguments and some challenging questions, and you complain." - A.C. Grayling

I imagine the LGBTQ movement responding to their marginalization with an Anti-Hetrosexual group. "Straights Suck!", and all that. Does that help the cause, or harm it?

That is how a lot of straights interpreted what they said. I cannot think how many times I heard that the gays were out to convert all the children. There is a reason that Gay panic defense - Wikipedia is an entry in Wikipedia.

 

[Windwalker]

That is how a lot of straights interpreted what they said. I cannot think how many times I heard that the gays were out to convert all the children. There is a reason that Gay panic defense - Wikipedia is an entry in Wikipedia.

Well yes, they feel deeply threatened by normalizing that which they have demonized. It's irrational of course. It's just fear driven. I like this as a response to that nonsense:

 

[ppp]

Well yes, they feel deeply threatened by normalizing that which they have demonized. It's irrational of course. It's just fear driven. I like this as a response to that nonsense:

View attachment 59043

Oh man! I wish that would happen!

 

[lukethethird]

Please name them because i for one don't believe that is a true statement. You can, if you are too embarrassed, pm me your list. Then we can ask them whether that is a true statement or not

Don't ya know, they're invisible.

 

[ppp]

Don't ya know, they're invisible.

You don't know that. They might be in his other pants. In the mail? The dog peed on them?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

My posts are too long as they are already. I do talk about this quite a lot in other posts. In brief, it's far less to do with beliefs, which have to do with the mind, as it about the heart and its quest for meaning and purpose, belonging and connection, and so forth.

I did post a thread some time ago that explained in more detail some of my thoughts: Belief, Faith, Experience, and Adaptation

The section on Faith digs a lot deeper into this. But I have thoughts beyond that as well. You can see how this contrasts with the notion that faith and belief are the same things. They are not.


Of course they are personal and unique to the individual, because we are all different in certain regards. But there is also a lot in common. The experience of love is unique to the individual as well, but we all share that in common. We are able to communicate its meaning because of that, despite the individual differences. This is true of pretty much anything in life.

My explanation in that link to my thread may help. Plus the subsequent posts in that thread I made do as well. Unfortunately that thread never go any traction, because the member I was posting to got himself banned for some unknown reason.

I've tried to talk about this notion of "meaning and purpose" many times. And the problem, for me, is that too many people seem to be looking for some meaning for their lives from somewhere outside themselves, as if somebody or something else could provide some meaning or purpose for their existence.

And what if there is none? How will we cope then? What if, as science seems to suggest, universes, elements, energy, stars, planets -- even life itself -- just happen? Is that life then not worth anything, because somebody important didn't create it with a purpose? How would some unknown and unknowable purpose of some unknowable entity make your life richer?

I addressed this in another post which I think is one of my better efforts, if you'd care to read it: Atheists and Agnostics: What gives your life meaning?

 

[Windwalker]

I've tried to talk about this notion of "meaning and purpose" many times. And the problem, for me, is that too many people seem to be looking for some meaning for their lives from somewhere outside themselves, as if somebody or something else could provide some meaning or purpose for their existence.

I completely concur with this. This is not just a religious tendency, but a human tendency, secular or religious. People look for happiness and meaning to their lives outside of themselves. "If only I find a good husband/wife, then I'll be happy". This seems something that few people in their lives only come to with a great deal of maturity and wisdom, that happiness, contentment, purpose, and meaning, come from within.

But here's my take on the role of religious faith in that context, and theism in general. As with all human beings, we learn to look outside ourselves for internal happiness. "God", is a symbol of that Ultimate meaning, truth, and peace for themselves to find through seeking the Divine.

I am a big believer in what others have said, such as Carl Jung, that God is an archetypal summit of one's own highest Consciousness, or the Self. With faith, in engaging that faith, there is a reaching beyond the small, separated egoic self, to that highest reach, and that has the effect of actually engaging that Self within the seeker themselves. Thus, it develops it and brings it into come level of awareness, even if not quite yet consciousnessly understood by the seeker. It exercises that "spirit" within themselves, and eventually, at some point, it begins to become recognized within the seeker themselves. "God without", becomes "God within".

In other words, the externalization of the Divine, is a device for the ego to seek, which engages the heart in the seeking, and builds that 'muscle' so to speak. Ultimately, it has to be realized within the person themselves, otherwise it's like a carrot on a stick that the donkey can never eat.

