Why Atheism is Vacuous Grandiloquence

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Stigma
Provoking title, but a video worth seeing. Very interesting insights imho.

dsn6hah_zJI


Thoughts on the issue?

Robtard
Can't watch right now, but if the premise is to slam Atheist because they don't believe in something that can't be proven to begin with (and yes, nor disproved), it's rather pompous in return to do so.

Stigma
Originally posted by Robtard
Can't watch right now, but if the premise is to slam Atheist because they don't believe in something that can't be proven to begin with (and yes, nor disproved), it's rather pompous in return to do so. Do not presupose things, Rob. Just watch it. The premise is different and interesting imo.

Robtard
Why I left what I said open to change pending the view at a later time.

Stigma
Originally posted by Robtard
Why I left what I said open to change pending the view at a later time.
I see. thumb up

socool8520
He agrees that Atheists are capable of being morally good without regligion, but at the same time says they have nothing to offer for a lack of Religion. If you can be morally good without a Religious doctrine then who cares? I think most people agree that murder, theft, rape, etc. are wrong. that's why we have laws against it. What else does Atheism need to provide?

Collectivism has been around longer than any Religion I can think of so that's not dependent upon on it.

Surtur
I see it like this: you're a psychopath if the only thing preventing you from doing bad things is because you think an omnipotent being specifically cares about you and your actions.

Patient_Leech
He makes a lot of claims that would take a while to unpack, but he is essentially arguing for Religion on the basis of its utility, its usefulness because status quo, that is what humans have used to "hold them together" for so long. Hold us together? Seriously? More like separate us. And is religion really useful as a moral foundation? Anyone with a secular 5th grade education could improve the 10 Commandments in 5 minutes or less and obviously the Bible got slavery and the treatment of women wrong, so it should be out the window as a moral guide at first glance. Does this guy really think that we (as in humans) in the 21st century can't come up with a better moral guide than the Bible or Koran? I mean ****, look at Saudi Arabia. That is an effed up place with some seriously backwards morality

This guy ignores the mass atrocities committed as a direct result of religious belief like the Inquisition and burning of witches. These are direct results of superstitious religion. Not to mention the horrible atrocities that are happening on an almost daily basis as a result of Islam. And the various incompatible religions cause horrible in-group/out-group tribalism in general.

Also, he sets up a straw man by saying that atheists think that everything is an "accident." That's not true. Evolution, which is proven, is anything but an accident. And he seems to be arguing that God exists because we'll never be able to understand consciousness. How does he know? Throwing God up as an answer just stops inquiry and exploration. Whatever consciousness is it arose naturally. So far it is not irrational to say that the universe is somehow rational, but it is not rational to say that God did it.

And I'm not sure what he's trying to say about the fall of Christianity and supposedly chaos breaking out because of atheism? Or is it because Islam is spreading? He's not clear. Sounds like another straw man to me.

I don't think the arrival of religion is anymore complicated than people just trying to use myth to try to make sense of the world. And there's nothing wrong with that, but at whatever point when people started believing these myths literally as hard and fast dogma rationality started to suffer. The main problem is dogma, not necessarily mythical ways of looking at the world. Evolution has made it quite clear that we have arrived here naturally, and not through some magical creation by a God. Yes, it is remarkable that we find ourselves here. It's a ****ing bizarre situation, on a big rock circling a huge ball of fire with an incomprehensibly vast universe. But God is not a reasonable answer for this situation. It just isn't. Especially not one who writes books with terrible morality.


This guy is kind of an idiot.

Robtard
Originally posted by Surtur
I see it like this: you're a psychopath if the only thing preventing you from doing bad things is because you think an omnipotent being specifically cares about you and your actions. Agreed; I've said similar before thumb up

If the only thing stopping you from raping, murdering and pillaging is a fear of damnation after death. Then you need to really question your beliefs and morals,, imho

edit; TBF, should also add that if the only thing stopping you from such acts above is a fear of prison, you've probably got some issues as well, but at least the fear of prison is tangible

ArtificialGlory
Originally posted by Stigma
Provoking title, but a video worth seeing. Very interesting insights imho.

dsn6hah_zJI


Thoughts on the issue?
I gotta say, for a guy making a video titled "Why Atheism is Vacuous Grandiloquence", he sure rips into theism pretty brutally in the first two and a half minutes of the video.

socool8520
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
He makes a lot of claims that would take a while to unpack, but he is essentially arguing for Religion on the basis of its utility, its usefulness because status quo, that is what humans have used to "hold them together" for so long. Hold us together? Seriously? More like separate us. And is religion really useful as a moral foundation? Anyone with a secular 5th grade education could improve the 10 Commandments in 5 minutes or less and obviously the Bible got slavery and the treatment of women wrong, so it should be out the window as a moral guide at first glance. Does this guy really think that we (as in humans) in the 21st century can't come up with a better moral guide than the Bible or Koran? I mean ****, look at Saudi Arabia. That is an effed up place with some seriously backwards morality

This guy ignores the mass atrocities committed as a direct result of religious belief like the Inquisition and burning of witches. These are direct results of superstitious religion. Not to mention the horrible atrocities that are happening on an almost daily basis as a result of Islam. And the various incompatible religions cause horrible in-group/out-group tribalism in general.

Also, he sets up a straw man by saying that atheists think that everything is an "accident." That's not true. Evolution, which is proven, is anything but an accident. And he seems to be arguing that God exists because we'll never be able to understand consciousness. How does he know? Throwing God up as an answer just stops inquiry and exploration. Whatever consciousness is it arose naturally. So far it is not irrational to say that the universe is somehow rational, but it is not rational to say that God did it.

And I'm not sure what he's trying to say about the fall of Christianity and supposedly chaos breaking out because of atheism? Or is it because Islam is spreading? He's not clear. Sounds like another straw man to me.

I don't think the arrival of religion is anymore complicated than people just trying to use myth to try to make sense of the world. And there's nothing wrong with that, but at whatever point when people started believing these myths literally as hard and fast dogma rationality started to suffer. The main problem is dogma, not necessarily mythical ways of looking at the world. Evolution has made it quite clear that we have arrived here naturally, and not through some magical creation by a God. Yes, it is remarkable that we find ourselves here. It's a ****ing bizarre situation, on a big rock circling a huge ball of fire with an incomprehensibly vast universe. But God is not a reasonable answer for this situation. It just isn't. Especially not one who writes books with terrible morality.


This guy is kind of an idiot.

What I don't understand is how he thinks that Atheism will somehow make you devoid of all culture, because we all know Atheists don't celebrate holidays or enjoy past times.

It's also ridiculous to think that Religion is the only way to hold a society together. If you want collectivism,, or a sense of belonging, there are plenty of social groups you can join that aren't as restrictive as Religion. I already stated we have laws already for the mostly agreed upon crimes, so you don't need it for a moral compass. Hell, we even have things like Aesop's Fables that can take the place of the metaphorical fairytales found in the Bible. I think the world can function just fine without Religion being the cornerstone of society.

Patient_Leech
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
I gotta say, for a guy making a video titled "Why Atheism is Vacuous Grandiloquence", he sure rips into theism pretty brutally in the first two and a half minutes of the video.

Yeah, that was the only part that really made good sense laughing out loud

...until, of course, he said atheists think everything came to be by accident.

For years I never wanted to call myself an atheist, partly because of the social stigma against it, but also because it just didn't seem necessary. Sam Harris makes a good point in this regard by saying we don't have a name for "non-astrologers." So it seems that in a more rational world the term "atheist" will not be needed.

Another grave error this guy makes in the video is saying that atheists are somehow arrogant. It is profoundly NOT arrogant to say we don't know things that no person could possibly know. No one knows what happens when you die. No one could possibly know that there is heaven or hell and there is no good reason to think so. Theists claim to know what God, the Creator of the universe, thinks on various topics. That is arrogance personified. The point of atheism is that we don't know everything. That's the opposite of arrogance. It's Socratic wisdom.

socool8520
Originally posted by Patient_Leech


Another grave error this guy makes in the video is saying that atheists are somehow arrogant. It is profoundly NOT arrogant to say we don't know things that no person could possibly know. No one knows what happens when you die. No one could possibly know that there is heaven or hell and there is no good reason to think so. Theists claim to know what God, the Creator of the universe, thinks on various topics. That is arrogance personified. The point of atheism is that we don't know everything. That's the opposite of arrogance. It's Socratic wisdom.

To be fair, he does state that there is a minority of arrogant Atheists who feel religious people are dumb. I have known a few who are this way and I don't care much for that.

Patient_Leech
Originally posted by socool8520
What I don't understand is how he thinks that Atheism will somehow make you devoid of all culture, because we all know Atheists don't celebrate holidays or enjoy past times.

Yeah, and in theory any atheist who makes no presupposition that there will be a life after this one would, more often than not, seek to enjoy and improve and celebrate this existence more than anyone.

socool8520
^ Agreed. Live life to the fullest especially if you think this is it

Patient_Leech
Originally posted by socool8520
To be fair, he does state that there is a minority of arrogant Atheists who feel religious people are dumb. I have known a few who are this way and I don't care much for that.

