New Atheists?

[Augustus]

Pretty much every post you make seems to be a partisan defence of religion or religionists/attack on atheism or atheists in some form.

Nope, you are hallucinating.

There you go again. Even is what you claim is true, you are labelling a misinterpretation of your somewhat ambiguous arguments as "ideologically blinded". Why are you so annoyed with atheists?

An example of the above, I said "Rationalists" and you have changed this to "atheists".

That is not an explanation of "ideological views about religion". It is just repeating your original claim. Once again, you are simply question begging.

Do you really need someone to explain Dawkins', Hitchens', etc. ideological views regarding religion? Even you should be able to work those out on your own.

You were banging on about "atheist ideology" but when pressed conceded that you meant "atheists have ideologies".
Well, no **** Sherlock.

"banging on about atheist ideology", "When pressed"

Hallucinating again I see.

Poster: I have just had an exchange with an atheist, who treat it like a fact, that religion is a crutch.

Me, in reply: Religion is a crutch. The problem is not that many atheists see religion as a crutch, it's that they are ignorant of the fact their own ideology is also a crutch.

Where does that say atheism is an ideology? It says ideology is a crutch be it religious or irreligious.

Strange you struggle to grasp this despite multiple corrections.

 

[lukethethird]

Do you think using words as they are most commonly used and understood helps us communicate more effectively?

You are correct, we can use words any way we choose, but clear communication is easier if we use them as they are most commonly used or understood, which is why we bother with dictionaries in the first place.

The thing is as you well know, theists want atheism to have a positive meaning as in, the belief that God does not exist, so that they can claim that atheists believe on faith just as they do in order to redirect any criticism.

 

[Augustus]

So we've clarified that you and Harris were wrong about Galileo being punished because the silly religionist "refused to look through his telescope", agreed?

We are making progress then

All true. One may not have been the only or even major cause of the other, but it played a part. To claim that mentioning these things, in the context of a discussion about how religion has influenced the world, constitutes "historical ignorance" is laughable. It merely highlights how desperate you are to push your strange, anti-atheist agenda.

Simply stating it had an effect in some unknown way that leaves no evidence and contradicts other evidence is not a rational argument, it's just an empty assertion.

Harris: Christianity undermined the notion that the Roman emperor was a god. It made it harder to recruit true soldiers and they had to farm it out to mercenaries. And it eroded what you might call ‘traditional Roman values’ and then the Western Empire fell and we ushered in the Dark Ages.

Yes, the magical effect where Christianity weakened the Western Roman Empire, but magically didn't affect the even more Christian Eastern Roman Empire which lasted another millennium.

That magically made it harder to recruit soldiers despite the army being double the size it was under the Pagan emperors, and again magically only made Western European Christians unwilling to fight, not the rest of the Empire.

That somehow Romans believing the Emperor was Divinely appointed to do God's will, rather than being vaguely divine magically weakened the empire in some unknown way that led to the fall, but again only in one part.

Any rational argument in favour of your view then?

Are you high? You really believe that the knowledge of classical Greece was preserved and transmitted by Christian philosophers in Western Europe, rather than via an Islamic route?

Would help if you actually read posts before replying rather than making up some nonsense.

As I've said multiple times, I believe the knowledge of classical Greece was preserved by the Greeks, i.e. The Roman Empire that lasted until the 15th C.

Who do you actually think had preserved it for 1000 years enabling the Muslims get it from them in the first place?

the Byzantines retained many ancient technical and scientific works because, contrary to the orientalist image of their spirituality and mysticism, theirs were a practical and pragmatic culture. These included medical works, especially the Hippocratic corpus (even the non-Attic parts) and Galen, because Byzantines did not turn only (or even in the first instance) to saints for healing but paid and funded doctors in hospitals. They were also interested in ancient military science and engineering—seeing as the army was the single largest state expense—as well as mathematics and astronomy (among other reasons, for working out problems in the Christian calendar). Ioannes Tzetzes, a classical scholar of the twelfth century, noted that Archimedes, through his written works, continued to benefit mankind.4 And, in some periods, Byzantine doctors had to pass an examination on Galen in order to be appointed to a paid position.