And that actually is a complaint I have about most forms of Christianity. They "kick Jesus upstairs", and tell the followers that that Peace comes after you die. They don't encourage them to look within. It's a rigged game that keeps the people coming back. But it should be like schooling instead, where you learn the basics, but then graduate at some point.

And what if there is none? How will we cope then? What if, as science seems to suggest, universes, elements, energy, stars, planets -- even life itself -- just happens? Is that life then not worth anything, because somebody important didn't create it with a purpose? How would some unknown and unknowable purpose of some unknowable entity make your life richer?

I addressed this in another post which I think is one of my better efforts, if you'd care to read it: Atheists and Agnostics: What gives your life meaning?

I just read the whole thing. Nicely written and thought out. Good points. Here's my take.

Young people need simplified ways to think about the bigger questions, in stories, in fictions, it parables, etc. Thinking of God in anthropomorphic terms is a device for the mind that still conceives of the transcendent in concrete-literal terms. In reality though, these are "like" or "as if" statements, metaphors, not literal descriptors. The Reality of the Universe, or Life, or Existence is beyond any comprehension of the mind. It is not possible for the mind to fathom the Infinite Unknown in answer boxes the mind can process.

Trying to find "the meaning of life" as a concrete answer, is a fool's errand of the mind. It's like the eye, trying to see the eye, using itself so see itself outside itself. But we can rest in the Unknown, however. And that is where Peace comes. In the simple state of being itself, without judgement as to what this means in order to satisfy the mind. We satisfy the heart instead, in rest. That comes with letting go. Letting go of seeking, and simply finding what already is.

It is finding what already is within us. Not our thoughts and ideas about things or ourselves, or the world, or purpose, or meaning, but just being in this vast Universe, alive. Everything is Radiant, and meaning arises in each moment, beyond description or comprehension. I would say if there is any purpose, it is Being itself. The rational mind is seeking to hold the mind of God, when it itself is only an eye, not the whole body.

It's nothing that can be explained, but it is something that can be understood by the soul, to use that word as a metaphor for the heart, or one's own being beyond the rational mind. How we talk about it, is all fingers pointing to that single bright moon.

Whether or not one sees value in religious symbolism to engage that higher consciousness archetypally, or they use some other form of spiritual exercise to move beyond the ego, the small separate self that sees truth and meaning existing outside themselves as some answer embedded somewhere out there in the universe, it ultimately has to be internalized, or Realized within the individual.

So "faith" in the religious sense, is about engaging that internal Self, whether understood as such or not, in service of self realization, or finding the ultimate purpose for their own being, which is as simple and as profound as simply to Be.

 

[lukethethird]

I've tried to talk about this notion of "meaning and purpose" many times. And the problem, for me, is that too many people seem to be looking for some meaning for their lives from somewhere outside themselves, as if somebody or something else could provide some meaning or purpose for their existence.

And what if there is none? How will we cope then? What if, as science seems to suggest, universes, elements, energy, stars, planets -- even life itself -- just happen? Is that life then not worth anything, because somebody important didn't create it with a purpose? How would some unknown and unknowable purpose of some unknowable entity make your life richer?

I addressed this in another post which I think is one of my better efforts, if you'd care to read it: Atheists and Agnostics: What gives your life meaning?

I have no problem with a universe having no meaning and no purpose, in fact it is liberating assigning my own meaning to my own life as I see fit.

 

[RestlessSoul]

'the universe does appear to have a had a moment of creation', but it is the 'creationists that are deluded',
I see.

You see only what you want to see.

 

[lukethethird]

You see only what you want to see.

Well, I don't see God of the gaps.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Anti-theism/New Atheism seems a little less about standing up for Atheism, like Atheist Pride marches or such which would promote atheism as a positive, as it is about hitting back, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. While that can be satisfying to those who have been marginalized, is that really about recognition, or revenge?

Secular humanist tend to both praise the virtues of reason, as you have seen me do, and to oppose the Christian message about them. But my purpose is not as much to promote secular humanism as to diminish the power and influence of the church in the lives of unbelievers. There is a pervasive dislike and distrust of atheists permeating through the Christian culture thanks to the depiction of atheists by the church as defective people beyond the pale morally, and atheists have a duty to themselves as decent, law abiding citizens who raise their families honorably and contribute to their communities to push back where they can. That's what engages me personally in this matter, and why I do what I can. Why should I sit for that?