I don't remember the exact quote from the video, but if he does indeed say it's a minority then he's lumping all atheists in with a minority in the title of his video. That's another dishonest tactic. This guy is an idiot. He's deeply defending things he himself doesn't even believe in... he reminds me of regressive non-Muslim liberals who are okay with Islam and even defend it even though it goes against everything any rational liberal should stand for like equality for women, freedom of speech, etc.

socool8520
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I don't remember the exact quote from the video, but if he does indeed say it's a minority then he's lumping all atheists in with a minority in the title of his video. That's another dishonest tactic. This guy is an idiot. He's deeply defending things he himself doesn't even believe in... he reminds me of regressive non-Muslim liberals who are okay with Islam and even defend it even though it goes against everything any rational liberal should stand for like equality for women, freedom of speech, etc.

Yeah he said it somewhere. He flip flops around which Kinda makes it hard to know what he's saying. I was a bit confused like you were when he talked about the void of Christianity in western Europe. I assumed he was talking about the emergence of Islam, but then how does that relate to Atheism?

Patient_Leech
Originally posted by socool8520
I was a bit confused like you were when he talked about the void of Christianity in western Europe. I assumed he was talking about the emergence of Islam, but then how does that relate to Atheism?

Exactly. How is that an argument in favor of religion and "God" as a foundation of morality? If anything it's the opposite. A worse form of religious non-sense taking root is not an argument against atheism.

socool8520
^ It's as if he is claiming Atheism is responsible for the influx of Islam there which has no merit

Patient_Leech
^ Yeah, that's what his claim sounds like. I don't get it either.

socool8520
The only thing I can think of is that he is arguing that the continued Atheist movement pushed out Christianity and allowed Islam to take hold. Ridiculous, but so are his other claims

Beniboybling
Lmfao at the "fall of Christianity in Europe" followed by some random violent clips and dem Mussies! What a nonsense boogeyman.

Patient_Leech
Now that we've ripped this guy's idiotic video a new *******, next please...

Patient_Leech
A little more than the first half of this is a decent little conversation on atheism, and science influencing politics, etc...

8oe5uTou7QU

Flyattractor
I always get a laugh out of the old saying "What does Atheism
have to Offer you? You get to sleep in on Sundays!"

socool8520
^ Yeah. At least the NFL let's me sleep in until noon. lol

Flyattractor
Are you saying you don't get up early for the PreGame PreSchool?

HEATHEN!!!!!!!!!!!

Afro Cheese
He seems to be influenced by Jordan Peterson, who argues for the importance of religion in terms of culture and morality. This guy did so using more dumbed down and inflammatory rhetoric, probably as a strategy to get more youtube views, but I sort of relate to what he is saying as an Atheist.

I was thinking of creating a "Why I believe Atheism is a religion" thread but since this thread is here I will just present my argument here: Basically, the common counter point that Atheists invoke is that Atheism is simply a stance on a single question. Which, to be fair, it is. But just like any other word, I feel that Atheism can have multiple defintions which are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

So I think of it in terms of little a "atheism" meaning the simple stance that there is no god, which is a stance that in addition to what we would consider your typical Atheist can also be held by Buddhists, secular Jews, you name it. Where as capital A "Atheism" is the movement/ideology that has basically been generation in direct response primarily to portions of western civilization becoming disillusioned with Christianity and religion in general.

I don't know the exact history/roots of this movement in any great detail, but I do feel that in it's modern form, most Atheists share a similar set of beliefs and values. We share a metaphysics rooted in scientific naturalism, a morality rooted largely in secular humanism, and as mentioned in the video it would seem that a large portion of the Atheist community also share ideas or dogmas such as that religion is inherently bad or that humanity would be better off without it.

As such, Harris, Dawkins & co are basically preaching a vision of what could "make the world a better place" based on people adhering to this particular POV of reality, metaphysics, and morality.

That, to me, sounds like a religion. And I think the primary reason Atheists will always reject this is because in their religious ethos, "religion" is a bad word almost akin to "Satan" or "evil." Or more bluntly, akin to "superstition" or "delusion." Which is essentially the Atheist's version of a nefarious force that virtually every religion has as a warning of some of the hazards of human thought and existence.

socool8520
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
A little more than the first half of this is a decent little conversation on atheism, and science influencing politics, etc...

8oe5uTou7QU

An interesting take on it. I don't disagree with her for the most part. I will say, in my experience, that the gay community did have a harder time coming out than Atheists did. People will forget your Atheist, but nobody forgets that your gay.

Also, she brings up the point that people assume that Atheists must be immoral because we have no doctrine to guide us which is my biggest irritation with how we are portrayed. It has been hammered a few times so there is no need to elaborate. I do think mistrust of Atheists would diminish greatly if the Religious who hold that view could realize that you can be moral without scripture.

Honestly, I'm pretty lucky in the fact that my Mother and my Grandparents (the only people whose opinions of me mattered), accepted it without harsh judgement. They believed that I'm going to Hell, but didn't think any less of me which is good. They said they would pray for me, and I appreciate the sentiment.

socool8520
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
He seems to be influenced by Jordan Peterson, who argues for the importance of religion in terms of culture and morality. This guy did so using more dumbed down and inflammatory rhetoric, probably as a strategy to get more youtube views, but I sort of relate to what he is saying as an Atheist.

I was thinking of creating a "Why I believe Atheism is a religion" thread but since this thread is here I will just present my argument here: Basically, the common counter point that Atheists invoke is that Atheism is simply a stance on a single question. Which, to be fair, it is. But just like any other word, I feel that Atheism can have multiple defintions which are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

So I think of it in terms of little a "atheism" meaning the simple stance that there is no god, which is a stance that in addition to what we would consider your typical Atheist can also be held by Buddhists, secular Jews, you name it. Where as capital A "Atheism" is the movement/ideology that has basically been generation in direct response primarily to portions of western civilization becoming disillusioned with Christianity and religion in general.

I don't know the exact history/roots of this movement in any great detail, but I do feel that in it's modern form, most Atheists share a similar set of beliefs and values. We share a metaphysics rooted in scientific naturalism, a morality rooted largely in secular humanism, and as mentioned in the video it would seem that a large portion of the Atheist community also share ideas or dogmas such as that religion is inherently bad or that humanity would be better off without it.

As such, Harris, Dawkins & co are basically preaching a vision of what could "make the world a better place" based on people adhering to this particular POV of reality, metaphysics, and morality.

That, to me, sounds like a religion. And I think the primary reason Atheists will always reject this is because in their religious ethos, "religion" is a bad word almost akin to "Satan" or "evil." Or more bluntly, akin to "superstition" or "delusion." Which is essentially the Atheist's version of a nefarious force that virtually every religion has as a warning of some of the hazards of human thought and existence.

IDK, haven't all Atheists rejected or become disillusioned with Religion? (Not one specifically)

Afro Cheese
Yes, but it would seem that in an effort the fill the void that religion held for most people, we create a new religion based on a new set of ideals, principles and metaphysics.

As for being disillusioned with religion in general rather than one specifically, I would say in most cases it starts with whatever religion you were born into and then from there you build upon that to become adverse to the very concept of religion. Which is, in it's own right, a sort of dogmatic response that is very emblematic of all religions. "They've all got it wrong, now HERE's the right way to look at it." Sound familiar?

socool8520
Sure, I guess if you put it loosely, it would be a form of religion. A basic moral guidelines and science mixed together. I don't think that Atheists are as rigid as some Religions require though. From one Atheist to the next, you may get varied levels of what is moral as their is technically no Atheist bible so to speak.

Patient_Leech
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
"Why I believe Atheism is a religion" thread but since this thread is here I will just present my argument here:

I don't know the exact history/roots of this movement in any great detail, but I do feel that in it's modern form, most Atheists share a similar set of beliefs and values. We share a metaphysics rooted in scientific naturalism, a morality rooted largely in secular humanism, and as mentioned in the video it would seem that a large portion of the Atheist community also share ideas or dogmas such as that religion is inherently bad or that humanity would be better off without it.

I don't think it's right to say that atheists have dogma (more on that later)... It is quite clearly demonstrated that humanity would be better off without faith-based religion. Faith-based being the operative word there: religions that require a belief in unsupported claims about the universe and beyond. It's quite well supported in Sam Harris' book The End of Faith, so it's not really dogma to say it because there is a great deal of evidence to support the claim. Throughout history unsupported dogmas have caused great suffering and harm.


Originally posted by Afro Cheese
As such, Harris, Dawkins & co are basically preaching a vision of what could "make the world a better place" based on people adhering to this particular POV of reality, metaphysics, and morality.

Wanting to make the world a better place is not the definition of a religion. Hell, Christians seem to want to make this world worse, so as to get to the next, glorious and perfect life. Same with Muslims, etc. It seems to me that wanting to improve existence for as many people and living things as possible should be the goal of any existence. Religion or not. But ironically our main religions are not directed toward that purpose. Atheism and science is a much better approach for improving this world, this existence. Advances in science, technology, understanding of health has greatly improved life. I'm sure I don't need to point out examples..


