Activist atheism

dmap said:

Yes, very wise advice.

Click to expand...

It’s advice I wish I took myself a few years back. But hey, we all grow up eventually. Or so I’m told.

dmap said:

Please provide names, percentages of the population, and other supporting documentation and quotations when using generalizations; this, to avoid offending others. (I'm merely passing along the requests that others often/sometimes/rarely/usually make of me.)

Click to expand...

For me, it isn’t about not offending people. Being offended has become too popular as a virtue signal and a way of intimidating and shaming people, for that to be a consideration at all for me, in what to say and how to say it. Besides, as I see it, the damage done by popular stereotypes and prejudices has never been from people being offended by what other people say. For me, it’s about not thinking of people as being divided into groups and categories at all, in my own mind. I need to think of them that way sometimes, to understand what other people might be thinking, but not in my own thinking for any of my purposes, in trying helping to solve the world’s problems and improve the world for all people everywhere.

mikkel_the_dane said:

I get what you are saying, but it won't change that much. Because then it ends in: It is just wrong!
Now of course not for all, who are here. And it properly only apply to a few(there is the problem with these kinds of debates), but some humans operate on versions of strong good or bad.
Read this and ask questions if you want to:
https://www.simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html

When you start to notice this level as the psychology in part behind a lot of these debates, it helps.
There is more than just this and it has its limits, but it is there.
How humans reason in general, is connected to how they reason in effect about morality. Of course it is not one to one, but it is connected. I.e. the development of cognition and emotions in a given human. And yes, it is not just formal cognitive reasoning. when you look closer.

With regards

Click to expand...

I’m thinking of all of it now as elaborate systems of smoke and mirrors designed for people to try to hide what they’re doing wrong, from themselves and others.

dmap said:

I think the only way a Christian can have a view of science matching what science actually teaches is if they interpret the Bible allegorically or some such thing as that. But is there really any basis to do such a thing?

Click to expand...

Yes. Pretty much everything that Jesus says in the gospel stories.

dmap said:

I was concerned with things I repeatedly heard as I mentioned in the OP, and wanted to share my concern. I wish I had collected the quotes, because without them, it is difficult to discuss the topic except in a general way. Perhaps if I had stated in the OP something like, "assuming that certain atheists believe such and such..." But even then, I imagine many/some/all/a few would have objected with, "but no atheists actually believe such and such."

Click to expand...

How did it take me so long to see this? People are thinking of airing their views, without any aim or purpose, as a virtue in itself, regardless of any good or harm it might do, to themselves, to others, or to society.

Jim said:

It might be better for your purposes to leave atheism out of it, and say “anti-religious” instead. For example, “My only worry is whether in the future an anti-religion totalitarianism might take over under the influence of the ideas I mention in the OP.”

Click to expand...

dmap said:

They can be friendly at church, especially if they think you will get saved. After that, watch your wallet.

Click to expand...

People are generally not as aggressive and rude when you are right there. Though that is not true of everyone. Growing up in a small town and going to the local Methodist church, I was not subjected much to some of the more radical fundamentalist ideas of some of other local churches. We had a PhD zoologist in the membership that was a lay speaker. He was one of the first people to teach me about evolution.

dmap said:

Thank you for the many observations. You've obviously given the matter a lot of consideration, which is what I need to do.

Click to expand...

I have had a lot of experience dealing with a lot of different people from different backgrounds. I try to get to know people. I remember all those experiences over the years, even if I do not remember all the names. What motivates people and what they conclude based on evidence, knowledge, belief and bias is very interesting. I even examine my own motivations, knowledge, beliefs and bias. I do not consider it a weakness, but a strength to do that. I have never understood why people think it is a weakness to admit a mistake. I do not like it. It is not a goal I am shooting for and I doubt others are either, but it is a reality and admitting it leads to improvement. I probably have thought about it a lot and probably will continue to.

dmap said:

Thank you for the many observations. You've obviously given the matter a lot of consideration, which is what I need to do.

Click to expand...

By the way, I did not mean to be rude. But you are welcome and thank you kindly for your responses.

dmap said:

Yes, a good point. Probably it is best to assume you are not talked to by God, at least when trying to prove a viewpoint such as the existence of a spiritual realm or some such thing.

