Really Dodgy Guardian article comparing Atheists to nutty religious fundamentalists

[Fruitloop]

Personally I reckon it's easy to mistake what the fanatical atheists are opposed to: it's not private religious belief that is targeted, but rather religious interference in political matters, and the presumption of religious people to speak with a greater moral authority than the rest of us. Give up political meddling, and accept that those of us whose ethical compass is not grounded in a particular faith have opinions of equal merit, and I really don't mind what you do in private (or even in public).

A lot of the atheism around is actually opposed to a very specific type of religion, namely the american fundamentalist type, and the battle lines have been drawn in relation to US domestic political issues. For example, the Christian right in the US have traditionally been climate-change skeptics, which is to do with power structures in the US media and business communities, not with any particular inclination of religion towards catastrophic resource over-usage. The way in which religion has bene used as a recruiting-tool for this dangerous and contradictory position is of great concern to the concerned non-religious type though, as it should be for sensible religious folks as well.

 

[In Bloom]

I might.

Well, I suppose hope springs eternal and all that

 

[AnnaKarpik]

Oh please, that's probably the most feeble cop out in the history of everything.

<snip>

No, the cop out is trying to make my position appear ridiculous by trying to force admission to the possible existence of fairy-tale beings complete with all their irrelevant fairy-tale attributes.

 

[nosos]

In that case you can go even further: You can argue that any point of view which a group of people consider to be above questioning is a religion.

...and then the words you use cease to have any meaning which is why this secular fundamentalism shite is nonsense.

 

[kyser_soze]

So in your wisdom, how would you descrbe someone like Dawkins who views religion as a debilitating virus - not just fundamentalist religious types, but ALL religions?

 

[Wilf]

I think Richard Dawkins is an eejit who is somewhat autistic in his scientific reductionism. Doesn't seem to have a clue how people work at the level of the individual or socially. However none of that actually makes him dangerous or equivalent to some religious loon who wants to wield power over society.

But the real problem with the 'atheism debate' is that its assumed all un-believers are like him. I'm sure for most atheists 'scientific method' and 'proof' are only part of the things that help them navigate their life. Whilst everything in life can at some obscure level be reduced to biology and neuro-chemistry, that's not a very fruitful way to understand human behaviour.

 

[Azrael]

While atheism is a 'lack of belief', that doesn't mean that it isn't an intellectual system that can't demonstrate intolerance, irrationality or violence toward those who don't share it, and I'm really, really surprised that you of all posters don't seem to recognise this.

Chauvinism is a human trait, so of course individual atheists can behave as you describe. My point is that skeptical-atheism, as a thought-system, is far, far less likely to motivate atrocities than religion for the following reason: religion claims a monopoly on truth whereas skepticism champions a free market of ideas. It's the fundamental difference: the negative behavioural patterns you describe stem directly from a belief in a truth-monopoly.

Sam Harris displays a special hatred of Muslims, but there is no evidence that his atheism is the cause. (His failure to subject Eastern religions to similar vitriol demonstrates that: as does the credulous support he lends to all sorts of mysticism and absurd new-agery.)

You cite Dawkins. (Whose abrasive manner is entertaining but ultimately counter-productive.) Dawkins does not promote violence or intolerance. (By tolerance I mean suffering the existence of something you despise. He has never suggested that religion be suppressed by law; a courtesy many religious people don't reciprocate.) All Dawkins actually says is that religion should loose any protection from criticism, and that children should enjoy protection from indoctrination.

The outcry this has provoked speaks volumes about religion's stranglehold on the public sphere.

 

[Azrael]

A fundamentalist believes absolutely that their thinking on a given matter is correct and dismisses possible alternatives, out of hand, as worthy of contempt. Atheists are often as guilty of this as anyone else.

Richard Dawkins, supposedly the epitome of atheist fundamentalism, says that God is merely very improbable. He says he would change his mind in an instant should he see convincing evidence that he is wrong. That is not remotely equivalent to religious fundamentalists claiming absolute truth.

Dawkins doesn't dismiss all possible alternatives: he merely dismisses the alternatives offered by the major monotheistic religions for lack of evidence. As a historian I agree entirely: without the weight of two millennia of tradition, the supposed "evidence" (in the case of Christianity, the gospels, which are, at best, anonymous second-hand hearsay) would be laughed out of any serious historical appraisal.

Atheists disbelieve in the absence of evidence and deny anyone has a monopoly on truth: religions demand positive belief based on faith (belief without evidence). Whatever mischievous believers try and claim the two positions just aren't comparable, however passionately atheists put over their case.

 

[In Bloom]

No, the cop out is trying to make my position appear ridiculous by trying to force admission to the possible existence of fairy-tale beings complete with all their irrelevant fairy-tale attributes.

I'm not trying to force anybody to do anything.

The point I'm trying to make is, what makes the existence of God any more likely than the existence of fairies?