Originally posted by Afro Cheese
That, to me, sounds like a religion. And I think the primary reason Atheists will always reject this is because in their religious ethos, "religion" is a bad word almost akin to "Satan" or "evil." Or more bluntly, akin to "superstition" or "delusion." Which is essentially the Atheist's version of a nefarious force that virtually every religion has as a warning of some of the hazards of human thought and existence.

You can define religion however you want so as to make atheism a religion. But in the sense that religions require followers, "you must believe this." There is nothing dogmatic or religious in that sense required by atheism. Nothing is beyond questioning. You can even question whether or not there is NO god in atheism. It's sort of like freedom of thought and speech. Nothing is taboo. You can even think to accuse atheism of being a religion! I will likely argue against such a claim, but you are certainly allowed to question it! wink

Point is: that's not religion. Religion is very much about not questioning dogmas. Therefore atheism is quite inherently undogmatic, as is science. Science is open to the possibility of a god, but there just isn't data to support it... yet. Highly suspicious Holy Books don't count.

Bentley
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
...until, of course, he said atheists think everything came to be by accident.

Is there something wrong with believing that?

Afro Cheese
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I don't think it's right to say that atheists have dogma (more on that later)... It is quite clearly demonstrated that humanity would be better off without faith-based religion. Faith-based being the operative word there: religions that require a belief in unsupported claims about the universe and beyond. It's quite well supported in Sam Harris' book The End of Faith, so it's not really dogma to say it because there is a great deal of evidence to support the claim. Throughout history unsupported dogmas have caused great suffering and harm.admittedly I haven't actually read that book, though I am fairly familiar with Sam Harris's arguments in general. But to respond to you personally, the fact that religion causes harm is not necessarily evidence in favor of the idea that the world would be better off without it. You can easily find evidence that science and technological advancement causes harm as well. In order to conclude that the world would be better off without it, you would have to demonstrate that it has a net negative impact (in other words, that whatever harm is causes outweighs any other positive or functional roles it inherits in the current order.)




It's not the definition, but to me it is part of what a religion is all about. For example, Buddhism often is argued as potentially not a religion because it has no necessary deity or creator etc, but I feel that Buddhism is a religion because it preaches essentially what a person can or should do to attain some higher state of being. It is essentially a path towards something better, through a fundamentally different way of approaching the conditions of existence. This, to me, is true of virtually any religion you can name. Atheism included. And that is why I emphasized the visionary message the new Atheists are preaching about a world without religion.




Religions don't always require a strict set of beliefs. Often, they are more a description of a certain set of beliefs. Sometimes, they do fall into the habit of enforcing dogmas. But that is not a ubiquitous quality of all religion.

Patient_Leech
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
admittedly I haven't actually read that book, though I am fairly familiar with Sam Harris's arguments in general. But to respond to you personally, the fact that religion causes harm is not necessarily evidence in favor of the idea that the world would be better off without it. You can easily find evidence that science and technological advancement causes harm as well.

Yes, planes crash, technology can malfunction and wear-out. But religion causes harm and suffering as a direct result of its core beliefs. That's a big difference.

Islam:

Core belief: die in defense of Islam against infidels and get Paradise/virgins - do I need to mention the result here?

Christianity:

Core belief: soul enters zygote at moment of conception - stem cell research impeded potentially preventing the cures for all sorts of diseases and conditions



Originally posted by Afro Cheese
In order to conclude that the world would be better off without it, you would have to demonstrate that it has a net negative impact (in other words, that whatever harm is causes outweighs any other positive or functional roles it inherits in the current order.)

I really don't think that that is necessary to prove that the world would be better off without unsubstantiated and irrational beliefs. You just have to show that it has and is still causing suffering and impeding rationality and scientific progress. And Sam Harris' book does that extremely elaborately.



Originally posted by Afro Cheese
It's not the definition, but to me it is part of what a religion is all about. For example, Buddhism often is argued as potentially not a religion because it has no necessary deity or creator etc, but I feel that Buddhism is a religion because it preaches essentially what a person can or should do to attain some higher state of being. It is essentially a path towards something better, through a fundamentally different way of approaching the conditions of existence. This, to me, is true of virtually any religion you can name. Atheism included. And that is why I emphasized the visionary message the new Atheists are preaching about a world without religion.

I don't even think it's part of the definition of religion...



Nothing inherent in religion guarantees that it will try to make the world a better place. And in fact I think the opposite is true (as I stated before).


Again, you're re-defining religion in such a way as to include Buddhism and atheism. Buddhism is a practice. It doesn't really require any unsubstantiated beliefs to practice it. If Buddhism is a religion then so is going to work to make money so you can pay your mortgage and bills. It's a practice, not a set of unsubstantiated claims, beliefs, and dogmas that one must take on to be a part of the club.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
Religions don't always require a strict set of beliefs. Often, they are more a description of a certain set of beliefs. Sometimes, they do fall into the habit of enforcing dogmas. But that is not a ubiquitous quality of all religion.

Feel free to provide examples. Buddhism is one, but again, in that respect I don't consider it a religion in the same sense as most others. Dogmas are a pretty big part of religions. If you started questioning whether or not Jesus was born of a virgin, died, rose again, etc then I think you'd quickly find a foot contacting your ass and you would be on the church steps. Same with Muhammad ascending to heaven on his horse and whether or not infidels are the enemy... heh.

I'm glad you're questioning these sorts of things, because it really is interesting to think about. But I'm puzzled why you would defend religion so much as an atheist. Sure, if you deny that certain religions have dangerous dogmas, then they seem relatively harmless. But to the extent that religions make shit up about the nature of the universe without substantial evidence they are dangerous.

Afro Cheese
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Yes, planes crash, technology can malfunction and wear-out. But religion causes harm and suffering as a direct result of its core beliefs. That's a big difference.It's beyond planes crashing and technology failing. Take the atom bomb. There is both an upside and a downside to the pragmatic effects of technological advancement, was my point. But in order to judge whether technological advancement is on the whole a good thing or a bad thing, you have to compare the pros and cons and weigh them against each other. Just like with anything else, including religion.

Well this seems like a somewhat irrational claim, to me. In order to prove that it is a net negative you would have to prove it does more harm than good.

The typical Atheist approach (famously put forth by Hitchens) is to suggest that if there is anything negative caused specifically by a religious belief, then that is proof that religion is negative. Presumably because anything positive that might come out of it can be rationalized away as something that could've been achieved without religion.

This is a sort of double standard and IMO an example of sloppy and dogmatic reasoning that is informed more by one's ideology than by clear, objective thought and reasoning.

And there we disagree. You can cite the dictionary definition of religion as proof otherwise, but dictionary definitions will vary and ultimately religion is a somewhat complex and tricky phenomena to try to define. I personally think the definition you posted is incomplete.

I think that generally a religion will preach some set of beliefs, rituals and/or practices that are aimed at achieving something better than what the external world without that religion tends to offer.

What qualifies as "something better" is really a subjective distinction: you don't think the Christian or Islamic visions of a better world are actually better. But they do. And they presumably also don't think the Atheist vision of a world without religion is actually an improvement or better world, either. That really proves nothing other than the idea that different religions and ideologies have different priorities and ideas about what kind of Utopian vision they are after.

For Buddhists and religions that are more heavily based in meditation, this "better world" they seek is largely internal rather than external. Through meditation they seek enlightenment which essentially (as far as I know) is just seen as a better way of dealing with the conditions of consciousness and suffering. For the Jews, it was very much about seeking favor from Yahweh in an attempt to actually improve the external conditions of the Israelite society. Very different priorities, and very different approaches. But both are essentially just reactions to the basic hazards of human existence.


I'm not just trying to redefine it to include those practices. I'm trying to offer up what I believe is intuitively the best definition of the phenomena. Buddhism has long been considered a religion, and I think it's mostly recently that the debates over Atheism vs religion have sought to set Buddhism and other eastern practices into a potentially different category. But to my eye that is almost taking a sort of Abraham-centric view of what religion actually means.

That's just the thing... there have been versions of Christianity that do vary with regard to what they believe about those aspects of the mythology from day 1(the divinity/nature of Christ especially). They have simply been repressed and (pretty effectively) silenced by the Church and other religious zealots. So in many cases, dogmas are a way of basically "purging" the religion of dissent. But who am I or anyone else to say that Jehovas witnesses, Gnostics, etc. aren't real Christians? By doing so we are essentially buying into the Christian dogmas that we are supposedly holding in contempt.

I don't necessarily think that religions are harmless. I think that making any blanket statement about religion as a general phenomenon is ultimately no different than making a blanket statement about political ideology as a whole.

As for "why would an Atheist take on this stance?" I dunno, maybe I just like stirring the pot but I also have grown somewhat tired of the holier-than-thou Atheism that is so prevalent online.

