Atheists are sounding more like evangelical Christians.

[Kai]

I've been observing atheists recently. Since reading Hedges' book about the shortcomings of those who seek utopia, I've seen Atheism, or more properly, Atheistic Materialism, as a religion in it's own right.

Today, this post reminded me. I don't mind Atheists, really. I don't find the evangelical mindset of Athiestic Materialism very attractive as a religion for /me/, but I don't mind other people practicing it, just as I don't mind Christians doing their rituals. I've read Atheist literature before, and while it often seems banal, boasting, and boring, so do any religions from an outsider perspective. I don't mind these things. As religions go, Atheism is relatively harmless.

What bothers me is that evangelical Atheistic Materialists are religious, yet refuse to admit it. They posit a strong believe (the disbelief of higher powers/deities/etc) without evidence to support or refute such a claim. At the same time they claim this belief is ultimate knowledge, and any person who doesn't follow their path is a fool. I find it my sacred duty to poke fun at their serious religion at every available moment. Non evangelical atheists are pardoned, as are Agnostic Materialists; neither annoy me as neither wish to show me the error of my ways.

When you meet a Evangelical AM who poses to show you the awesomeness of their beliefs, the following are suggested responses.

"I don't mind your religion, I just wish you'd keep it to yourself."

"Atheistic Materialism is an alright religion, I guess, but I prefer [insert religion of choice here]. The liturgy is better."

"Do you ever get tired of patting yourself on the back for how awesome your disbelief is?"

"Here's my phone number. Let me know when you've finished proselytizing."

"The "my lack of god is better than your god" talk is getting reeeealy old. Seriously."

"I didn't come to lunch to get preached at."

ad infinitum

Have ya'all noticed the trend of the title? Thoughts?

[Triple Zero]

well I dunno if I could say I got my own religion, but yeah I love poking fun at the evangelical atheist materialists

[Rumckle]

Yeah, I've noticed that for a while now.
Some of them argue that it's ok because all the christians/muslims/jews etc are doing it, and you gotta fight fire with fire. Bullshit, you fight fire with fire your house is just gonna get burnt down. It doesn't really end up solving anything.

I've never actually come across the term atheistic materialism, mind explaining it? Just in case I'm missing the point.

Also, nice post

[Triple Zero]

to clarify, I don't really see my beliefs about Emergence as "religion", but more as one of the reasons why I think the AMs are wrong.

[Thurnez Isa]

I disagree with you here Kai... although I have said several times some of the people who just admitted or deconverted sound like a religion, mostly on the internet but I totally disagree that is a religion.
It's a position on one specific question, and most of them time the position isn't there is no God(s), but I don't believe in a God. It's a slight difference but it changes the meaning of the statement.
As for voicing their position I also don't have a problem with. I would rather live in a world where people voice their opinions no matter how insulting they are to others then a world that they don't.
Ya, but I still make fun of them....

[LMNO]

The statement, "I don't believe there is a God" is just as much a statement of Faith as "I do believe there is a God."

Just as the statement, "I know there is no God" is, as compared to "I know there is a God."

These statements are "functionally meaningless" in that there is no satistfactory way to "prove" them.

[Thurnez Isa]

The statement, "I don't believe there is a God" is just as much a statement of Faith as "I do believe there is a God."

I disagree, though I probably should have said "I Lack belief in a God"

[LMNO]

Hmmm.  More subtle. Would you also agree with the statement, "I also lack the belief there is no God."?

[Thurnez Isa]

Hmmm.  More subtle.  I think you might be able to get away with that one... until someone asks, "why"?

The answer is the same as any other Gods that person actually asking doesn't believe in, it has not be revealed, no evidence, ect. So in many ways it's almost a default position

[LMNO]

Sorry, I was editing as you were commenting.

Hmmm.  More subtle. Would you also agree with the statement, "I also lack the belief there is no God."?

That's what I wanted to say.

[Kai]

Yeah, I've noticed that for a while now.
Some of them argue that it's ok because all the christians/muslims/jews etc are doing it, and you gotta fight fire with fire. Bullshit, you fight fire with fire your house is just gonna get burnt down. It doesn't really end up solving anything.

I've never actually come across the term atheistic materialism, mind explaining it? Just in case I'm missing the point.

Also, nice post

Materialism, as I see it, is a religion based in strong belief in the material world, scientific method, and rational thought. Scientific rationalism is a form of materialism. Atheistic Materialism is a particular form of materialism based in strong atheism that has a tendency to become evangelical. I might even put Religious Naturalism under materialism, but right now I'm not quite sure where it falls.