These were some of the factors that shaped the corpus of Greek literature as we have it today. So when you go into a classics seminar library and stare at rows of the Greek Loebs, Teubners, oxford Classical Texts, or Budés, know that you are looking at a Byzantine Classical Library. If you are a scholar of classical Greek studies, you are working within a framework established by the Byzantines.

Byzantium unbound - Anthony Kaldellis

"Arabic translators did far more than just preserve Greek philosophy" (Peter Adamson, professor of ancient and medieval philosophy)
I guess your massive intellect considers professor Adamson to be "historically ignorant" as well?

He's saying exactly what I said, the role of Arabic scholars was not preserving knowledge but the innovations they added to it.

Arabic translators did far more than just preserve Greek philosophy | Aeon Ideas

We have no significant texts that survived from being retranslated from Arabic back to Greek. Name one if you disagree.

 

[Augustus]

Sheldon said: ↑
Oh well now that you've used large bold red font, well that's different, Except my atheism is not a belief of course, as I believe I've explained. Rather it is the lack or absence of theistic belief.





It's not a belief.

Yes, I agree you believe your atheism is not a belief but a lack of belief.

So what's the problem??

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

To the Greeks, an atheist didn’t necessarily reject the existence of the gods. He merely acted as though the gods did not exist or were unaware of his actions. Unfortunately, this historical connection between lack of belief and lack of morals is one that still plagues atheism today, despite studies showing atheists to be, as a whole, less prejudiced, less willing to condone violence, and more tolerant of sexual, ethnic and cultural differences than many faith communities."
I found that to be quite enlightening. While it's easy to target the Christian church, the use of atheism to denote those who "live as if there were no gods", seems a cultural thing handed down throughout the ages.

When I target the Christian church, it is not for being the originator of the idea that atheists are immoral. It's for being the principle vector for spreading that slander in the West for millennia now. If the modern secular humanist would like to push back against that, it won't be by turning his attention to Greece.

Also, notice that atheists define themselves as people with no god belief, who, naturally, live as if there are no gods. The meaning is completely different from that ancient concept that the atheist is defined not by unbelief, but by being outside the boundary of the morally acceptable.

Have you seen the scriptures from the Christian Bible that define unbelievers listed together? I've collected several

[1] "The fool says in his heart,'There is no God.' They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good" - Psalm 14:1

[2] "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, and all and the enemy of a good god." - Revelation 21:8

[3]"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?"- 2 Corinthians 6:14

[4] Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ." - 1 John 2:22

[5] "Whoever is not with me is against me" - Luke 11:23

What does that teach? The Bible calls unbelievers corrupt, vile, wicked, abominable, liars, godless vessels of darkness in the service of evil, the embodiment of darkness, not one of whom does any good, to be shunned, and all of whom are fit to be burned alive forever as enemies of a good god and the moral equivalent of murderers and whoremongers.

Atheism is a step forward morally, from the god of fundamentalism, that god of fear.

Agree, but that is just the beginning. Replacing such ideologies with secular humanism was a giant step forward. Christianity updated the angry, jealous deity of the Old Testament with a kinder deity or demigod (the theology is quite varied there as to just what Jesus was), but as you can see from what followed, it didn't produce an ideology that generates better people or promotes unity. It gives lip service to those, but telling people to love one another and claiming to be the religion of love just isn't enough, especially when one considers many of the acts called love in the scriptures.

God so loved us that he built a torture pit for those who don't love Him back, by which is meant to submit to biblical commandments and to praise God. As a further act of love, there was a extremely painful and protracted blood sacrifice. Apparently that was part of the love - making death worse for no apparent reason (I don't believe that animal sacrifices were tortured to death, but they were still acceptable to the Lord).