Also, I'm just sort of disillusioned/bored with Atheism at this point. I feel like I have sort of a desire to just go back to being a Catholic. That's what I was raised as, though very loosely. But I don't want to buy into any of the dogmas or take the mythology literally, I just like the ritualistic and cultural aspects of the church. I feel a sort of connection with my ancestors whenever I go to a Catholic church. This is on aspect of religion that Atheism is truly lacking IMO. But the thing that stops me from joining is some combination of laziness and not wanting to be associated with the pedo mafia.

socool8520
Originally posted by Afro Cheese

The typical Atheist approach (famously put forth by Hitchens) is to suggest that if there is anything negative caused specifically by a religious belief, then that is proof that religion is negative. Presumably because anything positive that might come out of it can be rationalized away as something that could've been achieved without religion.

This is a sort of double standard and IMO an example of sloppy and dogmatic reasoning that is informed more by one's ideology than by clear, objective thought and reasoning.

It could be achieved without religion, unless of course you think that basic morality can only be found in Religion, which I would disagree with. If you take away the basic morality (the only good part imo) of Religion, what real positives do you get? All you have left is a somewhat lazy answer for what happens when you die, ridiculous cultural bias disguised as holy ways to live, and segregation (you don't believe this, you're not one of us type of deal). The charity and goodwill towards man is easily achievable without religion. I don't think that is a double standard as Atheism does not require any of those things, and better still, it doesn't demand it.




Originally posted by Afro Cheese
As for "why would an Atheist take on this stance?" I dunno, maybe I just like stirring the pot but I also have grown somewhat tired of the holier-than-thou Atheism that is so prevalent online.

Also, I'm just sort of disillusioned/bored with Atheism at this point. I feel like I have sort of a desire to just go back to being a Catholic. That's what I was raised as, though very loosely. But I don't want to buy into any of the dogmas or take the mythology literally, I just like the ritualistic and cultural aspects of the church. I feel a sort of connection with my ancestors whenever I go to a Catholic church. This is on aspect of religion that Atheism is truly lacking IMO. But the thing that stops me from joining is some combination of laziness and not wanting to be associated with the pedo mafia.

Holier than thou to describe Atheists is very funny. lol

If that's how you feel about Atheism, than it seems to me that you were just having a crisis of faith. not saying that's what's going on since I don't know you personally. I don't know how you get bored with a belief. Either you have come to the conclusion that you like the cultural aspect of religion and the other reasons you stated or you don't. For me, you can literally get that same sense of connection along several other avenues. My Grandfather loved music. i feel connected to him whenever I hear a song we used to listen to together. I have forums like this or the people around me to feel connected if I so choose. Connection is not exclusive to Religion.

Afro Cheese
Originally posted by socool8520
It could be achieved without religion, unless of course you think that basic morality can only be found in Religion, which I would disagree with. If you take away the basic morality (the only good part imo) of Religion, what real positives do you get? All you have left is a somewhat lazy answer for what happens when you die, ridiculous cultural bias disguised as holy ways to live, and segregation (you don't believe this, you're not one of us type of deal). The charity and goodwill towards man is easily achievable without religion. I don't think that is a double standard as Atheism does not require any of those things, and better still, it doesn't demand it. I believe you're missing my point.

My point is that to speak of religion a negative thing in general, to my eye the only fair approach is to weigh the actual pragmatic effect that it has on the world. And the closest we can get to doing that is to try to weigh the good things that come out of it vs the bad things that come out of it.

Arguing that people can do good things without religion does not negate the good things that many people do specifically because of their religion. As such, it's basically irrelevant to the equation. You could also point to many of the bad shit that is done in the name of religion and say, "well, that sort of thing can still happen without religion." This hypothetical proposition does not change that something bad was done in the name of religion.

So if you would like to argue about the karmic impact of something as broad as "religion," you have to include both the good and the bad or else you are simply tilting the scales so that you will arrive at the foregone conclusion you were determined to arrive at.

It's really not, lol. It's ironic given the term's religious connotations, but it's not at all uncommon or hard to imagine IMO. I would say if I had to wager an estimate, my experience with online Atheists puts at least 50% of them into that category, and that's being generous (inb4 someone comes in and lectures me on anecdotal evidence).

Eh.. different strokes. I can get bored of anything.

But I do like the cultural aspects just maybe not enough to join. Or I haven't decided. The thing is I believe what I believe so if I did join I'd be like a secular Catholic. Like I don't believe in any of the supernatural aspects. So I would feel like sort of a phony. That's another reason I am reluctant to do that.

I sorta get what you mean about music etc but part of what I like about the church seems different from just going to some concert etc. The concert would probably be more intense, tbh. The church just has a sort of ancient vibe to it and all the symbolism and occult looking imagery just speaks to me and makes me feel like a sort of tourist in an ancient tradition that stretches back thousands of years. There's just something uniquely transcendent about that to me.

But I feel the same way about some of the pagan traditions and monuments. And I dunno if you're familiar with Jordan Peterson or not, but I do think there might be something to his idea of the archetypal hero that virtually all religious traditions take on and which in more modern and secular context takes the form of comic book heroes and rock stars. So in a way yea we always do try to find an outlet for this kind of thinking/experience.

socool8520
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
I believe you're missing my point.

My point is that to speak of religion a negative thing in general, to my eye the only fair approach is to weigh the actual pragmatic effect that it has on the world. And the closest we can get to doing that is to try to weigh the good things that come out of it vs the bad things that come out of it.

Arguing that people can do good things without religion does not negate the good things that many people do specifically because of their religion. As such, it's basically irrelevant to the equation. You could also point to many of the bad shit that is done in the name of religion and say, "well, that sort of thing can still happen without religion." This hypothetical proposition does not change that something bad was done in the name of religion.

So if you would like to argue about the karmic impact of something as broad as "religion," you have to include both the good and the bad or else you are simply tilting the scales so that you will arrive at the foregone conclusion you were determined to arrive at.

I got your point, I just don't think it works.

I clearly see the good and bad of religion. i'm for religous freedom if you didn't know. What I'm saying is why would you need something that does have negatives that are directly contributed to it over something where you could have the positives and not the negatives? If there was a diet plan that said it would help you lose weight by eating better and then another plan that said you need to eat better but also gave you a bunch of unnecessary rules, which one would you pick?

You can't negate the good, but you also can't negate the bad. Basic morality can cover the good of Religion without the negatives I provided previously. To me, that logically seems better.

Yes, you could point out that that stuff could be done without religion, but the point is is that that stuff has been done directly because of Religion. If you cut out the us vs them mentality of Religion, it would cut back on some of the mindless violence in the world? How is that a bad thing, and is Religion truly that important that you shouldn't? At least revise it.

Afro Cheese
Originally posted by socool8520
I got your point, I just don't think it works.

I clearly see the good and bad of religion. i'm for religous freedom if you didn't know. What I'm saying is why would you need something that does have negatives that are directly contributed to it over something where you could have the positives and not the negatives? If there was a diet plan that said it would help you lose weight by eating better and then another plan that said you need to eat better but also gave you a bunch of unnecessary rules, which one would you pick?

You can't negate the good, but you also can't negate the bad. Basic morality can cover the good of Religion without the negatives I provided previously. To me, that logically seems better.
See, this is why it sounds to me that you are misunderstanding me. I'm not talking about the necessity of religion for morality. I'm talking about the pragmatic impact that religion has in general, in response to an Atheist vision of a world without religion.


The us vs them to me is something inherent in human tribalism that religion latches onto. Disposing of one particular way in which us vs them might manifest does nothing to address the tribalism which causes that kind of dynamic, so I see no reason to believe that we would necessarily have seen less violence without religion.

NewGuy01
That was a pretty dumb video disguised as a smart video. Obviously the reason vocal atheists contest religion is because they don't think it has an overall positive impact on modern civilization, regardless of it's impact on ancient civilization. The bike goes faster when you lose the training wheels, as it were.

Adam Grimes
Historically there's been countless time religion, as a cure, was horrifically worse than the disease.

Afro Cheese
There have also been countless times when non religious cures were worse than the disease, before medical science was able to explain whatever condition we're talking about.

Look at bloodletting. Hell, look at lobotomies.

Once again, this seem like sort of intellectually lazy way to view religion as a bad thing by harping on the negative consequences of human ignorance and/or zealotry.

socool8520
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
There have also been countless times when non religious cures were worse than the disease, before medical science was able to explain whatever condition we're talking about.

Look at bloodletting. Hell, look at lobotomies.

Once again, this seem like sort of intellectually lazy way to view religion as a bad thing by harping on the negative consequences of human ignorance and/or zealotry.

Yes and Religion is one of the archaic relics we keep holding onto. We found several of those things to be useless and moved on. I see no difference with Religion. I see teachings like Confucious to be of more practicality as it just talks of bettering oneself and understanding the universe. No you can't be save if you don't follow this path business.

