The Atheist Delusion

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I found this quite fascinating.  "Atheist" and "Anarchist" both have connotations that are probably quite quite different from what many practitioners of both consider themselves to be doing.  For instance, in the bible belt of the south-east USA, I was once asked in all seriousness whether I was really an atheist, because I seemed like a nice guy and not somebody who worshipped satan.

The choice of labels is that of the atheist, is it not? No one says "You are Atheist!!" rather people say "I Am Atheist"...  the individual chooses the label and wears it like a crown. I've debated several atheists on the topic. After all, they don't get all excited and say "I'm an Aunicornist" or an "Aleprechaunist" or an "Asaschquachist"... they specify a'theist'. Most of them, when pressed admit that its not a position of reason and logic (that position would be "I have not seen evidence for God"), but it is a position of Social Statement. 'We Atheists must stick together against 'Them'!"

The most dangerous thing, in my opinion, about people like Dawkins is that they provide the useless swarming masses with yet another Us vs Them fight with the flimsy veneer that its a logical and reasoned position. Pesudoskepticism in any form appears disingenuous and dangerous.

[Vene]

Well, I cant speak for any other atheists, but I dont have a problem with religion unless they try and dictate how other people should live their lives. If you want to do religion, thats fine with me, just dont try and make me do it. I have pretty much the same view of drugs. If you want to do crack and heroin and meth, thats your call, as long as you dont come near me while you're high.

This atheist agrees.

What Dawkins actually said about evolution and religion was that it was advantageous for young children to believe what adults told them without question. The value of this is pretty obvious (dont go out in the forest alone, there are saber tooth tigers), but it explains why religion has stuck around for so long. Also, humans have a natural need to explore and understand the things around them, which makes sense evolutionarily. Religion got started as a way to explain how the world worked before we could answer the question with science. However, there's no natural need for religion like there is for sex. If a child grew up never hearing about religion, chances are the idea wouldnt just randomly occur to them. The only thing that would make that happen is the question, "What happens after we die?" which is another example of the drive to explore and understand.

I don't know if the child won't make up religious-like explanations though.  Without any explanation I'm fairly confident that an individual would start connecting unconnected phenomenon and attribute it to some "magical" power.

If atheism becomes a state project, it becomes just like any other religion, that can be used to manipulate people. The whole point of atheism is that it's nothing. If you never heard of religion, you would automatically be an atheist. If you turn atheism into something, it becomes just another religion, with beliefs, priests, sacred laws and the whole thing. Not that I dont think Stalin and co genuinely didnt believe in God, but for them, it was Atheism, whereas for us, it's atheism. The real point was Communism, of which atheism was just a part. Our atheism doesnt imply anything about our other beliefs and principles.

Which is part of the reason I try hard to not self-identify as an atheist.  My lack of belief is not something I want to use to define myself.

A secular state in which religion has no role is two different things. Right now, we have one (sort of), but obviously not the other. If any atheist liberals do believe that religion will automatically decline in a secular state, they need to take a look at the numbers. America was founded by Puritans, and it would take another revolution to get rid of them.

There was a decline in religion during the 19th century, but then fundamentalist movements started up.  And during the Cold War it really entered into politics to 'defeat the godless commies.'

Of course all civilizations fall eventually. What I would hope is that a civilization such as Dawkins and co describe would last long enough to get us past the point were we could easily blow ourselves up. It could last for 200 years, it could last for 200,000 years, as long as it lasts long enough to get us past the danger zone. Also, I'd kind of prefer it if it could last until after I'm dead.

If there's nothing else humans are good at, it's killing each other.  Even without religion to incite conflict we'll find some other reason.

I havent heard this before. How did liberalism come from Christianity? Was it from some offshoot like Quakerism or something? Anyway, liberalism and atheism arent really connected for me. I'm an atheist because that's the logical conclusion of the scientific method, and I'm a liberal because I believe that people deserve to be free and able to make their own choices.

I just have to say that the Quakers aren't very Christian anyways, there are a good chunk of them who don't believe in a god.

I dont want to repress religion, I just want religion to stop repressing me. Remember, there are more religious people who want world government than secularists. It's not an atheist thing. The only real thing standing in the way of world government is barriers of ethnic and religious hatred. Now, that's obviously a rather large roadblock, but if you find yourself at the bottom of a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.

I wouldn't mind if it disappeared to be honest.  Holy books have been used too much as a basis for hate, anti-intellectualism, racism, misogyny. and genocide.  There may be some good stuff in there, but religion brings in a lot of sick shit.  But what do you expect when people try to apply social rules from the 1st century to our age?

The choice of labels is that of the atheist, is it not? No one says "You are Atheist!!" rather people say "I Am Atheist"...  the individual chooses the label and wears it like a crown. I've debated several atheists on the topic. After all, they don't get all excited and say "I'm an Aunicornist" or an "Aleprechaunist" or an "Asaschquachist"... they specify a'theist'. Most of them, when pressed admit that its not a position of reason and logic (that position would be "I have not seen evidence for God"), but it is a position of Social Statement. 'We Atheists must stick together against 'Them'!"