It kind of reminds one of the love that led to most of terrestrial life drowning, which also seems gratuitously cruel, especially since humanity was the intended target. This God of love is a god of intolerance, of what is not acceptable to it, what it cannot abide and will not tolerate.

And this is the way this love is expressed from many Christians. It's how they love the atheists and gays (but hate the sin). There is no love there and no Golden Rule.

Yet those are actual values of secular humanism embodied in the thoughts and deeds of secular humanists daily. You see them on these threads, and if one can get past the faith-based confirmation bias that these are the horrible people their Bibles and clergy tell them they are, you can see that they actually do promote love and tolerance. Understand that the tolerance of secular humanism is for the tolerant only, not the intolerant. The church is intolerant of multiple classes of law-abiding people for being out of step with its values. Secular humanists oppose that, not embrace its source.

You've seen all the memes about Biblical Jesus vs. Republican Jesus? Considering the rank hypocrisies, gay hating, immigrant hating, poor hating, otherism permating their leadership and ranks, I call them Jesucans, Right Wing Republicans with Jesus flags. That's not the Jesus of the Beatitudes, and certainly not the Jesus of the Golden Rule.

Yes, and that's a nice illustration of the differences between Christianity and secular humanism. It's not what's on paper or what an ism claims for itself. It's value (or lack thereof) is in its output. Ask yourself who it is in America that is the champion of the atheist, the LGBTQ, women, immigrants, and people of color? Yes, some Christians join the humanists there and champion the same values, but it seems most don't.

Modern humanism is really just an attempt to get back to these core spiritual principles of "Love your neighbor as yourself"

That and more. Humanism is also an attempt to replace faith-based thought with reason. Faith-based thought is doing a lot of damage in the States now. It's why people choose to go unvaccinated, believing by faith that the virus is more dangerous than the vaccine. It's why people poo-pooed climate change for so long, some still doing so. It's why people stormed the Capitol holding the by faith the false belief that an election had been stolen. It's why people want to take abortion rights away from women. It's why a former president said that he doesn't consider atheists patriots. Faith, faith, faith, faith - that error of thought that causes people to forsake reason when we need them to be reasonable more than ever.

The sooner the religions that teach people that faith is a virtue and who its god considers abominable, the better the world will be.

But if God as a symbol has a lot of baggage, then whatever that 'higher power' beyond the ego is for you that enacts that within us, is all that really matters. Anything that shrinks the ego and gets it out of the way is accomplishing 'the will of God' so to speak.

Actually, I have never known what is meant by shrink the ego. Exactly what kind of thinking is being discouraged, and how is it harmful? I never think in such terms. There's nothing that I want that I don't have. I couldn't use any more power, so I have no will to control anything but my life and immediate environment - not even my wife. I am not in conflict with anybody. Is this what others mean when they say to suppress the defeat the ego? If so, I never suppressed anything except behaviors that I saw weren't facilitating my goal for myself, which was to create a satisfying life. That includes being at peace with my conscience and my environment.

This is the power of rational ethics. One applies reason to moral intuitions to facilitate their intended purpose. Thus, secular humanism doesn't merely say love one another. It considers rationally just what that means or ought t mean, and how to effect that purpose. Where the Baha'i on RF are frequently talking about world unity, I don't see them tackling any of the issues that underlie that division with more than platitudes.

Back to ego: I have a strong sense of self. I could not be more confident. Perhaps that is what some object to. I am also not meek. I assert myself often. Is that what others mean by ego? If so, why should I want to change that? The Sermon on the Mount calls meekness a blessing, but I call it the unwillingness to assert oneself when one should. It is not humility or politeness or cooperation. Those are distinct concepts with their own words. Meekness is the opposite of confidence.

I also don't think in terms of higher powers. Gravity is a pretty high power, but I don't think of it that way. That language is problematic, since it triggers a god concept in too many people when they hear it, and yes, that is undesirable baggage.

Isn't humanism the jettisoning of all of that baggage? What remains is pretty powerful once the baggage is stripped off. The baggage of phrases like higher power and God keeps bringing people back to faith and worship, which just isn't working as a way to enculturate people if one wants to generate smart, kind, and wise people in larger amounts. Faith keeps anchored to ancient moral systems that are terribly flawed by todays standards.