 

[nick1181]

Nick 18111 then said:

Atheistic intollerance doesn't come within a million miles of religious intollerance. We don't burn embassies, we don't threaten to cut people's heads off. We don't kill people because someone said something bad about something we "believe" in.

Which isn't true - Stalin & Mao (I don't know why you've included Nazism in this - the Nazi's weren't atheists, they were Hegelian pagan/Christian mystics) both created state religious cults, but in both cases the mechanisms of their officially atheist states persecuted and executed theists (and the Chinese are still doing it to Falun Gong and Tibetan Buddhists)

Oh, we're back here again are we? This has been covered many many many times.

Stalin, Mao, Hitler killed people because they were tyranical totalitarians. Atheism didn't provide the justification for their crimes.

The same can not be said for the embassy burners, the people who hung the two gay teenagers in Iran a couple of years ago, the people who attack abortion clinics... the whole insane and bloody history of religious stupidity going back to the dawn of time.

Falun Gong hasn't been banned because it's a religion, it's banned because it's a concentration of power distinct from the govt. The personality cults created by Mao, Stalin, Kim Jong Il, Hitler etc etc were not religions, the were personality cults.

 

[xenon]

Do atheists have hard conclusive evidence that there is no God? What is the certainty that there is no God based on? Is it merely an absence of evidence either way that leads them to conclude that there is no God? At the moment we have no evidence that aliens exist, but few people would argue this means they do not exist. So is the atheist belief that there certainly is no God a position of 'faith' ?

I always took it to mean that athism was precisely that. TO me agnosticism is the only sensible aproach to adopt.

 

[nightbreed]

Oh, we're back here again are we? This has been covered many many many times.

Stalin, Mao, Hitler killed people because they were tyranical totalitarians. Atheism didn't provide the justification for their crimes.

The same can not be said for the embassy burners, the people who hung the two gay teenagers in Iran a couple of years ago, the people who attack abortion clinics... the whole insane and bloody history of religious stupidity going back to the dawn of time.

Falun Gong hasn't been banned because it's a religion, it's banned because it's a concentration of power distinct from the govt. The personality cults created by Mao, Stalin, Kim Jong Il, Hitler etc etc were not religions, the were personality cults.

There is a difference between a state enforced personality cult , as in the non socialist , stalinist countries and fundamentalist religion.
This point is well made.
You dont need to be fanatical about scientific fact although I would concede that a few atheists might get fanatical about religious peoples intolerance to science with regard to evolution for example.
I mean how can you seriously promote that the earth was created in seven days in 4004BC? What scientific proof of there of this? How would you explain fossils, carbon dating, stratigraphy etc?
Just because a group of people call themselves 'born again' do they have to promote a view that has more sinister objectives than the peace , love and sharing promoted in some parts of the New Testament?

 

[Jonti]

I always took it to mean that athism was precisely that. TO me agnosticism is the only sensible aproach to adopt.

[Pedantic etymological interlude]

It's a common misapprehension to think that agnostic means "don't know" and atheist means "know there isn't".

But Dawkins for example, does not "know there isn't" and is quite clear on that. Yet he calls himself atheist rather than agnostic.

Let's take apart the two words atheism and agnosticism. The prefix a means, roughly, no or not . As in, for example, amoral and asymmetrical. So "atheist" means no theism. And "agnostic" means no belief. They're pretty close in meaning. And in fact, the two terms were originally equivalent.

The letter term was coined by Thomas Huxley for PR reasons, as being softer and more acceptable than atheist, is all.

[/Pedantic etymological interlude]

 

[nightbreed]

[Pedantic etymological interlude]

It's a common misapprehension to think that agnostic means "don't know" and atheist means "know there isn't".

But Dawkins for example, does not "know there isn't" and is quite clear on that. Yet he calls himself atheist rather than agnostic.

Let's take apart the two words atheism and agnosticism. The prefix a means, roughly, no or not . As in, for example, amoral and asymmetrical. So "atheist" means no theism. And "agnostic" means no belief. They're pretty close in meaning. And in fact, the two terms were originally equivalent.

The letter term was coined by Thomas Huxley for PR reasons, as being softer and more acceptable than atheist, is all.

[/Pedantic etymological interlude]

Fundamentalist christians would argue that they would feel god/jesus 'inside them'.
The only thing I feel inside me is last nights curry. That isnt spiritual in any way!
I believe in myself. Therefore I am an atheist. I can prove me but I cannot prove or disprove the existance of a god. As a betting man the odds of there not being a god outweigh any 'facts' (I havent seen anyone put forward concrete evidence) that there is a supreme being or spirit.

As life is based on fact I think it is perfectly reasonable to call oneself an atheist.

 

[TAE]

[Pedantic etymological interlude]

While I cannot fault your greek, I think the term agnostic also refers to the view that it is not possible to know, as apposed to a mere personal uncertainty.

