Internet atheism: one of secularism's biggest enemies (Buddhism, Islam, Christianity)

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by bUU

So you're okay with your perspective being called "militant atheism" but not with it being called "fundamentalist atheism"?

Yes, because doing something about religion is what some atheists do.'militant' will do until someone comes up with a better term. Fundamentalist is inappropriate because we have no dogma to be fundamentalist about. Judaism does, incidentally.

That doesn't make sense. Let's see if I can demonstrate that in a manner younger folks might understand:

fundamentalist : militant :: Thomas Road Baptist : Westboro Baptist

Flawed (as well as a grubby attempt to make us look like the Westobo crowd) . Some Fundamentalists might be militant. Others may not. Some atheists may be militant, others not. That does not make militant atheists fundamentalists.

Discussing the discussion again instead of keeping to the topic? Really? Why not stop trying to evade internalizing what others are saying by distracting yourself with fabricated concerns about the words being used?

Showing where you failed to make responses other than not substantiating your dismissals or restating debunked assertions is not "distracting yourself with fabricated concerns about the words being used" That is actually what you do here:-

There is nothing about the word "intransigence" that is weasel wording. The more you work to avoid understanding the words to which you're replying, the more you make clear that you're not even trying to understand the thoughts those words express.

I understand intransigence. An example is sticking to assertions that have been debunked.

I could ask you the same thing.

And I answered it and you dismissed it.

I regard categorical thinking as bad and harmful. At least that's supported by my professed beliefs. Your opposition to organized religion appears to be wholly due to guilt by association, as detailed below.

The problem is that the tenets of atheism don't justify opposition to organized religion. They justify opposition to the supernatural. That's why I'm making the points I'm making - fundamentalist atheists are attacking "everything over there" when what they can prove only justifies attacking some portion thereof.

Why would it need to be defended? The question is why should it be attacked? No one has given a good reason for that. Y'all have only provided good reasons to oppose supernatural basis for religion, and to oppose fundamentalism similar to that which you, yourself, express (which is what I'm speaking out against).

To answer all this, true. Atheism does not need to be opposed to religion. Indeed we were once told that we ought to be 'irreligionists' or 'anti -religionionists'. It is the sort of atheism -bashing you have done here that makes us militant, and it is the harm we see organized religion doing that makes us anti -religionists. There are a few theists who are anti -organized religion too. You don't need to be an atheist.

Regardless, the benefits of organized religion are myriad, but you have to be ready to hear that before detailing the benefits will be of any use. The first step in understanding the benefits of organized religion is setting aside the knee-jerk antipathy for it, and recognizing the difference between what you really oppose (supernatural basis for religion, and for fundamentalism similar to that which you, yourself, express) and organized religion, itself. Then you can begin to look at organized religion differently than your current, preconceived notions dictate.

My preconceived notions were those too many atheists share - that religion is good for us, true or not. I have been disabused of that notion. In any case, the bottom line is that teaching what is not true (if reason and evidence counts for anything) is not good. I oppose it.

He was a busy guy. Regardless, the scientist whose quote on religion resonates best is Carl Sagan, "A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, ... Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge."

Which means it hadn't emerged in his time. He wasn't too busy to write that he gave no credence to any organzied religion.

Of course. Judaism doesn't have fundamentalist-type dogma about saints or transubstantiation, yet there is still fundamentalist Judaism.

see above.

Your use of the word "demolished" is more grandstanding in the fallacy of appeal to self-declared authority. Regardless, you first need to actually address the points I've made, instead trying to deflect away from them. Then we can see. The rest of your comment is a bunch of ridiculously poor attempts at distraction, trying to repost comments and replies as if my replies to your replies didn't occur. Let's try to take a higher road than such silliness, eh?

I have demolished them and will do so again if you wish. Trying to draw a line under it is your ploy for pretending that I haven't done so.

[mordant]

Originally Posted by bUU

Why would I? You've posted a justification for believe in a form of after life, one of the building blocks of a legitimate theist perspective.