And where did those standards come from, such as the rejection of the divine right of kings and the rejection of slavery (why is that never called an abomination in scripture)? Not scripture. It came from the application of reason to the Golden Rule.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I think what my concern is that in the desire to jettison the detris, the Baby in the bathwater gets jettisoned as well

What baby? I see nothing of value coming form the religions that doesn't come from secular humanism, and much of value coming from the latter not coming from the religions. Secular humanism preserves the baby (teaching charity and acceptance) while ejecting the bathwater (the list of who's abominable, the bad examples of love, the unhealthy reliance on faith as a way of knowing).

it was laced with the same "I've got the real truth now", attitudes that the fundamentalists it attacks has about their own beliefs.

Most critical thinkers are saying that they have a better definition of truth than merely anything somebody chooses to believe, a better way to determine truth, defined as ideas that correlate to reality in a way that they accurately describe and predict aspects of it. This is demonstrably true.

And I think it's disingenuous to compare a failed way of thinking (fundamentalism) with a successful one (critical thinking and rational ethics), to compare one epistemology able to demonstrate the truth of its claims with another that cannot, and consider that equivalent.

"Religion is stupid" is not constructive criticism.

I also don't hear that much. What I say is that reason is superior to faith both in deciding what is true about the world, and how to make it a better place. To those who tell me that I could use more faith and religion, I ask them to explain why specifically, not in lofty platitudes about the heart and spirit, or deeper truths. Do the faithful hear this as religion is stupid?

Here's a thought experiment. Take a person like me, a secular humanist, and begin to add religion to my life little by little. First, let's make me like you. I consider us both decent and intelligent people, but you have a god belief that is well compartmentalized and frankly invisible to me without you telling me that. There are several other Christians posting on RF just like that. If they didn't announce that they were Christians, you couldn't tell.

Now start adding more and more religion to me and removing my education and critical thinking skills. Now I can't make a sound argument on RF. Next, I don't know what a scientific theory is, but begin starting thread arguing against the science I never learned because I never had a reason to - you know, the foolishness of the world that it considers wisdom. As I transform further, I tell others why gays are going to hell and why they are immoral for supporting abortion rights. And I tell them the world is a bad place. And that there literally was a global flood, the biblical prophecies are prescient, and scripture is infallible even in the face of much of it being disproven. Now I'm full fundie.

This is why I say that there is no baby in the Christian bathwater. The more religious a person is the worse, the less like the intelligent, thoughtful, decent neighbors and fellow citizens we desire he becomes. Your own words were that humanism returns to core values such as the Golden Rule. There's the baby.

Why would you think that of me?

That you have some atheistic bigotry? Because of the way you framed antitheism as revenge rather than an effort to correct an injustice. You're not a hateful person, and I think you try to be fair, but I think you suffer from the soft bigotry of lowered expectations for atheists.

Also, you seem to have no remorse for the way that Christianity has dealt with atheists and the cost of that to them. That's true for every theist I've encountered. I have never seen one express any empathy there. I list the sins of Christianity against atheists and there is neve an expression of regret by any theist. We were once executed. Oh. Atheism is illegal in some countries, and some are incarcerated. Oh, but did you hear what they did to Christian missionaries? Oppression! When I was born, an atheist couldn't be a teacher, coach, adoptive parent, or juror. Oh. Still, openly atheistic candidates need not bother running for elected office. Oh. Pass the salt, please.

Please don't misunderstand. I'm not asking for an insincere expression of empathy from anybody. I'm commenting on the significance of the absence of empathy. It's a manifestation of the dehumanization of atheists so prevalent in American culture. Consider those scriptures I listed above. If one were to substitute Jew or black for unbeliever (all are corrupt, none do good), there would be a backlash. If you described animal with such derision and contempt, there's be an objection.