Yes, I do consider secular humanism the pinnacle of human cultural achievement that none of the religions can compete with in terms of contributions to culture and the kind of citizens and neighbors it produces. Who is it in America that actually embodies and promotes love and the Golden Rule? Who is continually championing treating LGBTQ, people of color, and women, for example equally. Why? Because it's what I would want - to be accepted as I am and given the same respect and opportunities as all others. That is the golden Rule in its entirely. What ideology actually generates people that hold that value rather than give it lip service as they go on demonizing and marginizing various groups for offending their priests, who represent their offended deity.

So, yes, I 'm happy to extol the virtues of secular humanism, but that's really not my purpose. It is to oppose the toxic effect of organized religion in the lives of those who don't want it there., and that entails discussing the divide between what the Christian church claims for itself and what it really is and does, and how that harms people not with any expectation of talking long-time theists out of their theism, but of influencing the next generation that hasn't committed to that path yet.

That is what people like Harris and Dawkins are doing. They are doing it because they can and should. Too bad it is framed as revenge. We atheists are continually imputed with the lowest motives and ethics. I don't see you as openly disrespectful to atheists or atheism, but I believe that you have accepted the narrative that atheists are somehow damaged. It seems it never occurred to you that the motives for antitheism might be just and honorable. Atheists fight back, so they are petulant and vindictive.

Think about your words - how things seem to you. Why did you see it that way rather than as people with a legitimate complaint trying to rectify a social injustice at the hands of Christian doctrine?

The latest on RF is that strict empiricists, people who reject faith as a path to knowledge, are too myopic with our "scientism," that our world misses the passions of life in the service of reason, that we are empty shells mired in a materialist paradigm that limits what the strict empiricist can be and know. It's a scurrilous implication, and needs an answer, which I have been providing repeatedly here of late in the form of a challenge to such people to show or tell what they have learned that is so valuable that can only be known by forsaking empiricism. Maybe you've seen some of that. Not unsurprisingly, there has been nobody who can demonstrate any useful ideas derived by this method except for one poster, who explained how a god belief gave him hope. That's great, I said, but that isn't seeing further.

I provided two metaphors - the primitive people who could count but not add and then encountered a stranger who could add (could see further than mere counters), and actually demonstrates objectively that he does see further, unlike those on these threads who attempt to demean the strict empiricist's epistemology by falsely claiming to see further; and the guy who benefits from glasses and think that because he benefited from them, those that don't want to wear a pair because they see just fine without them (I'm thinking of hope as just discussed here, where one guy gets it with a god belief, and thinks that those who find hope, purpose, and meaning without such beliefs are some how looking through blurry eyes because that was their condition).

Sorry. That's just not acceptable to me, but it is typical of the faith community. Do I not have the duty to expose the emptiness of those claims when they come on the backs of unbelievers? You alluded to atheists not being constructive regarding atheism, but rather, attacking the alternative - a creationist tactic, for example, where the talk is only about what the perceived deficiencies of evolutionary theory. But isn't what I described here just that coming from the theistic community? Rather than show us the fruits of the better way knowing they claim to have, they tell you how small those rejecting their faith-based epistemology are.

I'm also fond of reproducing this piece of atheophobic bigotry from Deepak Chopra, who represents the I'm-spiritual-not-religious contingent, and who is willing to demean the religious a little and the atheists a lot. See here as he depicts atheists as mindless robots like Rumba vacuum cleaners entirely devoid of experience, merely bumping into things "taking measurements." What is more dehumanizing to atheists than this? :

The best response is to expose these bigots and charlatans (as I have just done again), who continually demean atheists and in so doing, demonize them in the eyes of greater society. Like I said, I think you got a taste based on your assumptions about what motivates antitheism. This is a carefully considered and just position, not the kind of thing you described, which is not honorable at all.

I imagine the LGBTQ movement responding to their marginalization with an Anti-Hetrosexual group. "Straights Suck!", and all that. Does that help the cause, or harm it?

Their target should also be the church, and for the same reason. Straights are not their enemy. Bigots are. Humanists are supportive of LGBTQ rights. Golden Rule, remember? The church depicts them as abominations. I guess that's what is meant by love your neighbor in that worldview. I think humanists do better at promoting love and harmony.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Well, I don't see God of the gaps.

Try looking within. Silence the ego, search with the heart.

 

[lukethethird]

Try looking within. Silence the ego, search with the heart.

For what, God of the gaps?

 

[RestlessSoul]

For what, God of the gaps?

“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation.”
- Herbert Spencer