I don't pretend to know why you would or why you objected to the post that started you spouting that I was being a "fundamentalist" atheist and not to this one.

Here is where we must disagree, however, as that is stretching the concept of "afterlife" beyond what it is, which, applied to me, is an extension of my consciousness beyond my death. I will be recalled with fondness in the memories of those who valued me in life but there is no reason to expect that I will give a fig about it because there is no reason I have had posed to me to think it likely that my consciousness will survive death, and a number of reasons for me to think that it will not. The value of the notion therefore is only the extent to which it motivates me to love and good works in THIS life. You know, the one I'm legitimately convinced that I DO have.

And at best, each successive generation will remember less about me, and remember it less personally, until I am remembered no more. The most that one can hope might remain over the long haul is a faint echo of the good that I do in the world, being "payed forward" by others. Which, given that I am one out of tens of billions of people who have ever lived, makes perfect sense, and does not in any way devalue me doing my part. Rather it simply recognizes the true scope and relative size of my contribution to the human enterprise.

So this concept is just kicking the can down the road so far as a personal literal afterlife is concerned. It's a mildly positive concept to me, but it does not feed into the conceit that I am immortal. If you want to call that a "form of afterlife" and swap it out for an actual afterlife to construct a generic religious thought system out of, that is your right. Though I would also point out that it is not by itself uniquely the basis of a theist perspective, either. Atheism is not defined by beliefs about anything but the existence of deities. There are atheists who don't believe in any deities who nevertheless believe in naturalistically explicable, non god-dependent afterlife concepts.

None of the above should be perceived as a denigration of, or condescension towards, people who construct religious or theistic views for themselves. In principle that's a matter of indifference to me, especially compared to what sort of moral actor a person is in the world. The ONLY thing I have ever spoken against with respect to theism is the attempt of many theists to make their theism incumbent in some way upon others, including, in a voluntarily joined debate scenario, insisting that their beliefs are objectively justified or logically consistent for anyone other than themselves. The intellectual dishonesty of claiming a thing should be substantiated to others without offering up that substantiation for consideration, is itself unethical.

I don't claim that engaging in that behavior is inherent to theism, and maybe every 50th theist I converse with here doesn't, ever, and is clear on the subjective personal nature of their beliefs. Given the self-selective nature of an internet debate environment I would guess that every 10th theist in meatspace fits that definition, and probably 8 of the remaining 9 are fairly harmless anyway because their theism doesn't inform their life all that much, it is just a belief they were born into and feel obliged to defend but it's so compartmentalized that they aren't anywhere near the toad-touches in real life that their theistic beliefs would technically compel them to be. The most I can lay at their feet is contributing to the mean-spirited and small minded nature of public discourse in this country.

What does this leave me with regarding your brand of religion? Probably not with as much automatic deference and respect (or interest) as you would wish, but I'm certainly not hostile to it. In fact I found it attractive enough in principle (its non-creedal nature and its acceptance of atheists as theoretical equals in its ranks) to make a real effort to consider some level of participation in it myself. A combination of factors have led me to conclude that this isn't a good use of my increasingly short time on earth, but if there is a religious ideation I were going to be opposed to, it wouldn't be yours. It's too harmless to bother with and, indeed, contributes a number of actual benefits in the world, more effectively than many religions in my view.

Your eagerness to brand me fundamentalist for any of the above is in my view misguided in the "straining at gnats and swallowing camels" sense.

[bUU]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

Yes

Then we simply have a communications problem. You can rest easy, I suppose, when you see me refer to fundamentalist atheism, because you know that I'm referring to something that I consider much less offensive than militant atheism.

Problem solved.

[bUU]

Originally Posted by mordant

Here is where we must disagree, however, as that is stretching the concept of "afterlife" beyond what it is, which, applied to me, is an extension of my consciousness beyond my death.