But describe atheists that way, and even most atheists don't object (you know, the good, nonmilitant ones). Why is that? Objection only comes from antitheists (this is what is referred to as New Atheism - the objection to this depiction of atheists among other things). And isn't the purpose of this thread to diminish these "New Atheists"? Just another example of disrespect for atheists and their just cause.

Any former believer who ventured into exploring other avenues for reclaiming spirituality for themselves, of which we see plenty of that here on RF with its membership, the atheists of the site, which were the majority, would dogpile them. "Woo! Woo!" they would attack, branding it as irrational,

Attack? There you go showing your disapproval again and characterizing atheists in unflattering caricature. Look at what horrible people we are. What we do is what I am dong now. We dissent. We express contrary opinion. When the theist does it, he sees himself as righteous and constructive. When the atheist disagrees, he's militant, angry, disrespectful - language I never use in rebuttal, and behavior I never manifest. I am to them as I am to you. But it is seen as all of these terrible things by a culture trained to see atheists as beyond the moral pale.

My issues again, is when that's where it stops. What's next? Where is Atheism 2.0?

With iconoclasm? Is that all you see from the secular humanist tradition? It replaced monarchy with democracy, theocracy with freedom of and from religion, sterile superstitions with science, defective received wisdom with critical thinking and rational ethics.

you always come back to equating faith with bad beliefs

I define faith as belief with insufficient evidence. Several have dissented, and offered definitions of their own, but never try to argue why my definition is inadequate or theirs a better description of faith than mine. And I call them guesses, not bad beliefs. Most are wrong beliefs, and those that inform actions tend to lead to bad outcomes. I think it was on this thread that I posted that if you believe by faith that the world will end soon, and don't act on that, it's probably a harmless belief, but if you act on it, as by selling your house as many have done when specific dates for the end of the world are given, then you have a bad belief.

So you see, Antitheism from the likes of Dawkins and Harris, honestly is not all that terribly helpful to the cause of getting people to grown beyond mythic-literalism. It's saying you have to abandon faith to embrace reason. And that is hogwash!

I don't see that. Yes, people should abandon faith and embrace reason in its place, but these men are not addressing theists, nor trying to convert them. Of course they're offended. They're trained to be. They don't like or trust atheists, and they respond to dissent with emotion like anger and indignation, so there is little that can be said that is critical of religion that doesn't get them to take up pitchforks.

These people are trying to reach their grandchildren. Who do you think Harris is speaking to here? Not the church elders. This is an appeal to reason:

"Forty-four percent of the American population is convinced that Jesus will return to judge the living and the dead sometime in the next fifty years. According to the most common interpretation of biblical prophecy, Jesus will return only after things have gone horribly awry here on earth. It is, therefore, not an exaggeration to say that if the city of New York were suddenly replaced by a ball of fire, some significant percentage of the American population would see a silver lining in the subsequent mushroom cloud, as it would suggest to them that the best thing that is ever going to happen was about to happen - the return of Christ. It should be blindingly obvious that beliefs of this sort will do little to help us create a durable future for ourselves - socially, economically, environmentally, or geopolitically. Imagine the consequences if any significant component of the U.S. government actually believed that the world was about to end and that its ending would be glorious. The fact that nearly half of the American population apparently believes this, purely on the basis of religious dogma, should be considered a moral and intellectual emergency. The book you are about to read is my response to this emergency" - Sam Harris, Letter To A Christian Nation

So is this:

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic? Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. What if someone says, "Well, that's not how I choose to think about water"? All we can do is appeal to scientific values. And if he doesn't share those values, the conversation is over." - Sam Harris

No place for faith there, and no attempt to continue a dialogue with one committed to it. As I said, the message is aimed at a younger demographic not yet ensconced in religion.

 

[Revoltingest]

You can spot a "new atheist" cuz they
still have that new atheist shine....

 

[lukethethird]

Nope, you are hallucinating.



An example of the above, I said "Rationalists" and you have changed this to "atheists".



