Atheism: new religion?

[onewheeldave]

Didn't you claim not to use sweeping generalisations earlier?

 

OK, well spotted- in the middle of replying to around 10 posts, for once, I neglected to insert the word 'some'. Give that man a prize

[onewheeldave]

 

In fact most a'theists I know are vocal in their support of secular freedoms more than anything else, and I would fight for the rights of any person to practice his/her religion just as I argue for the rights of the non-religious. It's only because of the UK's secular fabric, even if not constitutionally so, that Muslims are able practice their religion, and Catholics theirs. (It's somewhat ironic that the previous Archbishop Of Westminster was one of the most vocal critics of secularism, perhaps forgetting that without it he wouldn't exist at all.)

 

 

Good point. I'd not really thought about that, but, you're right, if Britain was a church-led state, i can imagine a lot less tolerance towards other faiths (eg muslims)

[onewheeldave]

 

 

To me 'your belief is not based on rationality' and 'your belief is irrational' mean exactly the same thing. And I wouldn't add the 'and is basically stupid' part (unless it was a particularly stupid doctrine being discussed at the time, say for example, young earth creationism).

 

 

Ok, that's what i was after. You do consider 'irrational' to mean simply not based on rationality: that's clear enough, i'll bear it in mind from now on.

 

I suspect you don't really get the distinction I was making with the other definition of rationality?

 

And I won't go into it again, but, the thing is, at least some of the disagreements we see on these threads are down to the fact that people are using the same word but meaning different things, and, even if you can't take on board their definition, it's useful to bear in mind that they do understand the word in a different way.

 

Just out of interest though, if you expressed a belief to me, and I replied with 'you're being irrational' would you not be offended?

 

and, can you appreciate that some believers, when faced with 'all religious believers are irrational' will take offence, that they'll take it as meaning believers are stupid?

 

 

 

 

 

I think you're giving a special exemption for religion. I very much doubt you'd pull me up for calling moon landing conspiracy theorists irrational, or people who believe in the loch ness monster. Or would you? And if not, why not?

 

I wouldn't pull you up. But I personally wouldn't call them irrational. In the case of moon landing conspiracys they do actually seem to put a hell of a lot of thought into their theories

 

And, in the way you've phrased it above, a lot of people would take it as meaning that they are irrational, whereas maybe you're really saying their beliefs on that particular issue are irrational?

 

Because I'm sure many a believer in Nessie can also be very rational in other areas of their lives?

 

I mean, if the presence of irrationality in one aspect of ones life makes one an irrational person, then I doubt there's a single rational person on this Earth.

[danot]

Would an atheist claiming ghosts exist be any more irrational than a theist claiming God exists?

[onewheeldave]

 

 

 

A belief in god is an environmental factor. Anything that has an effect on somebody outside of their genetic make up is an environmental factor and that includes religion.

 

Fair point- though it didn't need the rolly eyed smiley, that suggests that you consider me a bit thick.

 

To reword what I said then, evil is caused by combination of genetic factors and environmental factors other than religious belief.

 

Because when it comes to environmental factors causing the level of mental/emotional stress necessary to cause a person to become evil, I beleive that things like sexual abuse, physical violence, being brought up in the constant presence of people who are themselves sociopathic and the like, are far, far, more likely suspects than religious belief.

 

And of course, there's the observation that there are a hell of a lot of people with religious beleifs who, are not only not killers, but happen to be nice people- here's a link to an article on your man Dawkins website than backs that up-

 

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/643050-god-s-truth-believers-are-nicer

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not attacking you, I, and many others, are simply highlighting the inconsistencies in your arguments and giving you friendly advice that it may be a good idea to go back to university and get an education in one of many different subjects that lead you to a plethora of objective facts rather than a 'subject' (philosophy) that appears to allow you to manipulate it to fit in with your own prejudicial/ideological mindset.

 

You seriously don't see that as an attack!!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????????!!!!!!!!!

 

'go back to university'

 

I'm almost tempted to ask you for your definition of 'attack', but I won't.

 

Normally I wouldn't do this, but seeing as how you seem to have no sense of what rudeness is, may I suggest that you, similarly, go off and learn some people skills

[onewheeldave]

Would an atheist claiming ghosts exist be any more irrational than a theist claiming God exists?

 

I don't know- what do you think?

 

Thing is, a lot of believers aren't claiming God exists- they're just getting on with their lives and their religious practices.

 

A lot of them are fully aware that they'll never being able to prove to atheists the existence of God, neither are they interested in doing so.

 

They 'feel' God in their lives, but wouldn't see that as meaning God 'exists' in the sense that most atheists seem to think it means.

 

What if we floated the idea of 'God' being, to some, an inner feeling of presence- a comforting feeling and a feeling that theres an objective observer taking note of your thoughts and actions.

 

With no pretence that it actually exists in the physical world and thus, that it can never be measured with physical instruments.

 

Would atheists look upon that with a bit more respect? Probably not I guess.

 

But aren't there other things that people feel, that similarly can't be measured?

 

What about love, for your children- it's a feeling, that powerfully influences behaviour- but that feeling can't be measured.

 

The actions caused by it can, but, that also applies to the actions from the God Feeling.