Why? Because someone told you that's what it is? My mother was taught that women are supposed to get married at 15, have lots of babies, and that was to be their life. She and many other women didn't accept that. They saw society's definition for a satisfying and productive life, and recognized that the constraints of what they were taught kept such things from them. And so she worked with other women to claim some measure of life that they were taught would never be theirs. That's progressivism in a nutshell: Acknowledging the trappings of life unjustly proscribed, speaking truth to the power underlying the interdiction, and breaking through those barriers.

The Judeo-Christians never knew, in the way you understand the word "know", what the after life would be. So what you're doing is letting them own that part of you that would be the container for the trappings of life associated with a believe in the after life, i.e., that which they derive from their (erroneous, supernatural) belief. You intellectually know what you intellectually know, but barring yourself from experiencing the human condition of reverence for that which is of supreme value, such as that intellectual understanding of what the after life really is, is letting the supernaturalists subjugate you just that much.

I don't intend to give anyone else that much power over me. But heck, it's your choice.

Originally Posted by mordant

I will be recalled with fondness in the memories of those who valued me in life but there is no reason to expect that I will give a fig about it because there is no reason I have had posed to me to think it likely that my consciousness will survive death, and a number of reasons for me to think that it will not.

Neither will they "give a fig about it" after they're dead. It isn't about that - and despite their claims to the contrary, not even for them. It is about "giving a fig about it" now.

How deeply one cares about the after life matters, as does the truth of it. With regard to the truth of it, the Judeo-Christians' corrupted understanding of the after life is damaging to society, since it prompts antisocial behaviors (inherent in having a limited view of what is of supreme value, and therefore having no second thoughts about defacing that portion that they personally do not value). With regard to how deeply, we have the sociopaths, who have practically no depth of caring, regardless of what it is we're talking about them caring about. That also is damaging to society.

I know you don't agree, and will vigorous refuse to acknowledge it, but deeply caring (exhibiting reverence) about your impact on the world (that which will feed your after life) is better for all concerned than only caring about it intellectually. Furthermore, it is recognizable by society as something analogous to what society (perhaps erroneously, but through its overarching power asserts) uses to understand your relationship to society, either as a contributor or instead as an attacker. What value is there in being misconstrued like that? None.

It is Sunday so I've got to actually get ready for church, where these interactions are more worthwhile because people aren't working quite so hard to force themselves to misapprehend.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by bUU

Then we simply have a communications problem. You can rest easy, I suppose, when you see me refer to fundamentalist atheism, because you know that I'm referring to something that I consider much less offensive than militant atheism.

Problem solved.

If you refer to us (1) as militant atheists (which is ok by me) rather than fundamentalist atheists (because it is inapplicable to atheism, which has no dogma) then the problem is solved for me as regards you, though other atheists may not like it. You see...we are not all alike. Some atheists don't even like the term 'atheist' and try to suggest other names.

Now, as to the topic, the name used is sometimes a problem because it is smearing atheism rather than refuting it. The tone of voice is perhaps an issue, but the possible drawbacks of atheist stridency putting people off is outweighed by the good case we are making.

Thus the proposition that Internet atheism is harming secularism hasn't stood up to scrutiny. It has looked like yet another ploy by theists to try to shame us into shutting up. That I may say is the biggest enemy of the theist case against "New' atheism - it reveals the agenda behind all this advice or remonstration. They don't like what we say and they try to shut us up. Thus we know where they are coming from before they even arrive.

(1)I thought it unnecessary to point out that mental transliteration of "You gutless, slimy, snivvelling, loathesome piece of noxious toad -tripe" into "You very nice guy" does not remove the problem of the insolence of the terms actually used. But on second thought, the obvious may need to be pointed out.

Oh, and a p.s. The artless ploy of pretending that it is ok fo you to used 'Fundamentalist' in connection with atheists because it is less offensive to you than 'militant' is rather exposed by your implication that atheist 'Fundamentalism' made us somehow like Westboro'. They are less offensive to you perhaps than Militant Christians (or perhaps Jews)?

[mordant]

Originally Posted by bUU

Why? Because someone told you that's what it is?

I think that if you asked a thousand religious persons to define "afterlife" that is the definition that 990 of them will give you. And if you ask them to define the appeal and impact of that definition on them personally it is that they get a "get out of death free pass" from it.