Do you really need someone to explain Dawkins', Hitchens', etc. ideological views regarding religion? Even you should be able to work those out on your own.



"banging on about atheist ideology", "When pressed"

Hallucinating again I see.

Poster: I have just had an exchange with an atheist, who treat it like a fact, that religion is a crutch.

Me, in reply: Religion is a crutch. The problem is not that many atheists see religion as a crutch, it's that they are ignorant of the fact their own ideology is also a crutch.

Where does that say atheism is an ideology? It says ideology is a crutch be it religious or irreligious.

Strange you struggle to grasp this despite multiple corrections.

It's apparent that religion is a crutch but how is ideology a crutch? For example I have a world view based on an education of cold hard facts that are not comforting in any way because they are not dreamed up to be comforting, they just happen to be what is observed. Contrast that with the religious prescribed sets of beliefs that tell us among other things that God has a plan for us and he loves us.

 

[Augustus]

Do you think using words as they are most commonly used and understood helps us communicate more effectively?

Sometimes it does, other times it doesn't.

But seeing as that's exactly what I'm doing in this case, it makes little difference.

You are correct, we can use words any way we choose, but clear communication is easier if we use them as they are most commonly used or understood, which is why we bother with dictionaries in the first place.

Do you think people were wrong to try to redefine the term atheism in a manner they thought was more accurate i.e. "lack of belief" and were actually damaging our ability to communicate when they did so?

I'd guess you don't think that, but it contradicts your point. Look at a dictionary from 40 years ago if you think staying true to dictionaries is important.

 

[Augustus]

I have a world view based on an education of cold hard facts

No you don't. That's just what you tell yourself as it makes you feel good.

 

[ppp]

No you don't. That's just what you tell yourself as it makes you feel good.

How do you know that?

 

[lukethethird]

How do you know that?

He told himself that to make himself feel good.

 

[Sheldon]

Poster: I have just had an exchange with an atheist, who treat it like a fact, that religion is a crutch.

Me, in reply: Religion is a crutch. The problem is not that many atheists see religion as a crutch, it's that they are ignorant of the fact their own ideology is also a crutch.

Where does that say atheism is an ideology? It says ideology is a crutch be it religious or irreligious.

Strange you struggle to grasp this despite multiple corrections.

To be fair, I thought that was what you might mean, but the wording wasn't clear by any means. Given the number of people who similarly drew the conclusion you were implying atheism is an ideology, mightn't some of the fault be your own wording there? It's not that big a deal, but you seem very keen to leap on people when you think they are wrong and won't admit it.

Even re-reading it now, it's meaning could easily be seen as saying atheism is an ideological crutch:

"The problem is not that many atheists see religion as a crutch, it's that they are ignorant of the fact their own ideology is also a crutch."

 

[Augustus]

I don't know that I agree, but maybe I don't understand what you mean by "want to be true" when I stopped believing, I didn't want it to be true. Initially, I was somewhat disturbed by the possibility that it was not true. Not as deeply as some people who come out of theism are disturbed, but it was a change to the way that I saw the world and what I'd always assumed to be the case. But over the 5-year span of my migration out of belief, I moved from wanting there to be a god to just wanting to know whether there was any justification for it.
I remember the day pretty well. I was 16 barely and standing outside my dorm. It was a bright sunny day blue sky and my classes were over. I was standing there thinking about a conversation I overheard where two students were talking about monism. And I thought to myself, oh. Oh. I guess I'm an atheist.

My next thought was, I wonder if I'm missing something? And from there started to branch out to other traditions. Some through participation, and some through merely conversation and study. After 9 years of suspending disbelief and become deeply involved in several alien cultures, I stopped in the middle of casting a circle and thought, nope. I'm still an atheist. And went on from there. Not thinking about it until my friend's kids started getting hit by creationist crap in the classroom. Kitzmiller v Dover. That annoyed me.

So what did I want to see? I think I would have been content with any results.

We are incapable of seeing the world as it is, we need to create some form of meaning for events that renders them more comprehensible to us. This is necessary for socialisation, culture, learning, ethics, laws, rights, self-esteem, etc.