Yes, we are tribal by nature which is why I am saying that you don't need religion for a sense of connection/unity. We have so many other options that don't tie you down with dated doctrine. Youth centers, social clubs, support groups, etc. There are so many that fill the void that religion would leave that it's ridiculous. And, without the feeling of exclusion and cultural biases that some religions (the dominant western ones mainly) come with. Holding onto that in lieu of better alternatives, is in my opinion, not practical at all.

Emperordmb
In some sense I agree that atheists are more likely to be disconnected from cultural underpinnings or structures of meaning in our society, such as being nihilists or post-modernists (post-modernism being my new least favorite philosophy), though me saying this is hardly a holier than thou attitude because this doesn't apply to remotely all atheists, and I acknowledge that the religious are more likely to be tied to a different brand of regressiveness.

That's why I wouldn't want to live in a purely atheist or purely Christian world. I prefer a world where the good parts of both groups can find common ground, and the bad parts are diametrically opposed to the good parts as well as each other, as opposed to an all Christian world where the only bad parts are regressive Christians that are unified in their perspectives and goals, or an all atheist world where the only bad parts are unified under the banner of post-modernism or some other such nonsense.

Atheism is perfectly fine in my books, taking a lack of faith beyond a lack of faith in God to a lack of faith in meaning or morality (nihilism) or a lack of faith in truth or that ordered society is a good thing (post-modernism) is retarded. Any atheists reading this don't take this as a judgement of atheism or individual atheists, just a correlation between atheism and nihilism/post modernism that you aren't necessarily a part of.

Patient_Leech
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
It's beyond planes crashing and technology failing. Take the atom bomb. There is both an upside and a downside to the pragmatic effects of technological advancement, was my point. But in order to judge whether technological advancement is on the whole a good thing or a bad thing, you have to compare the pros and cons and weigh them against each other. Just like with anything else, including religion.

Well this seems like a somewhat irrational claim, to me. In order to prove that it is a net negative you would have to prove it does more harm than good.

The typical Atheist approach (famously put forth by Hitchens) is to suggest that if there is anything negative caused specifically by a religious belief, then that is proof that religion is negative. Presumably because anything positive that might come out of it can be rationalized away as something that could've been achieved without religion.

This is a sort of double standard and IMO an example of sloppy and dogmatic reasoning that is informed more by one's ideology than by clear, objective thought and reasoning.

And there we disagree. You can cite the dictionary definition of religion as proof otherwise, but dictionary definitions will vary and ultimately religion is a somewhat complex and tricky phenomena to try to define. I personally think the definition you posted is incomplete.


Science may have discovered the atom bomb, but again there is nothing inherent within the core beliefs of science that would use it to cause harm. Whereas there are core beliefs within unsubstantiated beliefs of religions that see the atom bomb as a good thing, bringing about the "end times," "killing infidels" on a large scale, etc.

I'm not as big a fan of Hitchens as I am say of Harris or Dawkins, so I don't know his statements well enough to know if you're representing his ideas properly.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
I think that generally a religion will preach some set of beliefs, rituals and/or practices that are aimed at achieving something better than what the external world without that religion tends to offer.

It's the delusional beliefs that are the problem. Even if we make your assumption true, that religions are aiming for improving the world, they are so clouded by nonsense without any evidence that it causes harm in the world in hope of the false next world.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
As for "why would an Atheist take on this stance?" I dunno, maybe I just like stirring the pot but I also have grown somewhat tired of the holier-than-thou Atheism that is so prevalent online.

Oh lord. Why would you want to go back to delusion? Back into the Matrix? There's nothing inherently holier-than-thou about atheism. Atheists don't define themselves by their lack of belief in supernatural nonsense. It's only sometimes politically necessary to use the word.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
I feel a sort of connection with my ancestors whenever I go to a Catholic church.

Study evolution. You'll have way more ancestors to feel close to. laughing out loud

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
There have also been countless times when non religious cures were worse than the disease, before medical science was able to explain whatever condition we're talking about.

Look at bloodletting. Hell, look at lobotomies.

Once again, this seem like sort of intellectually lazy way to view religion as a bad thing by harping on the negative consequences of human ignorance and/or zealotry.

The difference is that that was the best science knew at the time and it has been abandoned and improved since. Science is still very, very new. If religion were still in charge we'd still be performing exorcisms instead of using rational remedies for mental patients. Not to mention burning witches and heretics alive.

Wow, I've never seen an atheist argue with such determination in favor of religion. lol. Bottom line: the problem is not "religion" (however you want to define it), it is beliefs not based on evidence turned into dogmas without question. Science inherently prevents that very problem. Can we at least agree on that?


Originally posted by Adam Grimes
Historically there's been countless time religion, as a cure, was horrifically worse than the disease.

This.

Originally posted by socool8520
Yes, we are tribal by nature which is why I am saying that you don't need religion for a sense of connection/unity. We have so many other options that don't tie you down with dated doctrine. Youth centers, social clubs, support groups, etc. There are so many that fill the void that religion would leave that it's ridiculous. And, without the feeling of exclusion and cultural biases that some religions (the dominant western ones mainly) come with. Holding onto that in lieu of better alternatives, is in my opinion, not practical at all.

thumb up Religion is the ultimate us-vs-them because they all claim to have the ultimate truth, but are actually incompatible.

Afro Cheese
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Science may have discovered the atom bomb, but again there is nothing inherent within the core beliefs of science that would use it to cause harm. Whereas there are core beliefs within unsubstantiated beliefs of religions that see the atom bomb as a good thing, bringing about the "end times," "killing infidels" on a large scale, etc.

I'm not as big a fan of Hitchens as I am say of Harris or Dawkins, so I don't know his statements well enough to know if you're representing his ideas properly.I was simply drawing an analogy on how you would determine whether or not something has had a net negative impact, I was not asserting that science and religion are the same thing or that they operate in the same way.

I'll reiterate one more time for clarity: if you are asking whether the world is better off without religion, then IMO the only fair way to even begin to approach that question is to weigh the positive manifestations of religion against the negative manifestations.

To simply say something along the lines of "all I need to know is that faith based religions cause people to do some bad things" is IMO a cop out, and it seemed to me that was essentially what you were arguing and it reminded me of Hitchens, which is why I brought him up.

It really depends on the manifestation. I'm not here to argue that there are no malignant manifestations of religion that I would like to see gone. But take for example the simple minded yet potent type of Christianity that my mother has. She isn't an intellectual or a biblical scholar and is not at all swayed by arguments that the bible says some bad things. She will just shrug and say "well, I don't believe everything in the Bible." But what she does believe is that she is going to see her dead parents, siblings, ancestors, friends and eventually her children and grandchildren again in the afterlife. And she really believes that, and can't conceive of it not being true.

Is there anything wrong with that? Is there anything positive to come from trying to de-convert her and convince her that when she dies that's it, and that this fate awaits us all? Personally, I think this delusion is a benevolent delusion that protects her from some of the more abstract hazards of mortality. So what if when she dies it doesn't come true? She won't be around to notice that.

I don't want to go back to delusion. I thought I made it clear that I believe what I believe regardless... it's only the rituals and practices that appeal to me. So I guess the question would be is "secular Catholic" a valid option in the same way there are secular jews? But I don't really feel that it is.

I have. It's not even remotely the same. I'm talking in terms of my more immediate ancestors. I'm on board with science but it can't replace the sense of tradition that religion offers.

Exactly. The difference is that one is human ignorance based on misguided religious thinking and thus must be demonized while the other was simply human ignorance based on misguided pseudo-scientific thinking and thus can be forgiven. This is my entire point about the selective reasoning and morality that Atheistic criticisms of religion tend to produce.

This isn't the first time you've pointed out your surprise that these points are coming from an Atheist. I get it, you find it weird that an Atheist isn't towing the dogmatic line that Dawkins Harris etc drew. This only adds to my point that modern Atheism has become something resembling a sort of religious ideology if not an actual religion.

The ultimate irony here is that I am actually attempting to sort of "disarm" some of the us vs them mentality that Atheists have about religion in general. This us vs them mentality is a tribal impulse that will always manifest in any sort of struggle - be it physical or ideological. And I feel that the New Atheists have done a very good job at sort of galvanizing an army of people who will approach religion as "the enemy." I see this as counter productive and that is why I am speaking against it.

NewGuy01
Counter productive in the short-term, perhaps, but I'd argue that provoking more skepticism about religion may be beneficial in the long-term in a variety of areas.

socool8520
^ At the very least it could get them to change some of the ridiculous biases they tie to their faith

Patient_Leech
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
I'll reiterate one more time for clarity: if you are asking whether the world is better off without religion, then IMO the only fair way to even begin to approach that question is to weigh the positive manifestations of religion against the negative manifestations.

So what about all the relatively harmless, but waste-of-time stuff that Christians do like try to convince poor people in more remote, developing countries that they need Jesus? That's kind of a waste of time. It's neither positive nor negative, really.

It's quite difficult to lay out what is positive and was actually brought about strictly by religion. Not a very practical or easily applied concept.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
To simply say something along the lines of "all I need to know is that faith based religions cause people to do some bad things" is IMO a cop out, and it seemed to me that was essentially what you were arguing and it reminded me of Hitchens, which is why I brought him up.