The most dangerous thing, in my opinion, about people like Dawkins is that they provide the useless swarming masses with yet another Us vs Them fight with the flimsy veneer that its a logical and reasoned position. Pesudoskepticism in any form appears disingenuous and dangerous.

There are idiots in any group.  As for myself, I did say earlier in this post that my atheism is not a core part of who I am.  I think the only reason that it's important to some people is because there are so many who are theistic.  I'd want to separate myself from the people that believe in unicorns too (incidentally, I've talked with a Christian who believes in unicorns because they're in the Bible).

[Cainad (dec.)]

I found this quite fascinating.  "Atheist" and "Anarchist" both have connotations that are probably quite quite different from what many practitioners of both consider themselves to be doing.  For instance, in the bible belt of the south-east USA, I was once asked in all seriousness whether I was really an atheist, because I seemed like a nice guy and not somebody who worshipped satan.

The choice of labels is that of the atheist, is it not? No one says "You are Atheist!!" rather people say "I Am Atheist"...  the individual chooses the label and wears it like a crown. I've debated several atheists on the topic. After all, they don't get all excited and say "I'm an Aunicornist" or an "Aleprechaunist" or an "Asaschquachist"... they specify a'theist'. Most of them, when pressed admit that its not a position of reason and logic (that position would be "I have not seen evidence for God"), but it is a position of Social Statement. 'We Atheists must stick together against 'Them'!"

The most dangerous thing, in my opinion, about people like Dawkins is that they provide the useless swarming masses with yet another Us vs Them fight with the flimsy veneer that its a logical and reasoned position. Pesudoskepticism in any form appears disingenuous and dangerous.

OFUK. Carl Sagan, come BAAAAAAACK! We've got another pseudo-something on the loose!

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I found this quite fascinating.  "Atheist" and "Anarchist" both have connotations that are probably quite quite different from what many practitioners of both consider themselves to be doing.  For instance, in the bible belt of the south-east USA, I was once asked in all seriousness whether I was really an atheist, because I seemed like a nice guy and not somebody who worshipped satan.

The choice of labels is that of the atheist, is it not? No one says "You are Atheist!!" rather people say "I Am Atheist"...  the individual chooses the label and wears it like a crown. I've debated several atheists on the topic. After all, they don't get all excited and say "I'm an Aunicornist" or an "Aleprechaunist" or an "Asaschquachist"... they specify a'theist'. Most of them, when pressed admit that its not a position of reason and logic (that position would be "I have not seen evidence for God"), but it is a position of Social Statement. 'We Atheists must stick together against 'Them'!"

The most dangerous thing, in my opinion, about people like Dawkins is that they provide the useless swarming masses with yet another Us vs Them fight with the flimsy veneer that its a logical and reasoned position. Pesudoskepticism in any form appears disingenuous and dangerous.

OFUK. Carl Sagan, come BAAAAAAACK! We've got another pseudo-something on the loose!

ROFL

[e]

I'd want to separate myself from the people that believe in unicorns too (incidentally, I've talked with a Christian who believes in unicorns because they're in the Bible).

!!!!!

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

The choice of labels is that of the atheist, is it not? No one says "You are Atheist!!" rather people say "I Am Atheist"...  the individual chooses the label and wears it like a crown. I've debated several atheists on the topic. After all, they don't get all excited and say "I'm an Aunicornist" or an "Aleprechaunist" or an "Asaschquachist"... they specify a'theist'. Most of them, when pressed admit that its not a position of reason and logic (that position would be "I have not seen evidence for God"), but it is a position of Social Statement. 'We Atheists must stick together against 'Them'!"

The most dangerous thing, in my opinion, about people like Dawkins is that they provide the useless swarming masses with yet another Us vs Them fight with the flimsy veneer that its a logical and reasoned position. Pesudoskepticism in any form appears disingenuous and dangerous.

There are idiots in any group.  As for myself, I did say earlier in this post that my atheism is not a core part of who I am.  I think the only reason that it's important to some people is because there are so many who are theistic.  I'd want to separate myself from the people that believe in unicorns too (incidentally, I've talked with a Christian who believes in unicorns because they're in the Bible).

There are idiots in any group (see 23FNORDOMGZPINEALETC)... and your position is, IMO, relatively sane. However, at least in my experience, it seems that the majority of people that proudly claim to be atheist, tend to have a very Us vs Them concept and often wear a communion wafer on their shoulder I am surprised at the sheer numbers of atheists I've talked with that think "flaw in Christianity= proof of no god". Certainly this isn't true for ALL atheists... but it seems to be a common 'feature' among most, but not all, of the ones I've met and talked with.