Many atheists think that abandoning religion and adopting a rationalistic worldview means they "see the world as it is", but they are simply replacing what system of religious myth for another system of secular myth (ideology).

I'm not even sure what "seeing the world as it is" would entail given we are a bunch of atoms that sentient by chance and live in a purposeless universe which will eventually kill us all off and leave no trace. We have altruism and violence as part of our nature, can cooperate or exploit, be empathetic or cruel, etc.

But our base nature is not a basis for civilisation, that requires creating mutual bonds that bind us together yet don't really exist (like religions, or ideologies).

We have our own sense of identity and value that tells us what kind of behaviours are 'good' or 'bad', yet 'good' for us is 'bad' for others and vice versa.

Secular Humanism as a value system is no more "true" than Buddhism or Islam, it's just different and justified by different myths.

We all rely on these myths/fictions/narratives to mediate the world we live in and try to shape (parts of) it to our ends.

 

[Augustus]

To be fair, I thought that was what you might mean, but the wording wasn't clear by any means. Given the number of people who similarly drew the conclusion you were implying atheism is an ideology, mightn't some of the fault be your own wording there? It's not that big a deal, but you seem very keen to leap on people when you think they are wrong and won't admit it.

Even re-reading it now, it's meaning could easily be seen as saying atheism is an ideological crutch:

"The problem is not that many atheists see religion as a crutch, it's that they are ignorant of the fact their own ideology is also a crutch."

The nature of forum communication tends to mean many posts can be interpreted in more than one way. That will always be the case.

The nature of forum communication also tends to mean people jump to conclusions based on their own, often incorrect, assumptions regarding how to interpret a post that wasn't even directed at them in the first place.

That's just the nature of the medium.

That is why I clarified the statement. Some people accepted the clarification and tried to discuss what I actually meant.

Others decided to double and triple down on their initial misunderstanding and insist that clarifying a statement is actually a logical fallacy if it goes against their misunderstanding.

 

[RestlessSoul]

It's apparent that religion is a crutch but how is ideology a crutch? For example I have a world view based on an education of cold hard facts that are not comforting in any way because they are not dreamed up to be comforting, they just happen to be what is observed. Contrast that with the religious prescribed sets of beliefs that tell us among other things that God has a plan for us and he loves us.

God does have a plan for you. He wants you to be happy, joyous and free, and to love your fellows.

 

[ppp]

We are incapable of seeing the world as it is, we need to create some form of meaning for events that renders them more comprehensible to us. This is necessary for socialisation, culture, learning, ethics, laws, rights, self-esteem, etc.

I don't agree. I don't see any intrinsic meaning to events. When I attribute meaning to an event, I am aware that the meaning is coming from me.

Many atheists think that abandoning religion and adopting a rationalistic worldview means they "see the world as it is", but they are simply replacing what system of religious myth for another system of secular myth (ideology).

I suppose that "many" might. I have certainly met some. But again, I am perfectly aware that I see phenomena, not numena. And I am hardly unique.

But our base nature is not a basis for civilisation, that requires creating mutual bonds that bind us together yet don't really exist (like religions, or ideologies).

I am pretty sure that as social animals that the activities and attitudes required for socialization are part of our base nature. Just like all the other social animals.

We have our own sense of identity and value that tells us what kind of behaviours are 'good' or 'bad', yet 'good' for us is 'bad' for others and vice versa.

Sure, but they are not random. Those values are pretty well defined by a bell curve; hence normative behaviors.I tend to view morality as ethologists do. That social animals are born with the attributes of the values of fairness, empathy, reciprocity and cooperation. Expressed differently in different species, but as a normative distribution in every species. And that is good enough for nature.

Secular Humanism as a value system is no more "true" than Buddhism or Islam, it's just different and justified by different myths.