Why is that a cop-out though? People in large quantity ignore the horrible shit done in the name of religion and even give it a pass because it's religion. How much more dogmatic can you get? Why is religion on a pedestal above every other area of discourse? Why is it not subjected to rigorous scrutiny like say architecture or the study of communicable disease, or whatever other example you want to mention. Religion even has sort of an assumed connotation as being "good" (at least here in the United States) and yet Islam exists! Which is probably why many liberals here think Islam is A-okay, "Bring over the Muslims!! Yay!"


Originally posted by Afro Cheese
It really depends on the manifestation. I'm not here to argue that there are no malignant manifestations of religion that I would like to see gone. But take for example the simple minded yet potent type of Christianity that my mother has. She isn't an intellectual or a biblical scholar and is not at all swayed by arguments that the bible says some bad things. She will just shrug and say "well, I don't believe everything in the Bible." But what she does believe is that she is going to see her dead parents, siblings, ancestors, friends and eventually her children and grandchildren again in the afterlife. And she really believes that, and can't conceive of it not being true.

Is there anything wrong with that? Is there anything positive to come from trying to de-convert her and convince her that when she dies that's it, and that this fate awaits us all? Personally, I think this delusion is a benevolent delusion that protects her from some of the more abstract hazards of mortality. So what if when she dies it doesn't come true? She won't be around to notice that.

My mom's basically the same. But she loves the Bible for its more esoteric allegorical truths that most fundy Christians ignore or don't know about...

Atheism is not about trying to convince people of anything, other than looking at evidence. It's not about trying to convince Christians that there is no afterlife and when you die your're dead. Who knows if that's true? No one. It's not about peddling dogma and when you say it is, you're setting up a straw man and misrepresenting views. It's about weighing evidence and not making any outlandish assumptions as truth when they have not been and probably never will be verified.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
I don't want to go back to delusion. I thought I made it clear that I believe what I believe regardless... it's only the rituals and practices that appeal to me. So I guess the question would be is "secular Catholic" a valid option in the same way there are secular jews? But I don't really feel that it is.

There's nothing wrong with liking rituals. It's probably embedded in our DNA.


Originally posted by Afro Cheese
Exactly. The difference is that one is human ignorance based on misguided religious thinking and thus must be demonized while the other was simply human ignorance based on misguided pseudo-scientific thinking and thus can be forgiven. This is my entire point about the selective reasoning and morality that Atheistic criticisms of religion tend to produce.

It's not selective reasoning! Science is designed to improve and grow. Faith-based religion is not.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
This isn't the first time you've pointed out your surprise that these points are coming from an Atheist. I get it, you find it weird that an Atheist isn't towing the dogmatic line that Dawkins Harris etc drew. This only adds to my point that modern Atheism has become something resembling a sort of religious ideology if not an actual religion.

Lol, @ calling them dogmatic. I get it, you think you're so rebellious trying to criticize atheists for what you think is some ironic flaw in reasoning. But the only dogma atheists peddle is evidence. And there's nothing wrong with that in my book.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
The ultimate irony here is that I am actually attempting to sort of "disarm" some of the us vs them mentality that Atheists have about religion in general. This us vs them mentality is a tribal impulse that will always manifest in any sort of struggle - be it physical or ideological. And I feel that the New Atheists have done a very good job at sort of galvanizing an army of people who will approach religion as "the enemy." I see this as counter productive and that is why I am speaking against it.

That's a perfectly reasonable concern. And if Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, etc were calling for atheists to rise up and slay all believers it would be justified. But they have never done that. Fortunately they just advocate honest conversation that questions the dangerous dogmas of religion, a perfectly reasonable and productive endeavor.

Afro Cheese

socool8520
Science, math, and philosophy taught us the same things that you mentioned without the drawbacks. Nobody has ever said that if you choose Calculus over Trigonometry that you will go to hell, or if you don't believe the Earth revolves around the Sun you will be killed.



I don't quite get how that applies.



I think it is unnecessary for the world considering the other options available. I don't think that is an outlandish claim.

Patient_Leech
Yeah, he/she's not really making sense anymore. Would people like Martin Luther King Jr. be classified as ideologues? Or I suppose all that racism, bigotry, homophobia, misogyny, etc that oh-so-often tends to go along with religion is good, too, eh Afro?

There's nothing wrong with mythology. We (as a species) have used stories and myths to help understand and make sense of the world and our place in it. And they are fun and interesting to think about and study. There's nothing wrong with doing so. It's great literature. But now that science has begun to unravel the all-too natural origins of existence there's no need to believe in literal fairy tales and make up paranoid ideas about the afterlife anymore, especially when they cause so much harm.

Afro Cheese
Originally posted by socool8520
Science, math, and philosophy taught us the same things that you mentioned without the drawbacks. Nobody has ever said that if you choose Calculus over Trigonometry that you will go to hell, or if you don't believe the Earth revolves around the Sun you will be killed. Yes, they are also useful(i would disagree about there not being drawbacks) but really I would argue that religion predates all of those things and laid the foundation for us to even approach those kinds of esoteric topics.

Then you aren't looking closely enough.

It's an assumption which is not really verifiable and informed more by ideology than by anything else. Hardly being very "skeptical" by making such broad brushed claims without being able to back them up properly, are we?

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Yeah, he/she's not really making sense anymore. Would people like Martin Luther King Jr. be classified as ideologues? Or I suppose all that racism, bigotry, homophobia, misogyny, etc that oh-so-often tends to go along with religion is good, too, eh Afro?MLK was certainly an ideologue. Does that mean his stance against racism wasn't just? Not at all. Are you trying to say that being religious is as bad as being hateful toward another group of people? That's quite the comparison to make.

I'm not actually advocating believing anything superstitious. But at the end of the day, people are going to believe whatever they believe. So I'm more talking about how we should treat other belief systems than I am talking about what we should believe. And I dare say I think MLK would agree with me that treating religion as the enemy is essentially divisive and counter productive.

socool8520
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
Yes, they are also useful(i would disagree about there not being drawbacks) but really I would argue that religion predates all of those things and laid the foundation for us to even approach those kinds of esoteric topics.

They don't require you to isolate people if they don't agree with you nor do they force you to agree. On the second part, I definitely disagree. We as a species were naturally inquisitive which lead to us questioning and adapting to the world around us. That's what lead to scientific thinking. Religion is a also a byproduct of our wanting to understand the world around us. It was our first attempt at understanding something we didn't know.


Originally posted by Afro Cheese
It's an assumption which is not really verifiable and informed more by ideology than by anything else. Hardly being very "skeptical" by making such broad brushed claims without being able to back them up properly, are we?

I don't know how else to back it up without having the ability to outlaw Religion. lol I've given you several examples of what could replace the sense of belonging and connection you seem to harp on so much as well as the morality without the segregation and exclusion. The fact that you can have all of the things you seem to care about without the drawbacks of mistrust and hatred for people outside of your club doesn't seem outlandish to me, it seems like common sense.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
I'm not actually advocating believing anything superstitious. But at the end of the day, people are going to believe whatever they believe. So I'm more talking about how we should treat other belief systems than I am talking about what we should believe. And I dare say I think MLK would agree with me that treating religion as the enemy is essentially divisive and counter productive.

There is nothing wrong with being skeptical or even critical of a way of thinking that has lead to as much war and suffering as religion has. The other causes of war and suffering are not above strong criticism, religion shouldn't be either. Science can be scrutinized all day and instead of saying you shouldn't be so skeptical, it is encouraged.

Patient_Leech
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
MLK was certainly an ideologue. Does that mean his stance against racism wasn't just? Not at all. Are you trying to say that being religious is as bad as being hateful toward another group of people? That's quite the comparison to make.

Man, you are all about some straw men, aren't you? No, of course I'm not saying that. You criticized Harris, Dawkins, Dennett etc by calling them ideologues...



...so my point in bringing up MLK is that it's clearly not a bad thing to be an ideologue if you're advocating greater civil rights and social justice. Because in this country (the US) it's impossible to get elected to some public office unless you outwardly profess God and the Bible nonsense. Right now it would be impossible for an open atheist to be elected to public office. So Dawkins, Harris, etc are like MLK becuase they're just trying to push the conversation into great acceptance toward lack-of-religiosity. I fail to see, and you fail to demonstrate how that is counter-productive.

So in your view we shouldn't push the conversation into questioning religious nonsense because reasons, like the great rituals, traditions, etc. sick Go drink some more Jesus blood communion Kool-Aid. laughing out loud

Nothing about questioning religious nonsense says anything about getting rid of rituals and some of the pleasant traditions associated with religions. Even Dawkins admits he enjoys the beauty of Christmas hymns and such. None of them are advocating getting rid of that stuff. They're only concerned about the toxic supernatural nonsense.