[e]

There are idiots in any group (see 23FNORDOMGZPINEALETC)... and your position is, IMO, relatively sane. However, at least in my experience, it seems that the majority of people that proudly claim to be atheist, tend to have a very Us vs Them concept and often wear a communion wafer on their shoulder I am surprised at the sheer numbers of atheists I've talked with that think "flaw in Christianity= proof of no god". Certainly this isn't true for ALL atheists... but it seems to be a common 'feature' among most, but not all, of the ones I've met and talked with.

Militant Atheists are scary and bothersome.  I would like to point out that, at least in my opinion, the people who see "flaw in Christianity = proof of no God" are not really Atheist, but Anti-Christianists.  Personally, I find the spiritual aspects of religion in general pretty fascinating.  I just don't like Dogma which is, let's face it, both what religion shouldn't be about and what it normally devolves into eventually.  I read somewhere about the differences in Christianity when it was an "underground" religion, in the early Roman times, and after it had become the State Religion and widely accepted.  Fascinating stuff.

I try to classify myself as "areligionist" if absolutely pressed.  That or I tell people I'm a... Neo-Zen Discordian Anti-Radical-Post-Humanistic Taoist who is interested to know how much will fit in the religion slot on this form.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

There are idiots in any group (see 23FNORDOMGZPINEALETC)... and your position is, IMO, relatively sane. However, at least in my experience, it seems that the majority of people that proudly claim to be atheist, tend to have a very Us vs Them concept and often wear a communion wafer on their shoulder I am surprised at the sheer numbers of atheists I've talked with that think "flaw in Christianity= proof of no god". Certainly this isn't true for ALL atheists... but it seems to be a common 'feature' among most, but not all, of the ones I've met and talked with.

Militant Atheists are scary and bothersome.  I would like to point out that, at least in my opinion, the people who see "flaw in Christianity = proof of no God" are not really Atheist, but Anti-Christianists.  Personally, I find the spiritual aspects of religion in general pretty fascinating.  I just don't like Dogma which is, let's face it, both what religion shouldn't be about and what it normally devolves into eventually.  I read somewhere about the differences in Christianity when it was an "underground" religion, in the early Roman times, and after it had become the State Religion and widely accepted.  Fascinating stuff.

I try to classify myself as "areligionist" if absolutely pressed.  That or I tell people I'm a... Neo-Zen Discordian Anti-Radical-Post-Humanistic Taoist who is interested to know how much will fit in the religion slot on this form.

I find that people who tend to identify as 'discordian and atheist tend to hold a position similar to yours, which I think (personally) fits more closely with Model Agnosticism. I wonder how many self-identified atheists would actually consider themselves either Atheistic, Anti-Christian, Agnostic or Anti-Religion if not fur the current "Atheist is Cool" meme?

[e]

Warring factions within me argue for Primacy of Science (atheism) and Who The Fuck Really Knows (agnosticism).  Maybe I should just start identifying as a Sophist.  Then nobody would know what I was talking about anyway.  Hurrah!

Oh, and not to be left out: I wonder how many people would identify as Christian (or any other religion, for that matter) if their parents hadn't raised them that way? 

[Cain]

I used to post on a forum devoted to Sophistry.

It died tho.   

[e]

That is sad. 

I just had a revelation.  If I say I worship Science, does that make me... a Scientist? 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Warring factions within me argue for Primacy of Science (atheism) and Who The Fuck Really Knows (agnosticism).  Maybe I should just start identifying as a Sophist.  Then nobody would know what I was talking about anyway.  Hurrah!

I would argue that Primacy of Science would still argue an agnostic position... Science can speak only of observable, repeatable phenomena. It says nothing about non-observable, or non-repeatable phenomena.

Oh, and not to be left out: I wonder how many people would identify as Christian (or any other religion, for that matter) if their parents hadn't raised them that way?  

I think very few would be... I am of the opinion that baby humans tend to adopt the beliefs of the tribe that they are born into, be it Aztec or Anglican.

[e]

I would argue that Primacy of Science would still argue an agnostic position... Science can speak only of observable, repeatable phenomena. It says nothing about non-observable, or non-repeatable phenomena.

Touché.  I guess I'll have to stop telling people I'm "essentially an atheist" then 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I would argue that Primacy of Science would still argue an agnostic position... Science can speak only of observable, repeatable phenomena. It says nothing about non-observable, or non-repeatable phenomena.

Touché.  I guess I'll have to stop telling people I'm "essentially an atheist" then 

OSHI!!! I CONVERTED DE AFIEST!!!! 

[e]

I try to classify myself as "areligionist" if absolutely pressed.  That or I tell people I'm a... Neo-Zen Discordian Anti-Radical-Post-Humanistic Taoist who is interested to know how much will fit in the religion slot on this form.

OSHI!!! I CONVERTED DE AFIEST!!!!