If this is, as you label it, an "erroneous, supernatural belief" then it is invalid and the "accurate, naturalistic belief" that would logically replace it would logically have some different term to describe it, lest the two be conflated and hilarity ensue.

Maybe you don't like how the use of English has evolved in this regard and you want to "take back" this word's meaning for historical reasons, but in my view that train left the station long ago. I understand the approach you're taking ("speaking truth to the power underlying the interdiction") and respect it. But since believers and non-believers talk past each other enough by unwittingly using completely definitions for the same words, I can't agree.

Originally Posted by bUU

I don't intend to give anyone else that much power over me. But heck, it's your choice.

Thank you for respecting the dignity of making my own choices. We can agree that throwing off the shackles others would forge for us is a Good Thing, it is simply a question of strategy. You would seem to prefer to take on the extra freight of re-re-defining concepts rather than simply debunking them so that you can exchange them for other concepts, even if they are old ones in new clothing.

Originally Posted by bUU

Neither will they "give a fig about it" after they're dead. It isn't about that - and despite their claims to the contrary, not even for them. It is about "giving a fig about it" now.

I know you don't agree, and will vigorous refuse to acknowledge it, but deeply caring (exhibiting reverence) about your impact on the world (that which will feed your after life) is better for all concerned than only caring about it intellectually.

I don't see any value for myself but absolutely can understand the value others might find in it. I am in some ways too heady for my own good. But I am what I am. I cannot pretend to be otherwise.

Originally Posted by bUU

Furthermore, it is recognizable by society as something analogous to what society (perhaps erroneously, but through its overarching power asserts) uses to understand your relationship to society, either as a contributor or instead as an attacker. What value is there in being misconstrued like that? None.

This is actually a point of view I have evolved away from. Mainly because society seems hell-bent on being deliberately obtuse about a range of things, and I am tired of walking on eggshells so as not to offend their tender sensibilities. How they handle information that makes them uncomfortable is on them, not me. What's on me is to communicate clearly. What they do with it is their responsibility.

Of course, even I don't go out of my way to purposely antagonize people; I just don't go out of my way to handle them with kid gloves. Perhaps I am influenced more than most by having lived for years with a family member with borderline personality disorder. I have gotten really strict about keeping other people's s__t separate from mine.

[Tzaphkiel]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

it is inapplicable to atheism, which has no dogma

it is smearing atheism rather than refuting it. The tone of voice is perhaps an issue, but the possible drawbacks of atheist stridency putting people off is outweighed by the good case we are making.

there are most definitely dogmatic atheists on this forum. Here is the definition:

dog·mat·ic / adjective
inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true.
synonyms: opinionated, peremptory, assertive, insistent, emphatic, adamant, doctrinaire, authoritarian, imperious, dictatorial, uncompromising, unyielding, inflexible, rigid
"your being so dogmatic does not attract me to your religious philosophy"

the sample sentence in the definition above summarizes it nicely, and directly addresses how the behavior of the dogmatic atheists on the forum repels rather than attracts. the greatest "smear" to atheism is the behavior of the atheists themselves. the only "good case" made by atheists who engage in name calling, insults, mocking, ridicule, sarcasm, and condescension is the clear demonstration that they lack the basic skills for effective communication.

[mordant]

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

there are definitely atheists on this forum who are dogmatic. Here is the definition:

dog·mat·ic / adjective
inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true.
synonyms: opinionated, peremptory, assertive, insistent, emphatic, adamant, doctrinaire, authoritarian, imperious, dictatorial, uncompromising, unyielding, inflexible, rigid
"your being so dogmatic does not attract me to your religious philosophy"

the sample sentence in the definition above summarizes it nicely, and directly addresses how the dogmatic atheists on the forum cause people to reject whatever position they represent, whatever it is they are trying to sell

Except that by definition, atheists have no dogma and only one defining characteristic, so let us ask: what are atheists inflexible about?

It turns out that most atheists are what they are as a side effect of being "inflexible" about not embracing other's truth claims without requiring that they be substantiated in some way.

