Why Atheism is Vacuous Grandiloquence

Originally posted by socool8520
Why? Some of the Greek philosophers did fine without Religion. They were some of the greatest minds to exist.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

You can call me Leech. 🙂

OK. 🙂

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
How?

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)

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.

That's not what we're talking about.

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.

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.

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
[B]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.

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.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Not the enemy. An enemy.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'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.

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.

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

You'd have to unpack that accusation a little more, because I'm not buying it. I guess I didn't get this edit in in time...

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Again it's more dogma and irrationality that's the enemy, not "religion" per se.

Originally posted by Robtard
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.

Of course. And it's the dogma and irrationality that gets people to that level. And they do act on behalf of their beliefs.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
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 don’t mean to conflate the injustices brought upon blacks with the lack of understanding toward atheists. They obviously are nowhere near on the same level. It may not be right to call it a civil rights issue, but it’s a social issue for sure. It’s something that needs progress, just for there to be steps in the right direction in having more widespread rationality. It is an injustice that that for someone to be an outspoken atheist it would crumble any chance of public office because so many people are brainwashed by the irrationality of religion. It’s a corruption of reason. Just look at the poor statistics on the acceptance of evolution in this country. It is depressing. (I posted a graph at the bottom of this Page). And if more atheists don’t speak out, how is this going to change?

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
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.

A recent global survey conducted by National Geographic shows that the world’s fastest growing religion is not Islam or Christianity, but no religion at all – atheism.
Click

The share of Americans who identify as atheists has roughly doubled in the past several years.
Pew

And I doubt that’s happening without people criticizing religion.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
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 really don’t feel like discussing the theology of Islam right here and now. I think it’s enough to see it in practice in places like Indonesia and Saudi Arabia. It’s undeniably not a good thing. The point is people do act on their beliefs. My brother killed himself on the basis of his extremely twisted and distorted delusions associated with Christian theology. And there's plenty of theology in Islam that justifies what "extremists" do. So it's not a coincidence that Muslims are the ones carrying out the notion of jihad and not say Catholics or the Amish.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
Also, if you think the religious are not paying attention to the Atheist movement, I think you are mistaken.

Okay, so that’s an interesting issue to discuss. So, they might be listening, so we better not say anything to offend them? Let theocracy rule without speaking out? Seriously? Freedom of speech should be defended and used. It is a war of ideas and freedom of speech has to win. And you might say, well, “Just because you can say something does that mean you should? Maybe not. But I’m more of the opinion that people should be open and honest about the realities of the situation otherwise the wrong ideas will spread. It’s not our fault Islam is intolerant of non-believers and can’t handle different opinions. Muslims should be responsible for managing their own and helping them play nice with others. If people don’t speak out how can Islam be expected to collide with modernity and thus reform?

So f#ck that. Not speaking out against bad ideas is a bad idea.

I don’t mean to conflate the injustices brought upon blacks with the lack of understanding toward atheists. They obviously are nowhere near on the same level. It may not be right to call it a civil rights issue, but it’s a social issue for sure. It’s something that needs progress, just for there to be steps in the right direction in having more widespread rationality. It is an injustice that that for someone to be an outspoken atheist it would crumble any chance of public office because so many people are brainwashed by the irrationality of religion. It’s a corruption of reason. Just look at the poor statistics on the acceptance of evolution in this country. It is depressing. (I posted a graph at the bottom of this Page). And if more atheists don’t speak out, how is this going to change?

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.

Atheism is the fastest growing demographic in the United States.

quote:
A recent global survey conducted by National Geographic shows that the world’s fastest growing religion is not Islam or Christianity, but no religion at all – atheism.
Click

quote:
The share of Americans who identify as atheists has roughly doubled in the past several years.
Pew

And I doubt that’s happening without people criticizing religion.

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.

I really don’t feel like discussing the theology of Islam right here and now. I think it’s enough to see it in practice in places like Indonesia and Saudi Arabia. It’s undeniably not a good thing. The point is people do act on their beliefs. My brother killed himself on the basis of his extremely twisted and distorted delusions associated with Christian theology. And there's plenty of theology in Islam that justifies what "extremists" do. So it's not a coincidence that Muslims are the ones carrying out the notion of jihad and not say Catholics or the Amish.

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.

Okay, so that’s an interesting issue to discuss. So, they might be listening, so we better not say anything to offend them? Let theocracy rule without speaking out? Seriously? Freedom of speech should be defended and used. It is a war of ideas and freedom of speech has to win. And you might say, well, “Just because you can say something does that mean you should? Maybe not. But I’m more of the opinion that people should be open and honest about the realities of the situation otherwise the wrong ideas will spread. It’s not our fault Islam is intolerant of non-believers and can’t handle different opinions. Muslims should be responsible for managing their own and helping them play nice with others. If people don’t speak out how can Islam be expected to collide with modernity and thus reform?

So f#ck that. Not speaking out against bad ideas is a bad idea.

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.

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.

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😛uerto Rico is hurting and it keeps bugging me that all I can do is send scraps of money...