Afro Cheese
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Man, you are all about some straw men, aren't you? No, of course I'm not saying that. You criticized Harris, Dawkins, Dennett etc by calling them ideologues...Right, sorry for the confusion. My quote about them being ideologues was something along the lines of "I'm not accussing them of being warlords, but ideologues." It was in response to you saying something along the lines of "Well, they're not waging some sort of holy war...' Which I wasn't accusing them of. I was just saying I find their approach towards religion to be divisive and counter productive, at times. I'm on board with a lot of what they say, as well. Just not all of it, and to a large extent it's their tone that I find to be somewhat toxic.


If that is truly their aim, then I would say that being endlessly antagonistic towards religion and religious people is probably one of the worst ways to achieve it.

They are doing a great job at rallying together the relatively small minority of people who agree with them while alienating and antagonizing the rest of the population.

These Atheist advocacy groups such as the Atheist Alliance and The Freedom from religion Foundation are examples of everything I dislike about modern Atheists. Quibbling over petty bullshit like town nativity scenes. It's a joke.

No, those aspects are why I feel religion isn't such a bad thing and why I have some level of appreciation for it. I'm not saying "don't question or talk about religion," I'm expressing a distaste for the way in which this is often done.

There, we will once again just have to disagree. Yes, Dawkins has expressed an appreciation for certain religious art. But it was either him or one of the other four horsemen who also makes the argument that even moderate religion is harmful because it "gives refuge to the extremists" or something like that. In other words, so long as religion exists in any form, extreme aspects of it will manifest. And thus religion as such is a threat and should ideally disappear from the face of the planet.

Afro Cheese
Originally posted by socool8520
They don't require you to isolate people if they don't agree with you nor do they force you to agree. On the second part, I definitely disagree. We as a species were naturally inquisitive which lead to us questioning and adapting to the world around us. That's what lead to scientific thinking. Religion is a also a byproduct of our wanting to understand the world around us. It was our first attempt at understanding something we didn't know. I'm not necessarily saying religion is a suitable replacement for philosophy or science. I just don't think those are complete replacements for religion, either. And beyond that, I think that it's a mistake to assume that they would've developed along the same lines had the religious traditions never existed. Especially philosophy. It's very hard to imagine what western philosophy in particular would've looked like had the Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman pagan mythologies not existed.

Well, I honestly don't really think it is verifiable. That's sort of my point.

But my other point is that there's an obvious double standard present when you use examples of religion being bad to "prove" that religion is bad, and then rationalize away any examples of religion being good. If you still don't see my point there, then we should just agree to disagree. Because it feels like otherwise we will just continue to go in circles.

I actually agree with the principle that we should be able to criticize it. I think we are just disagreeing on exactly how much condemnation religion actually deserves.

socool8520
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
I'm not necessarily saying religion is a suitable replacement for philosophy or science. I just don't think those are complete replacements for religion, either. And beyond that, I think that it's a mistake to assume that they would've developed along the same lines had the religious traditions never existed. Especially philosophy. It's very hard to imagine what western philosophy in particular would've looked like had the Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman pagan mythologies not existed.

Why? Some of the Greek philosophers did fine without Religion. They were some of the greatest minds to exist.

Well, I honestly don't really think it is verifiable. That's sort of my point.

But my other point is that there's an obvious double standard present when you use examples of religion being bad to "prove" that religion is bad, and then rationalize away any examples of religion being good. If you still don't see my point there, then we should just agree to disagree. Because it feels like otherwise we will just continue to go in circles.

Nobody is rationalizing away any good that religion brings. What are you talking about? All I have said is that you must acknowledge the bad (and there has been quite a bit of it in the history of mankind). I also think that there are other ways of getting the good that religion brings without the bad it brings. To me, that's just a better solution. You are correct though, we seem to be circling around this point, and it is this point that seems to be the deadlock. So agree to disagree is fine with me.

I actually agree with the principle that we should be able to criticize it. I think we are just disagreeing on exactly how much condemnation religion actually deserves.

Well considering it went an extremely long time unchecked, I don't think it is unfair that it is harshly criticized. When you are putting actual lives at stake for religion, I don't think there is a such thing as too much criticism. Look at how harshly we criticize any other type of ideologies that result in segregation and death of others.

Afro Cheese
Originally posted by socool8520
Why? Some of the Greek philosophers did fine without Religion. They were some of the greatest minds to exist. Which ones? Keep in mind I didn't say the philosophers had to be religious themselves, just that their philosophies were in one way or another shaped by the culture in which they were developed - which was largely informed by various religious traditions.

Agreed.

Keep in mind i didn't say "too much criticism" but rather "too much condemnation." Would also you say there's no such thing as too much condemnation for religion, given it's history?

If so, this is another one of those points where we will just disagree.

Patient_Leech
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
I was just saying I find their approach towards religion to be divisive and counter productive, at times.

How?

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
If that is truly their aim, then I would say that being endlessly antagonistic towards religion and religious people is probably one of the worst ways to achieve it.

Why? How else do you bring about change other than criticizing what you find fault with? It's not violence. It's not defamatory. It's just criticizing ideas. (in fact it's the phony liberals attacking Harris and Dawkins, etc because they can't compete with their ideas)

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
These Atheist advocacy groups such as the Atheist Alliance and The Freedom from religion Foundation are examples of everything I dislike about modern Atheists. Quibbling over petty bullshit like town nativity scenes. It's a joke.

That's not what we're talking about.


Originally posted by Afro Cheese
There, we will once again just have to disagree. Yes, Dawkins has expressed an appreciation for certain religious art. But it was either him or one of the other four horsemen who also makes the argument that even moderate religion is harmful because it "gives refuge to the extremists" or something like that.

You're right. Harris has talked at length about that. Because it's true. Moderate religious liberals and even atheists often defend Islamists despite their absolute opposition toward free and liberal society. So yes, that does give cover to theocratic thinking. And that's a problem. Unless of course you think the way say, Saudi Arabia operates is a positive thing. But actually it's a repressive theocratic hell.

Beniboybling
I was about to mention SAM HARRIS but it appears Patient_Leech has beat me too it.

Patient_Leech
You can call me Leech. smile

Beniboybling
OK. smile

Afro Cheese
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
How?By treating religion as the enemy.

You brought up the fact that Atheists are a widely disliked group in the United States. Do I really need to explain to you why Dawkins and co don't exactly make us seem more like-able?

Btw, not being able to be elected because you will fail to get enough people to vote for you is not actually a violation of your civil rights.


It's a natural extension of the movement that Dawkins & co are spearheading. Plus (at least in Dawkins case) they are also personally involved in this sort of activism.

Thus religion, even in its moderate form, is dangerous. Thus we are better off without it, right?

Problem being that this is precisely the kind of "us vs them" rhetoric that I was referring to, and usually when you give moderate religious people the choice between abandoning their religion or gaining your favor, they will chose their religion. So what is to be gained from this approach, other than to alienate most of your potential allies who might not be Atheists themselves? And do you really believe that is the most effective way of minimizing the amount of religious extremism?

In fact, the way Harris in particular talks about Islam, he would give you the impression that the terrorists actually have a more coherent and straight forward interpretation of the Islamic tradition than the moderates do.

Patient_Leech
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
By treating religion as the enemy.

Not the enemy. An enemy. And again it's more dogma and irrationality that's the enemy, not "religion" per se.


Originally posted by Afro Cheese
You brought up the fact that Atheists are a widely disliked group in the United States. Do I really need to explain to you why Dawkins and co don't exactly make us seem more like-able?

Btw, not being able to be elected because you will fail to get enough people to vote for you is not actually a violation of your civil rights.

I'm not necessarily saying it's a civil rights issue, but in a way it kind of is. It's discrimination on the basis of religion (or lack thereof). What's the difference between not electing an outspoken atheists and not electing a Muslim or Jew simply because they are demonized on the basis of their religion? It's definitely a wide-spread lack of understanding amongst the general population in much the same way people used to discriminate against blacks. But now we've had a (sort of) black president. So progress has been made.


Originally posted by Afro Cheese
...and usually when you give moderate religious people the choice between abandoning their religion or gaining your favor, they will chose their religion.

It might alienate some, but it also wins people over by mere reasoning and conversation. *I* am a former religious moderate. How else do you persuade people other than reason and conversation? Show me statistics proving that way more moderates are alienated rather than persuaded by the rational and civil explanations of Dawkins and company or GTFO. Okay, so you seem to think they unfairly demonize religion and alienate people. That's your opinion, but not necessarily a well supported one.



Originally posted by Afro Cheese
In fact, the way Harris in particular talks about Islam, he would give you the impression that the terrorists actually have a more coherent and straight forward interpretation of the Islamic tradition than the moderates do.

He does indeed point that out. The ones we call "extremists" or "terrorists" are actually being more true to the texts. Moderates have to sort of ignore or "edit" parts of the books to arrive at their more benign interpretations. That's very true.


Originally posted by Afro Cheese
So what is to be gained from this approach, other than to alienate most of your potential allies who might not be Atheists themselves? And do you really believe that is the most effective way of minimizing the amount of religious extremism?