 

[In Bloom]

*deleted*

 

[nosos]

So in your wisdom, how would you descrbe someone like Dawkins who views religion as a debilitating virus - not just fundamentalist religious types, but ALL religions?

As many critical things if I have my philosopher hat on and many much less critical things if I have my anarchist hat on. Not as religious though. Words have meanings for fucks sake.

 

[nightbreed]

So in your wisdom, how would you descrbe someone like Dawkins who views religion as a debilitating virus - not just fundamentalist religious types, but ALL religions?

I believe Dawkins is making a statement of fact. It is his opinion made on the basis of his research. Quite a reasonable approach when you look at all the christan/muslim/jewish groups in the world who cannot base their beliefs on fact.

The onus is on these groups to prove a supreme being is fact and can provide indisputable scientific evidence. It isnt for Dawkins or atheists to provide evidence.They have science.

 

[Aldebaran]

It isnt for Dawkins or atheists to provide evidence.They have science.

The same ridiculous intellectually lazy discours as so often heard from atheists.
Please don't hesitate to give me your conclusive and irrefutable scientific evidence that God does not exist.
If you can't provide for it then it would be wise for you to take a less arrogant position, in the knowledge that you believe in what you say without having any scientific - or other - proof for your beliefs.

salaam.

 

[In Bloom]

Dum de dum.

what makes the existence of God any more likely than the existence of fairies?

And while we're on the subject, in what sense is saying "There is no evidence that X exists, and no reason to think that it should, so it probably doesn't" a matter of faith? That's just the way that we navigate the world, it's impossible to be absolutely certain of anything.

 

[In Bloom]

It isnt for Dawkins or atheists to provide evidence.They have science.

Not that I disagree with the general thrust of what you're saying, but strictly speaking, the scientific method cannot be used to make a positive claim about anything supernatural. The supernatural is by definition inexplicable and unpredictable.

 

[Wilf]

though whether or not ppl follow a religion is rarely down to some hard headed decision as to god's existence. Religion comes out of people's heritage, comforts, reaffirms identity etc. All stuff that Dawkins shows little understanding of.

Similarly, I'm an atheist - but not simply because i don't believe in god! Don't particularly want a ready made set of answers on everything.

 

[TAE]

I believe Dawkins is making a statement of fact. It is his opinion made on the basis of his research. Quite a reasonable approach when you look at all the christan/muslim/jewish groups in the world who cannot base their beliefs on fact.

I'd be interested in your definition of 'fact'.

The onus is on these groups to prove a supreme being is fact and can provide indisputable scientific evidence. It isnt for Dawkins or atheists to provide evidence.They have science.

How do you prove that science is an effective tool in this respect?

There is a circular argument that states:
"Facts are established by iterations of observation, prediction and experimentation; science fulfills this criteria therefore science is based on facts."

 

[Aldebaran]

science is based on the theory or assumption of the existence of facts, which science can't establish but on argument of provisional and refutable research.

To take outcome and result of this research as fact of consensus is in fact denying science its right to exist.

salaam.

 

[Wilf]

science is based on the theory or assumption of the existence of facts, which science can't establish but on argument of provisional and refutable research.

To take outcome and result of this research as fact of consensus is in fact denying science its right to exist.

salaam.

But in practice, we accept those scientific propositions that seem to be well founded as fact. We assume that penicillin works - and act accordingly. Ditto with gravity. In fact, in practical terms, it would be very odd if we assumed that gravity was unproven - and decided to live our lives as if it didn't exist. Okay - scietific ideas change over time. But the real question is: are there current good grounds for believing x is true or untrue? That's about all you can ever achieve.

 

[Aldebaran]

But the real question is: are there current good grounds for believing x is true or untrue? That's about all you can ever achieve.

Yes. Are there current grounds to believe science proved the non-existence of God which comes down to the existence of an Uncreated Godless Universe?
No.

salaam.

 

[In Bloom]

Are there current grounds to believe science proved the non-existence of God which comes down to the existence of an Uncreated Godless Universe?

Nobody's making that claim though, the only people making a positive claim is those saying that God created the universe, no sane atheist over the age of 14 claims to know that God doesn't exist with absolute certainty.

Could you stop thinking in absolutes for long enough to answer the points being put to you? Pretty please?

 

[nightbreed]

The same ridiculous intellectually lazy discours as so often heard from atheists.
Please don't hesitate to give me your conclusive and irrefutable scientific evidence that God does not exist.
If you can't provide for it then it would be wise for you to take a less arrogant position, in the knowledge that you believe in what you say without having any scientific - or other - proof for your beliefs.

salaam.

Prove it.

 

[nightbreed]

Aldebarran. You prove to me god exists. I dont have to prove anything.

 

[TAE]

A rather bizarr example of how we take certain truths for granted is this:
Even though I know that I am self aware, I know that I exist, how do I know for certain that everyone else is also a self-aware, conscious, sentient being?