Atheism: new religion?

[Lockjaw]

the generalisation is getting much more specific as the thread progresses. Now we are on some vocal atheists!

 

Surely you're not criticising somebody for allowing their position to alter during the course of a discussion.

[flamingjimmy]

"believers are irrational", which, in this thread alone, has actually been stated by at least two atheists (though, in one case, in a stronger form i.e. claiming that believers were irrational by definition)- I didn't notice you pointing out to them that they were generalising.

 

But believers are irrational by definition..

 

That is not a generalisation, it is an absolute rule, that's kind of what the 'by definition' part means.

 

Believing in god is irrational, therefore anyone who believes in god is irrational.

[Cyclone]

I get the feeling that onewheeldave expects the few posters still active on the thread to be able to answer for all the 'vocal atheists' who he thinks make unsupportable statements though. Which is unfair and not possible.

 

I'm sure some atheists do make unsubstantiated or irrational statements, they're people, not logic robots. So what. Why should that matter on a thread about whether atheism can be considered to be a religion.

I might go back to where this part of the conversation and see what OWD said... But maybe at that point there was nothing more to say than "yes they do, but they're not me".

[six45ive]

Is what you said originally. 'on the sole position of being an atheist ' is a somewhat obscure phrase, which I assumed meant an atheist committing an atrocity soley on the basis of their atheism.

 

To which I replied-

 

 

 

Now you're saying-

 

 

 

i.e. "If somebody says they are about to commit an atrocity in the name of their lack of belief in a god/religion then I'm also prepared to believe them."

 

which seems somewhat different.

 

Not at all. Both my statements are entirely reasonable and no attempt at obscurantism from yourself will change that.

I'm still waiting for you to find me an example of somebody who has committed an atrocity purely in their lack of belief in a god, whether they actually believe that or not, but have claimed that position. If you can do that then the conversation can progress, if you can't do that then please have the balls to concede the point and we can move on.

 

And, in that case, I'm sure you can find plent you examples of people who say they are committing those acts in the name of their God- historically it's quite common for that type to justify their actions by referring to God.

 

Yes, are you saying that they are all liars?

On top of that your comment above simply reinforces one of my previous points that religion gives them an excuse whether they believe it or not.

You don't seem to realise that the points you're making confirm my position more than you realise it does.

 

Still, I maintain that, whatever they say, the fact is that mass murderers commit mass murders because they are sick, twisted, psycopaths.

So, to me, the root cause is their twisted mental state- to you it's their religious belief.

 

They have been indoctrinated from birth in a death cult. Nobody is born 'evil'. There may be certain genetic traits that can be easily moulded by a particular society/culture/ideology which ends up producing 'sick, twisted, psycopaths' but nobody goes out and commits mass murder on a whim, there has to be some outside influence, some trigger, and throughout history that influence has been either politics or religion.

 

I'm sure we can both agree that that question can't be settled purely by reference to what they say is the cause- deranged mass murderers are hardly in a good position to know the true causes of their murderous actions and, even if they were, they can hardly be relied upon to be telling the truth.

 

So, how could we establish the true cause of their actions- are there any experiments, for example, that could settle it.

 

Because, as things stand, that question is far from settled.

 

You haven't provided any evidence at all that it's 'far from settled'. You've simply ignored virtually the entire history of the human race in an attempt to make the tautologically mute point that 'evil people are simply evil which is why they do evil things'.

When people have provided evidence and led you down a logical path to the only objective conclusion you can come to completely debunk your position I strongly suggest that if you're not prepared to back up your assertions and assumptions with anything more than philosophical obscurantism that you stop trolling and go and learn about about a subject that's relavent to the 21st century instead of an anachronistic ideology (philosophy) that appears to give you justification that it's OK to believe in anything.

[Cyclone]

I agree with much of that.

 

Personally I consider atheism to be a good thing- historically atheism has been heavily suppressed by some of the excesses of religious organisations: it's entirely right that people now, more than at any other time, can choose to not believe in God/gods and be open about it.