I'm not even sure what "approach" you're talking about because I don't think you've made that very clear. But look, they'll admit (Harris has even stated as much) that he is not the kind of communicator the middle east needs to calm religious violence down. He knows this. Obviously they aren't going to listen to the blasphemous rhetoric of an infidel. They'll need to reform from the inside out. That's what people like Maajid Nawaz are trying to do. And they are risking their lives and reputations to do so. It's awful that he is demonized even here in the West for doing his part to try to reform Islam. But I definitely think Harris and Dawkins and Ayaan Hirsi Ali are the right kinds of communicators to get people here in the States to look at the issue rationally. And to try to silence them and discredit them is truly what's counter-productive. Phony liberals are already doing plenty of that through dishonest attacks and distortions.

Robtard
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Not the enemy. An enemy.




By treating religion itself as an enemy, you're being as nonsensical as those very same religious practitioners you condemn.

IMO, treat those that wish to use religion as a hammer to pound other down or into submission as the enemy. Religion is like a weapon/tool, it can be used for good or bad (evil is you believe in evil); not every religious person is an oppressor type. There's a vast amount of ground between say the rando guy who believes in God and is content and say someone like Fred Phelps and his ilk, be they Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu etc.

Afro Cheese
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Not the enemy. An enemy.That's not a distinction that really matters, in the context of what I said.

That's sort of just a pragmatic reality of a democratic system. Unpopular ideas are also unpopular with the voters. A Muslim would indeed be hard pressed to get into the white house ATM. So would a communist. So would a number of other fringe groups. That's not a civil rights issue, it's a popularity issue. Nobody has the right to be elected into office. You have the right to try.

I never presented it as anything other than an opinion. Until you offer the same kind of proof that you are demanding of me, yours is no better supported than mine. You simply don't like it.

And I agree that conversation is important, btw. This is (and has been from the beginning of this discussion) more about tone or the way the conversations are executed. I've said time and time again that I'm not saying the idea of having these sorts of conversations in general is a bad thing. Do try to remember that and stop trying to persuade me that conversation is a good thing, because that's a waste of both of ours time.

The moderates certainly cherry pick verses, as do the terrorists. I don't see the terrorists as having a more straight forward or honest approach, just different priorities. They want to bring back what they see as the former glory of previous Islamic civilizations, and are willing to do anything to do so. So they make the texts fit their goals. They ignore the part where if you kill yourself, you go to hell. They ignore the part where you are not to slaughter innocent people, and where you are even more so not to slaughter other Muslims. They come up with convoluted theological rationalizations for how they are not guilty of any of these sins, despite the vast majority of mainstream Islamic society thinking otherwise.

How much more intellectually dishonest can you get then to say something like "when I blow myself up in a Jewish deli, that's not suicide but martyrdom." Or "when we blow up that embassy we have not killed any innocent people nor Muslims because simply by not being fighters in the cause, these people are giving their implicit support to the apostate state and are thus apostates themselves, worthy of death."

If that's your idea of an honest reading of Islamic doctrine and tradition, I think you probably have a very limited understanding of Islam.



I can sum it up in a single phrase: overly antagonistic. That is my beef with their "approach." I support being that antagonistic towards extremists. I don't think it's productive to be that antagonistic towards religion as a monolith.

I think that certainly there is an impetus on the Islamic world to reform themselves, we don't really disagree there. But that Harris example was just an example of what I meant by alienating moderate voices.

Yes, he might have a moderate ally here and there. But a lot of moderates are going to be turned off by his insistence that they are somehow less Islamic than the terrorists. They will (rightfully) see his ultimate intentions as not just to minimize extremism but undermine and ultimately try to ideologically dispose of religion itself. And when that is your goal, you can expect a good deal of knee-jerk resistance, even from people who agree with you about extremism.

Also, if you think the religious are not paying attention to the Atheist movement, I think you are mistaken. So for him to say "Well, I'm not the voice.." but this other Muslim guy is, I would expect that other Muslim guy is going to be looked at with a good deal of incredulity in the Muslim world simply for being associated with someone who is so seemingly openly anti-Islamic.

Patient_Leech

Afro Cheese
I didn't think you were conflating the two, ftr. I just don't really see it as any sort of injustice.

A polygamist similarly would be run out of town trying to campaign for office. Is it ignorant? Perhaps. But that's just politics. I'm not really that invested in the democratic process in general, though. So maybe that's why it's not a real priority to me.

I do dislike the creationism and anti-science movements that pop up, but it's honestly hard to deal with. Mainly because the people who are creationists are so beyond the pale of moderate Christianity that they seem very unlikely to believe in evolution based on scientific arguments, for the most part.

Part of me just feels like let them go to creationist private schools and keep their heads in the sand, for all I care. As long as public money isn't being spent on non-science in science class, I could care less about what they believe at this point. Mainly because I live in the south and I interact with people like this on a daily basis, and I have long since given up any hope of trying to persuade those who are unwilling to be persuaded.

Well I don't disagree with you about it growing, really. I admit that Dawkins and co are expanding the brand: I just see them as winning over people who are either Athiests or prospective Atheists. This doesn't prove that the level of antagonism they use is ideal, however.

But there is no arguing that by making it a more public discussion, more people are going to be persuaded to that side. Especially considering that Atheists were virtually invisible in this country only a few decades back. I would say, however, that you shouldn't expect this a trend that will continue ad-infinitum. There is a sizable bulk of the religious populace that I believe will not deconvert. And so then the question always remains on how exactly to view/deal with them.

So I suppose my opinions on the negative aspect of their antagonism comes mostly from the reactions that I tend to get from religious people I interact with. I have a hell of a lot easier time getting along with people once they realize I am not like Dawkins & co and don't particularly care what they believe, so long as they grant me the same respect.

You ever read The Looming Tower? Recommended reading, if not. It goes into good detail on exactly how the modern form of extremism practiced by Al Qaeda and co has manifested over the last century or so. It's not a coincidence that they're Islamic; it is a specifically Islamic(or more specifically Islamist) movement that is motivated mainly by the vision of creating a new Islamic caliphate that will restore Islamic civilization back to its former glory.

There are a number of reasons why this movement is particularly potent to (some) Muslims. Bitterness over the current state of the Muslim world post-colonialism, and a general distaste for modern secular (western) values, bitterness over American and western military campaigns in the region, etc.

I'm no great defender of Islam. But I do think it is a disservice to give the terrorists any more credibility than they deserve, theological or otherwise. Which is why I find that kind of talking point by Harris and Dawkins as particularly toxic.

And let me be clear: I'm not just saying it's wrong because of the impact I think it has/will have. That is what makes it particularly toxic. But I believe it's also just wrong in terms of being accurate, for reasons I cited above. So I'm not saying don't speak the truth because of the implications... I'm saying it's not the truth and it doesn't have good implications on top of that.

You edited the rest of that paragraph, where all I did was explain that him saying "well i'm not the right voice but this other guy is" - as if Muslims aren't going to draw a connection between the two - might not be a particularly sound strategy.

All that other shit about how we should stay silent was your own invention. Say whatever you like, and own the implications of what you say. So when criticized on the impact your rhetoric might have, you shouldn't cop out by saying "oh, well I've said I'm not the right voice for blah blah blah." That is simply failing to meet criticism head on.

Patient_Leech
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
So I suppose my opinions on the negative aspect of their antagonism comes mostly from the reactions that I tend to get from religious people I interact with. I have a hell of a lot easier time getting along with people once they realize I am not like Dawkins & co and don't particularly care what they believe, so long as they grant me the same respect.

That's a reasonable strategy. I can understand not wanting to be associated with such bluntness. It can seem confrontational. Because many believers will immediately shut down and become very defensive as soon as you mention anything remotely resembling the ideas of Dawkins & co. But at the same time they are just expressing ideas and people need to stop being so sensitive. And there is an unwritten social rule that you don't question people's religion, which is inconsistent with all other disciplines. And what can I say, I can't help it: I appreciate their unbridled eloquence at demolishing religion.

I really think the lack of understanding on evolution is one of the biggest hurdles. It doesn't even get taught much in schools because teachers don't want to have to deal with religious wacko parents.

The MISTER
How can anything but an eternal source of power be the situation? Science and math both correlate that everything that exists has always existed in some form or another. My perceptions have changed over the years and I credit my interactions here with some positive changes. I don't believe in any human groups ability to truly represent for individual humans. I know I'm not capable of having any other humans experience and that's the same for each of us.

So the outlook I have on the science behind what's defined as atheism is simply that it suggests that we do not have the capability to evaluate infinite existence and it's sentience levels much, given the scope of the task at hand and our minute power in existence.

For myself I truly believe that I'm supposed to live my moral beliefs in action rather than feed them to others by decree. Each individual is their best judge in truth. The only possible improvement on that judge would have to have infinite understanding. Personally I hope that's the case because there are a lot of great people that call themselves atheist and a lot of evil people that call themselves holy, but the individual that can sleep at night knowing that they're not betraying whatever it is that they claim to believe has awareness of that fact alone as an immediate reward. My ADD thought:Puerto Rico is hurting and it keeps bugging me that all I can do is send scraps of money...

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.