Angry atheists rant thread.

[onewheeldave]

 

 

 

You just can't help yourself can you?

 

What's to help? I've made it quite clear that, IMO, those who claim to be sceptics/rationalists have a higher standard by which to conduct their debates with non-sceptics/rationalists- there's no excuse for them using counter-productive and deliberately insulting language.

 

Do you disagree?

[six45ive]

OK. I think I can agree that you've got a logically consistent POV there.

 

Strictly speaking, no atheist can be militant, because, you consider 'militant' to mean aggressive behaviour or speech in support of a doctrine.

 

And, atheism as you see it* is empty of doctrine, therefore an essential component of militancy is missing.

 

Would you agree, however, that the above only holds as long as a particular 'atheist' is truly atheist in the above sense of being without doctrine?

 

If for example, a person who thought of themselves as 'atheist', yet attached some form of doctrine to it, for example-

 

Originally Posted by fake

 

Its the duty of every atheist to point out the failings of religion and what religion has done for society. Same way its the duty of most religions people to believe unconditionally in their faith without question and to spread the word. Things that are difficult to do unless its debated.

 

you would have to hold that they were either, not a true atheist, or, were confused as to what atheism means?

 

An atheist doesn't have to be without doctrine but if you wish to attach militant to a person who is an atheist he/she has to be espousing some doctrine which is why I originally brought secularism/humanism into the frame many posts ago. What the doctrine is doesn't matter, antitheism, socialism, fascism etc, etc, etc. Hence if you were to attach militant to me it would be a militant secularist or humanist or antitheist etc but not atheist.

 

(* the asterix is there simply because, as you and I both know, there are, in common usage, 2 definitions of 'atheism'. We've spoke about this before and, you consider the 2nd to be totally invalid (i.e. atheist as someone who believes there isn't a God), whereas I, due to my respect for 'common usage' don't consider it invalid. I only mention it to be precise- in general I'm happy to work with the strictly logical/emtymological meaning that you use).

 

I'm afraid you've got it wrong yet again so let me try bullet form to make it clear what my position is as an atheist, antitheist and secular humanist.

1/ I don't believe in god.*

2/ I believe there are no gods.

3/ If a god could be proved to exist then I still wouldn't follow it, pray to it or worship it etc.....I think the idea or the realisation of a god would be inhuman and childish.

4/ I don't know that there aren't any gods.

5/ I'm as near to certainty as can be, without actually knowing, that there are no gods.

 

Atheism is only applicable to *

[onewheeldave]

 

 

I'm afraid you've got it wrong yet again so let me try bullet form to make it clear what my position is as an atheist, antitheist and secular humanist.

1/ I don't believe in god.*

2/ I believe there are no gods.

3/ If a god could be proved to exist then I still wouldn't follow it, pray to it or worship it etc.....I think the idea or the realisation of a god would be inhuman and childish.

4/ I don't know that there aren't any gods.

5/ I'm as near to certainty as can be, without actually knowing, that there are no gods.

 

Atheism is only applicable to *

Around 50% of dictionary defintions disagree though. And, if you ask around amongst the general public, in my experience, the majority go for option 2. Hence my mention of 'common usage' when it comes to the term.

 

However, that particular debate has been done to death, and, to now, this thread has been refreshingly clear of it, so, I'm very happy if we agree to disagree (or agree that their are differenent opinions on it) and cease to talk about it, as, the other issues we're discussing are, to me anyway, much more interesting.

[onewheeldave]

An atheist doesn't have to be without doctrine ....

 

 

???How can that be. You previously said atheism was simply an absense of belief, how can there be a doctrine.

 

I can see how an atheist, as a person, could have other doctrines, just as an atheist could be a 'black atheist', or a 'male atheist', but, when it comes to their actual atheism, surely that must be free of any doctrine?

[Lockjaw]

.......

 

edit: cba

Edited September 30, 2012 by Lockjaw

[six45ive]

In general, I don't go out of my way to watch videos from the sceptical movement, precisely because, to me, the speakers all too often, come across as egotistical, superior, arrogant, and, insulting towards believers.

 

However, I would recommend this video highly-

 

 

the speaker is by astronomer and atheist Dr. Phillip Cary who is President of the James Randi Educational Foundation as well as creator of the online blog "Bad Astronomy,"

 

I'd recommend it to both atheists/sceptics, and also to believers who've come to the conclusion that too many atheists/sceptics, are of the type that some refer to as 'militant'.

 

Actually it's Phil Plait, saw this video soon after it came out and I agree with his line of reasoning almost entirely.

Here's the full video.

If you enjoyed that here's another video you might enjoy of somebody who I'm in broad agreement with (although I do think he gets i glaringly wrong in one or two places).

 

As a rationalist and sceptic myself, I've come to despair of the clumsy efforts of the modern sceptical movement, post Dawkins, to spread what should be a positive message. IMO, their approach has actually had the opposite effect to that intended i.e. it's driven many people away from either an understanding, or, an appreciation of, atheism, rationality and scepticism.

 

So to see a prominent member of the sceptical movement pointing out that talking down to, or insulting, believers, is counter productive, is, to me, inspiring.I'd recommend it to both atheists/sceptics, and also to believers who've come to the conclusion that too many atheists/sceptics, are of the type that some refer to as 'militant'.

 

These days I disassociate myself from atheists/sceptics, as, when it comes to discussions, I'm frequently appalled by their approach, their inexcusable misuses of 'rationality', the way they talk down to believers etc: generally, in these discussions, I find I feel myself having more in common with the believers, than the sceptics!

 

I wish the kind of attitude displayed by the speaker in this video, were more evident amongst the sceptical movement, then maybe I could once again feel more able to be an advocate of scepticism/rationality.

 

Nothing much to disagree about there but I'm wondering where these people are, who are they, or have you just listened to the religious crying offence at the first sign of criticism.

Like quisquose said, a few examples may make it clearer what you're talking about.

[six45ive]

???How can that be. You previously said atheism was simply an absense of belief, how can there be a doctrine.

 

Because we're not talking about atheism we're talking about somebody who identifies themselves as an atheist.

 

I can see how an atheist, as a person, could have other doctrines, just as an atheist could be a 'black atheist', or a 'male atheist', but, when it comes to their actual atheism, surely that must be free of any doctrine?

 

Which is precisely what I'm saying.

How does my highlighted portion of your statement differ to this?

Originally Posted by six45ive

An atheist doesn't have to be without doctrine

[six45ive]

Around 50% of dictionary defintions disagree though. And, if you ask around amongst the general public, in my experience, the majority go for option 2. Hence my mention of 'common usage' when it comes to the term.

 

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

[onewheeldave]

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

 

That's not relevant when it comes to word definitions and 'common usage' though.

 

It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it. After all, mere approval is no substitute for a mathematical proof. At one time people approved of claims such as "the world is flat", "humans cannot survive at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour", "the sun revolves around the earth" but all these claims turned out to be false.

 

I'd say spot on, but each of those claims has an objective reality- they're either mathematical facts, or facts about the physical world.

 

Words, and how we use them, are entirely human creations, and, like it or not, a lot of what makes a modern language, is down to common usage.

 

And, often, that common usage is contrary to etymology, or, even logic.

 

Much of a words meaning, it's 'correctness', is down to the way it is actually used. Common usage can, and often does, 'trump' etymology.

[six45ive]

I like the analogy at the end of this 5 minute clip about how, if you're (a religious person) beating somebody with a stick (imposing your harmful doctrine on others) then depriving you of that stick (fighting back against religious dogma) is not persecution.