 

However, for whatever strange reasons, there seems to be a trend for some atheists to promote atheism with the same kind of zeal that some religious fundamentalist promote their religion.

 

I'm sure that it's not a trait of atheists in general, but simply the selection effect due to the fact that it's the more vocal/fanatical ones that tend to pop up on. for example, discussion boards: whereas the more balanced atheists tend not to feel the need to push their views on others, so we tend not to hear them.

 

Amongst those more vocal atheists, their does very much seem to be an arrogance- a belief that, in some way, in their eyes, to be an atheist is to be superior to those poor unfortunates who have been infested with a belief in a god.

 

In reality though, many of those who have such a belief in a god, turn out to be pretty sorted individuals, whose faith, far from being a delusion which wrecks their lives, is well integrated and whose effects, if anything, seem beneficial to their lives.

 

ranting religious fundamentalists are no more representative of religious people in general, than arrogant atheists with an almost missionic zeal to liberate the religious from their faith, are representative of atheists in general.

 

Well, that's your first post on the topic OWD.

You seem to object to anyone calling a belief in a religion a delusion.

I'm afraid I won't be changing my stance on that though as it meets the clinical definition of a delusion, which is good enough for me.

This doesn't automatically wreck the believers life, nor does not suffering that delusion somehow guarantee a great life, but then I haven't ever claimed either of those things to be true.

[llamatron]

Surely you're not criticising somebody for allowing their position to alter during the course of a discussion.

 

no it is a good thing, a progression!

[onewheeldave]

But believers are irrational by definition..

 

That is not a generalisation, it is an absolute rule, that's kind of what the 'by definition' part means.

 

Believing in god is irrational, therefore anyone who believes in god is irrational.

 

OK.

 

Just so I'm clear on this, in this context, what definition of 'irrational' are you using?

 

(I have checked the online dictionary defs, but, they tend to give several- I'd like to get it pinned down to the one you've got in mind)

[onewheeldave]

Not at all. Both my statements are entirely reasonable and no attempt at obscurantism from yourself will change that.

I'm still waiting for you to find me an example of somebody who has committed an atrocity purely in their lack of belief in a god, whether they actually believe that or not, but have claimed that position. If you can do that then the conversation can progress, if you can't do that then please have the balls to concede the point and we can move on.

 

 

Like I said before- I can't. At the time I also pointed out that you couldn't give an example of a beleiver who has done it either, and we went back and forth a bit.

 

But- if you want it isolated and naked, here it is-

 

I can't think of an example of somebody who has committed an atrocity purely in their lack of belief in a god

[mookau]

..........

[onewheeldave]

 

 

 

They have been indoctrinated from birth in a death cult. Nobody is born 'evil'. There may be certain genetic traits that can be easily moulded by a particular society/culture/ideology which ends up producing 'sick, twisted, psycopaths' but nobody goes out and commits mass murder on a whim, there has to be some outside influence, some trigger, and throughout history that influence has been either politics or religion.

 

 

 

You haven't provided any evidence at all that it's 'far from settled'. You've simply ignored virtually the entire history of the human race in an attempt to make the tautologically mute point that 'evil people are simply evil which is why they do evil things'.

When people have provided evidence and led you down a logical path to the only objective conclusion you can come to completely debunk your position I strongly suggest that if you're not prepared to back up your assertions and assumptions with anything more than philosophical obscurantism that you stop trolling and go and learn about about a subject that's relavent to the 21st century instead of an anachronistic ideology (philosophy) that appears to give you justification that it's OK to believe in anything.

 

Modern psychology has debated long over whether people are born evil or whether it's an enviromental thing- that question also remains unsettled.

 

Personally I believe evil has a cause, and i suspect that, in some cases, the cause is genetic, in others, environmental, and, in others, a mixture of the 2.

 

If you want to show that belief in a god, rather than genetic or environemtal factors, is the cause of evil in the example of historical figures who committed atrocties in the name of God, then produce evidence or reasons to substatiate it.

 

No amount of attacking me and accusing me of being a troll will substitute for reasoned evidence.