 

So, would atheists say that love is irrational? Would they suggest that, if love is irrational, that it shouldn't be followed, in the same way that they recommend the God feeling shouldn't be followed?

[sccsux]

atheists are very much insisiting that not child should receive education in religious belief, from their parents.

 

Where has that been postulated? Or are you making things up?

 

I object to religion being taught as a scientific basis for creation in schools though.

 

I care not what "white lies" parents tell their children, however, those "white lies" should not be taught in schools.

[sccsux]

Would an atheist claiming ghosts exist be any more irrational than a theist claiming God exists?

 

Nope.

 

They'd be as loony as the religious loon.

 

FTR. I'm an atheist that doesn't believe in "ghosts", either.

[onewheeldave]

Similalry, with atheism, it's really not a case of live and let live with religious belief, because believers have children, and atheists are very much insisiting that not child should receive education in religious belief, from their parents.

 

Where has that been postulated? Or are you making things up?

 

I object to religion being taught as a scientific basis for creation in schools though.

 

I care not what "white lies" parents tell their children, however, those "white lies" should not be taught in schools.

 

Yes, you're right- what I said there is rubbish

 

I meant to say that one of the issues some atheists are very vocal about is that of children being, as they put it, indoctrinated into religious belief, and that there is a danger there because some may distinguish between that and the fact that parents who are believers tend to educate their children about their religious beliefs i.e. who gets to decide the difference.

 

But, like i said, I worded it really, really badly- typing faster than my brain could keep up with.

[six45ive]

You've noticed then (as have I) that, vocal atheists, when they debate with believers, even backed by rationality and science, have almost zero success in getting their points across to them?

 

And your hypothesis is that it's down to the believers- their inability to be rational etc (and I expect their deluded state of mind doesn't help either )

 

Here's another hypothesis- the failure is due to the fact that, generally, atheists are hopeless at communicating with those who do not think like they do.

 

Because, it has long been established, that when it comes to communication and getting people to change their minds, rationality and reason are way down the list in terms of effectiveness.

 

Two things that are proven to being superior are propaganda and diplomacy.

 

Governments have long known that when it comes to motivating the population to go to war, reason is of limited value- they'll use it, but the bread and butter for motivationg populations is propaganda- bold imagery, graphic design- works on a subliminal level, the last thing you want is people thinking.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

 

Not that I'm suggesting atheists start using propaganda (it's a black art based on trickery and deception)- I'm just pointing out that reason a particulalry effective means of changing minds in comparison.

 

The other big one, and this is one I think atheists would do very well to study, is diplomacy.

 

When it comes to extreme opposing points of view, diplomacy is the tool of choice.

 

One of the basic tenets of diplomacy is to not offend the other side, to not wind them up.

 

Vocal atheists, on the whole, are utterly hopeless when it comes to talking to believers without offending them.

 

In some cases I suspect it's deliberate, there are atheists out there who've suffered due to religion in their past, and that bitterness can manifest as behaviour in which they, on some level, work out their frustration by getting into discussions with believers (preferably stupid ones- fundamentalists) and winding them up.

 

let me make clear that I'm not suggesting any of the atheists on this thread fall into that category- but, we all know that there are people like that (thankfully in a minority)

 

In others, it's a general lack of people skills and inability to communicate, which tends to be at a higher level with some of those that are highly intelligent/rationalistic.

 

With others, I believe they do sincerely intend to communicate effectively their views, but maybe just can't put themselves into the heads of the person they're talking to, and genuinely can't see that what they've just said will cause offence.

 

The thing is, once the person being talked to, becomes offended, or feels insulted- the opportunity to communicate ends- their ears will basically close as they go in 'defense' mode.

 

And it's important to realise that that happens when the other person feels offended, regardless of whether the first person (the atheist) feels that they said nothing offensive.

 

A fine example is one covered in a recent post-

 

'all religious believers are irrational'

 

Start a debate with that one, and any hope of communcation is ended. from then on, you're in a war.

 

Because, to many believers, to be accussed of being irrational, is deeply insulting (also of course, to many non-believers), because, to them, it is equivalent to being called 'stupid'.

 

Now maybe atheists would say, that's not what i meant, you've taken that the wrong way- but, I guarantee you, whatever your definition of 'irrational' is, a large percentage of the population will take it as meaning 'stupid'.

 

Atheists can choose to continue to disreagard that, and, if so, their failure to communicate constructively will also continue.

 

Or, they can think diplomatically, appreciate that the person in front of them is a human being with ideas of their own, and re-phrase to something that means the same, but that won't cause offence, such as-

 

'religious belief is not based on rationality' which not only is far less likely to offend, but also forms a useful starting point to a discussion that might actually lead somewhere.

 

(I think most intelligent believers are aware of the fact that their beliefs are not based on rationality)

 

First thing you've said where I'm in broad agreement with you but you're not saying anything that hasn't already been discussed indepth within the atheist community itself.

Personally I like to use both the 'carrot' and the 'stick'. Reason, evidence and logic where appropriate but rhetoric, spin and propaganda is a useful tool to set subliminal seeds of doubt into the believer's minds before the fertilizer of logic and reason enables those seeds to grow.