Its intellishit, I made it up, but it works well to cover the concept I'm talking about.

to clarify, I don't really see my beliefs about Emergence as "religion", but more as one of the reasons why I think the AMs are wrong.

Oh, I definitely don't agree with them. I don't mind their beliefs either. They should pose them as beliefs in a central dogma rather than nonreligion though.

I disagree with you here Kai... although I have said several times some of the people who just admitted or deconverted sound like a religion, mostly on the internet but I totally disagree that is a religion.
It's a position on one specific question, and most of them time the position isn't there is no God(s), but I don't believe in a God. It's a slight difference but it changes the meaning of the statement.
As for voicing their position I also don't have a problem with. I would rather live in a world where people voice their opinions no matter how insulting they are to others then a world that they don't.
Ya, but I still make fun of them....

It's not just one question really, but even if it was it wouldn't matter. Religious splits have happened many times because of disagreement over one question.

Athiestic Materialism is like a denomination of Baptism. You've got different types, evangelical baptists, free will baptists, etc.  It's just one of the more annoying materialism religions.

I guess the other problem I have is when they take the spotlight as representing all scientists. They certainly don't represent me. Science doesn't require any particular religion or worldview, just having an open and critical mind. I can believe in Emergence or the Christian God or nothing. Science doesn't cover questions about that which can't be measured.

If I wasn't clear, I'm not bashing Atheists. I'm talking about a particular brand of evangelical Atheists. I don't mind people who don't believe in god(s). I used to be one. Most people would still consider me one.

[Thurnez Isa]

Hmmm.  More subtle. Would you also agree with the statement, "I also lack the belief there is no God."?

First glance yes but on reading a second time no.... I think that was the problem with my first statement before I corrected. It's because it's a subtle affirmative statement. In other words staking a claim that there is no God.
One of the main problems is defining the God concept. Everyone has a different concept which requires different explanations and different burden of proof. If someone would show me an idol and tell me it's a God, in terms if that God exists then yes I would have say it does, but of course that doesn't address that God's supernatural powers.
So "lacking a belief in a God, especially in the supernatural sense" is much better statement because it leaves the topic still open for investigation

[Rumckle]

Materialism, as I see it, is a religion based in strong belief in the material world, scientific method, and rational thought. Scientific rationalism is a form of materialism. Atheistic Materialism is a particular form of materialism based in strong atheism that has a tendency to become evangelical. I might even put Religious Naturalism under materialism, but right now I'm not quite sure where it falls.

Its intellishit, I made it up, but it works well to cover the concept I'm talking about.

Heh, nothing wrong with an occasional bit of intellishit.

Ok, i was thinking more along the lines of materialism as a synonym for consumerism. Your definition makes a lot more sense now. I can see how there is a slight contradiction in Atheistic Materialism.

[LMNO]

Hmmm.  More subtle. Would you also agree with the statement, "I also lack the belief there is no God."?

First glance yes but on reading a second time no.... I think that was the problem with my first statement before I corrected. It's because it's a subtle affirmative statement. In other words staking a claim that there is no God.
One of the main problems is defining the God concept. Everyone has a different concept which requires different explanations and different burden of proof. If someone would show me an idol and tell me it's a God, in terms if that God exists then yes I would have say it does, but of course that doesn't address that God's supernatural powers.
So "lacking a belief in a God, especially in the supernatural sense" is much better statement because it leaves the topic still open for investigation

Ok, I think we don't have to go down the road of "YHVH exists... as a character in a book called The Old Testament".  I think it's the "supernatural thing" most of the debates roil around.

Agreed?  OK.

I would say that given the current impossibility on either side to either prove or disprove "Supernatural God", then to claim a stake on non-existence can be considered an act of faith (lit. "belief in something for which there is no proof", Webster).

[Thurnez Isa]

I hate to use an actual evangelical atheist argument.

If you say you believe there are leprechauns without evidence then of course you are theistic about leprechauns, if you lack a belief in leprechauns due to the lack of evidence then you are making a reasonable conclusion that is still open to reinterpretation when new evidence comes forth. But if you say there are no leprechauns and they can not rationally exist then you are back having faith in the lack of evidence. That's what I meant when I said default position... Lack of evidence doesn't mean dismissive of the possibility but the default position is to fall back on disbelief due to lack of evidence, otherwise you would believe a whole bunch of crazy stuff.

You could also probably (though this is a little sketchy) make a reasonable argument the other way as well. That there is a form of belief that is not based on faith if the person is in the position of investigation, kind of like investigating a hypothesis. It reaches faith when the hypothesis is believed despite the unprovability (I think I made up that word) of the hypothesis. My position is why even bother to do that, but everyone investigates differently.