I do interact with a presence that I call Jesus. It is the experience I have of goodness and beauty which is what I think God is. Also, when doing something creative and it seems like the ideas are coming from somewhere outside of me. But I certainly don't expect anyone to believe in the reality of all this, nor would I attempt to prove that's what it really happening. It just gives me happiness, joy, and comfort to have these experiences.

Click to expand...

I have had my own experiences, and I feel these have been real, but I have to confess, I have no way to know that absolutely nor to provide objective evidence of the experience or that my conclusions about it are correct.

I think how you say you go about it, is about the best that one can expect to do.

dmap said:

Yes. Creationists lie and manipulate the data to support their absurd views. But it's hard to refute them because they would have to abandon their faith. As a fundamentalist evangelical Christian, I was able to slide out the creationist teachings and slide in the scientific teachings. But I think doing so ultimately caused me to apostatize many years later. Their leaders know the dangers of believing science.

Click to expand...

The funny thing I see in this is that it is the demands they place on themselves that causes the problems. Forcing the belief that the Bible is infallible and must be interpreted as a literal, word for word depiction of actual events is one of the silliest notions I have ever heard. You have to ignore reality to do that and I cannot see God wanting that.

dmap said:

Yes, it is fun. My friends and family are all fundamentalist evangelical Christians as I used to be. I haven't told them I apostatized because they will all reject me like they did when I became Catholic. They are not a very loyal bunch, but can be very nice and kind people.

Click to expand...

That is another thing I do not understand. The practice of a religion where it is demanded that others tolerate those practicing it, while they are intolerant of those that do not. It may be a very human thing to do, but it does not make sense in an enlightened and free society. Especially within family. But it happens all the time.

Good luck with that. It is sad thing for someone to lose that connection over ideological differences that do not have to cause problems.

dmap said:

So far, I find the material explanations for the subjective experience of consciousness (for example) to be implausible. They seem like merely assigning labels; such things as:

1. Consciousness is an illusion created by the brain.
2. Consciousness is a process of electrons flowing in the neural network of the brain.
3. Consciousness is an emergent property of brain function.

None of these explain how consciousness is physical considering there is no natural law called consciousness and no quantum field called consciousness.

Click to expand...

The best I can come up with is that consciousness is an emergent property of the physical brain and the chemical processes that take place there. Much like a lake is an emergent property of the interaction of water, gravity and geology. It may be accurate, but it is incomplete.

dmap said:

Thank you for sharing that this is the norm. I must have got off on the wrong foot with them when I first started posting on ReligiousForums maybe 2 years ago. I'm gonna give it another try and anticipate duplicating the same friendly experience you had.

Click to expand...

I find it best in discussing things with them to let them know that I have religious beliefs, but I am not interested in using them to explain material phenomena, I do not consider them evil or a threat and I am interested in their views and what they have to say. Without being obsequious . It probably helps that I have some libertarian tendencies and am against any merger of the state and religion.

There are a few that have difficulty getting passed my personal beliefs, but I do not care. That is their problem. It is a lot less difficult than trying to talk to a creationist about science. My experience is that they will try every trick in the book, then blame you for doing that, while trying to martyr themselves at the same time.

dmap said:

I think the only way a Christian can have a view of science matching what science actually teaches is if they interpret the Bible allegorically or some such thing as that. But is there really any basis to do such a thing? You have to deny Christian history and doctrine to do this. Why would someone remain a Christian after this?

Click to expand...

I agree. You cannot accept science and have a literal view of the Bible. At least as an entire work.

I think there is. The flood story is a great example. There is no evidence that has been found to exist that supports that story. There is physical, cultural, biological and geological evidence that shows that it could not have happened. The only rational way to view it is as allegory.

I do not know how all Christians handle it, but many do. I do and it works just fine. At least outside of conversations with fundamentalists. According to them, I am not a true Christian. Since they have the same means to make that determination that I do, which is no means at all, I pay it no mind and chalk it up to ignorance, fear and anger.