On the other hand theists embrace a great deal of dogma as given through religious faith which does not require substantiation, and then are inflexible about considering whether that dogma is true or not because they have already decided in advance that it is true.

So I leave it to the reader to decide who is inflexible about what. Personally I am quite flexible in that anyone can embrace whatever notions they want so long as they don't consider those notions binding on me and not only that, want me to embrace them without substantiation. Many theists however believe in this thing called "sin" which is a fount of allegedly universal moral principles that are binding on everyone -- not just believers. So perversely, my very "refusal" to believe is itself a sin. How convenient.

While to my knowledge you are not of THAT ilk, your insistence that discourse proceed in a way that falls all over itself to make you comfortable and never questions you and is completely open to and interested in your particular beliefs about god and the meaning of life and admits it into discussion as if it had a basis ... amounts to the same thing. Unbelief is forbidden and to be silenced, shamed, and demonized. Just for modestly different reasons than the Bible calling it "the sin of unbelief".

So no, I don't buy that there is a basis for dogmatism on the part of the irreligious that is anything remotely like the basis for dogmatism on the part of the religious. The ideologues regarding metaphysical beliefs, are not on the part of those who make no positive truth claims of our own, and merely decline to assent to yours.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

there are most definitely dogmatic atheists on this forum. Here is the definition:

dog·mat·ic / adjective
inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true.
synonyms: opinionated, peremptory, assertive, insistent, emphatic, adamant, doctrinaire, authoritarian, imperious, dictatorial, uncompromising, unyielding, inflexible, rigid
"your being so dogmatic does not attract me to your religious philosophy"

the sample sentence in the definition above summarizes it nicely, and directly addresses how the behavior of the dogmatic atheists on the forum repels rather than attracts. the greatest "smear" to atheism is the behavior of the atheists themselves. the only "good case" made by atheists who engage in name calling, insults, mocking, ridicule, sarcasm, and condescension is the clear demonstration that they lack the basic skills for effective communication.

Can't add much to Mordant's post other than ask what is the principle we hold as incontrovertibly true - because I can't think of one. Everything is open to question, but the explanations of science stack up the best, and the god -claims are based on nothing of substance and so you have to make a case by saying how impolite we are.

[MartinEden99]

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

the sample sentence in the definition above summarizes it nicely, and directly addresses how the behavior of the dogmatic atheists on the forum repels rather than attracts. the greatest "smear" to atheism is the behavior of the atheists themselves. the only "good case" made by atheists who engage in name calling, insults, mocking, ridicule, sarcasm, and condescension is the clear demonstration that they lack the basic skills for effective communication.

I think mordant has captured my take on the dogma point, but I'll add this regarding the bolded part.

Truth be told....atheists (or at least atheists like me) aren't trying to win your heart when discussing religion. Because a believer won't become an atheist until they care whether the beliefs they happen to hold, are in fact, true. And the theist that prefers self-delusion won't be a happy atheist anyway.

So the atheist isn't coddling you, telling you sweet nothings (literally), and filling your head with sentimental niceties just to get you to "join". There isn't a club, nor a church, we don't want your money, and we aren't interested in growing our numbers by tricking people into a faulty system like faith.

Atheists, in discussions such as this forum, want you to think critically. That's because we are quite sure that we have the best arguments on the topic of religion. Most of us have debated these topics many times over, and can usually make the theist argument better than the typical theist can. So if you are angered by what you read.....running off to do research to prove the atheist wrong is precisely how a critically thinking person behaves. A person who cares whether their beliefs are true, and wants to prove that they are. The person who can't be bothered to care whether their beliefs are true, or simply holds them for comfort, convenience, or pick your reason....isn't likely to be reasoned with on the subject.

Now even after doing all the research on all the various arguments for and against god-belief, its true there are many who remain theists. And that's ok, they have their reasons and justifications for them usually....but most of them don't remain religious. Not to the extent that they want to impose ancient books of mythology upon society. And that's all that concerns me.