No doubt. But this would be the case even if we had a method to measure Absolute Truth.
I don't think that moral systems has a truth value. While I am not much of a Harris fan, I do think that he is correct in that our implicit goals comport with well being - in various scopes. The reason that I do not like religious moral systems is that 1) they are not systems, but merely codes, and 2) as such they demonize change in light of new information. I have no doubt that any given secular humanist will be resistant to change, but a doctrine of immutability supporting that resistance is expressly denied by the system. Which is a step forward.

We all rely on these myths/fictions/narratives to mediate the world we live in and try to shape (parts of) it to our ends.

No doubt. But even if we had access to absolute truth, we would still do that.

 

[KWED]

Poster: I have just had an exchange with an atheist, who treat it like a fact, that religion is a crutch.

Me, in reply: Religion is a crutch. The problem is not that many atheists see religion as a crutch, it's that they are ignorant of the fact their own ideology is also a crutch.

Where does that say atheism is an ideology?

It is implied by the construction of your sentence.
"The problem is that many atheists are ignorant of the fact their own ideology is also a crutch."

If you meant that whatever ideology an person who happens to be an atheist follows is a crutch you should have said something like...
"The problem is that many atheists are ignorant of the fact their own ideologies are also crutches."

It says ideology is a crutch be it religious or irreligious.

No, it says "an atheist's ideology is a crutch".
Anywho, glad you have finally admitted that atheism isn't an ideology.

BTW, ideologies don't have to be crutches, so you were wrong there as well.

Strange you struggle to grasp this despite multiple corrections.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

God does have a plan for you. He wants you to be happy, joyous and free, and to love your fellows.

I don't see a plan there, just a hope. If there's a God, I hope the same for Him. It's in His interest and ours that He be happy and love his fellows, the ones He made. But I also don't have a plan for that - just a wish.

I have the same wish for my wife. I have an actual plan to facilitate that. I give her latitude, praise, and support. I have a different plan to effect that in my dogs. We don't strike them, we praise them, we give them toys and bones, and like this morning, we take them on walks in the park. I had such hopes for my children as well, and a plan to go with them that included encouragement and education. Those are plans. And that is support.

I have found happiness, but by my own plan for myself (and luck). My plan was to work hard and save, retire to a life of leisure relatively young, be the kind of person who is liked and respected and lives relatively guilt- and shame-free by being a person of integrity and a friend, to find and earn love, and finally, to relocate to a beautiful and tranquil place with happy people and good weather to live out my days slowly surrounded by music and art and making a difference in some lives (mostly children and animals). I never saw God's plan.

 

[KWED]

We are incapable of seeing the world as it is,

Speak for yourself.

[Atheists] are simply replacing what system of religious myth for another system of secular myth (ideology).

Oh dear. And I thought we'd made so much progress. Now you are not only claiming that atheism is an ideology, but that it is also a myth!

I'm not even sure what "seeing the world as it is" would entail given we are a bunch of atoms that sentient by chance and live in a purposeless universe which will eventually kill us all off and leave no trace. We have altruism and violence as part of our nature, can cooperate or exploit, be empathetic or cruel, etc.

Correct!

But our base nature is not a basis for civilisation, that requires creating mutual bonds that bind us together yet don't really exist (like religions, or ideologies).

Subscribing to a religion and or similar ideology is not required to "see the world as it is". In fact, they tend to obscure our vision.
Yes, religion and ideology have played, and continue to play a part in making the world what it is, but we are better equipped to see that when we aren't blinded by dogma.

We have our own sense of identity and value that tells us what kind of behaviours are 'good' or 'bad', yet 'good' for us is 'bad' for others and vice versa.
Secular Humanism as a value system is no more "true" than Buddhism or Islam, it's just different and justified by different myths.

You are unlikely to find a secular humanist claiming secular humanism is "true". "Better", possibly, but not "true".

We all rely on these myths/fictions/narratives to mediate the world we live in and try to shape (parts of) it to our ends.

That's quite the tar brush you have there! Do you consider Meso-American serpent god worship and human sacrifice to be ideologically comparable to secular humanism?