Dan From Smithville said:

The best I can come up with is that consciousness is an emergent property of the physical brain and the chemical processes that take place there. Much like a lake is an emergent property of the interaction of water, gravity and geology. It may be accurate, but it is incomplete.

Click to expand...

Well, it is sort of a derail, but you need to add that in some cases there is an non-reductive element and sorry to say qualia. You don't need to add God or all that.
The short way to get it, is the exchange:
You: All that goes on in a brain is is an emergent property of the physical brain and the chemical processes that take place there.
Me: No.

So what is this non-reductive element and qualia? Forget souls and what not. It is subjectivity.
That you can't reduce down, that it has make sense to humans. All this about right or wrong,
useful or useless.

dmap said:

I'm not trying to change the world. I'm just sharing my thoughts with y'all because I enjoy spending time with y'all and it helps me think about things. Maybe some of you will find me fascinating.

Click to expand...

I still see a possibility that there is a loving impulse behind this to try to help solve the problems and help improve the world for all people everywhere. Ill tell you some things that I’m practicing and promoting for that purpose.
- Don’t think at all in terms of groups and categories of people. Think in terms of attitudes and behavior on all sides that need to change, and what people on all sides are doing to help change them.
- I think that what the world needs most of all, for all good purposes, is a special kind of love for all people and all of nature. There’s nothing that anyone needs to believe, or not believe, for that love to grow in them, and to help spread that love all around.
- Specifically concerning the celebrities whose influence you’re concerned about, I see what they’re doing, and their popularity in some circles, as part of a larger problem of people on all sides looking for excuses and camouflage for their animosities and hostilities across belief divides, and people monetizing their interests, and their storytelling and performance capacities, by helping them do that, in their writings and public appearances. I think that the less attention you give them, the better. If you’re worried about the ideas that they’re promoting, then discuss those ideas and what you think about them, but make it about the ideas, and not about some people who are promoting them.

Whippet said:

We have Jehovas Witnesses door-knocking here from time to time, but I've never seen an atheist activist calling door to door. I guess that instead of the Watchtower they'd give out free copies of the GOD DELUSION?

Click to expand...

...along with copies of their weekly news sheet, "The Godless Sunday at Home"*


* (c) Evelyn Waugh

dmap said:

Yes, sadly I neglected to collect the quotes as I heard them. I can't easily go back and retrieve them. But in the future I will collect them and create threads to discuss them.

I didn't realize what a stir my OP would cause. I assumed I didn't have to get back into scholar mode on a forum such as this, thinking that people would have heard the same kinds of things as me, and would understand my perspective.

And so, I apologize for the confusion and anguish (or any other negative emotion) I may have caused anyone, and so obviously did cause to many/some/all/a few/blah blah.

Click to expand...

Well you did make some rather extreme claims, so you should probably have expected that you would be called on to substantiate them.

In the UK, I don't see a lot of activity from Dawkins and the New Atheists any more. I suspect the reason is that it is pretty difficult to get people to feel passionately about the absence of something. The only people likely to get worked up about there not being a God will be a tiny minority of paranoid conspiracy theorists who think the world is controlled by the Vatican or the Archbishop of Canterbury. Such people do exist, of course, but they tend to be tinfoil hat jobs.

My guess is that the same will be largely true in N America, although the ludicrous extremism of some US religious groups may galvanise more people into wanting to oppose them.

Jim said:

No, but falsely framing it as a problem with atheists guarantees that it can go nowhere but down. But maybe there’s no hope for it. If my forum gods can’t fix it, who can? Maybe I need my whole triad in here. Only, I don’t think @PopeADope does house calls.

Click to expand...

Leave me your number and I'll call you

mikkel_the_dane said:

Okay, the world/the universe/everything/reality is natural!

The problem is not that it is natural. It is that it is over-reductive. It reduces to much. It is not that it is simple, it is to simple.

Click to expand...

Why? Why is considering everything to be natural, as opposed to supernatural, too simple?

There is nothing simple about the processes that got us from a singularity to being able to write in a forum. Quite the opposite.

mikkel_the_dane said:

I get you! You want good!!! You want good for as many people as possible, right?

Click to expand...

Where have I implied anything resembling that? What does that have to do with our conversation?