Mclean's - Do atheists care less?

[Hack&Lube]

Regarding the above article about "new atheism" or "modernizing the argument for God"; the logical loopholes and philosophical fallacies some people go into to deal with this metaphysical issue and how Dawkins has somehow become the nexus for both sides of the movement as a point of discussion from which to heap piles of profundities onto makes my head shake and my eyes roll.

Premise 2 says that if you decide that the universe has an explanation, the explanation HAS to be god. The Christian God of course. Pater noster, qui es in caelis. There is no other substitute. That is the poorly disguised arrogance and egotism shared by almost all religions - that every religion believes itself to be correct. This is what sparked my skepticism in the first place.

Why do intelligent design advocates always have the spectre of extant earthly religions behind them somehow? For someone to be a truely interested in the concept of intelligent design - or arguing that position - shouldn't they be open to all possibilities and not just something that is very ego-centric to their own lives and culture? Maybe the universe as we know it was created by some dimensionally trascendental alien intelligence, 100 septillion expansion/crunch cycles ago and we are but some side-effect, mold growing in a petri dish long tossed to the dump, that nobody really cares about? Or maybe the Vikings had it right, that we all live on Midgard and in the modern world, the gods are all just forgotten and atheism is perfectly fine because they've had their Ragnarok? That's just as plausible.

I have no problem with religion. The idea that the universe could have a purpose and that there is a god is a warm and welcoming feeling to me - and that is precisely why religion hangs on, because the human instinct likes this feeling of purpose and importance and immortality. We are all ego-centric beings with a very narrow and dim view of time and space restricted to the frame of reference of our own short lives and our perception of our own short history as written down by others. We are cognizant of our feebleness and our mortality and want to conquer that. I might even be a theist, but don't tell me something silly like just because there is an explanation for the universe, a specific religion must be correct. Most earthly religions are a zero sum game. They all believe one will win and the others will lose. If that is really your goal, then please, start from there and not from some logical loophole about the explanation of the universe that states it is true because it says so.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

It's actually the evolution and advancement of society more than anything. It's no coincidence that places that were once deeply religious such as Quebec and most of Western Europe are now almost entirely atheist or irreligious.

There are many religious groups carrying out missions to 3rd world countries, etc. when they really should be trying to reconvert Western Civilization because that's where the biggest slide as it were, has occured.

Why?

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by T@T

Why?

Because Jesus said to be fishers of men.



Lo, and then He fleweth away expecting us to take care of our own crap and St. Egon, St. Ray, St. Peter (the other), and St. Winston tried their best but they couldn't get Him to sticketh around to heal mankind which was brokenated there unto. There was much weeping and gnashing of teeth and 2000+ years of religious argument ensued.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by peter12

I think atheism is a completely acceptable position. My biggest problem is that so many atheists are only capable of justifying their position through some poor grasp of evolutionary theory and a smattering of the latest quotes from Dawkins, Hitchens et al...

No, most atheists disbelieve in God because there is no evidence of God. Argument based on evolution, for example, is brought out to show that "evidence" of God based on the "design implies a designer" theory is not actually evidence at all. It has nothing to do with "justifying their position" and everything to do with undermining the opposing position of theists, which is not at all the same thing.

If you just want to believe in God because it fits your philosophical bent, that's your problem, but there is no need to "justify" a position which simply states that an unproven and unnecessary hypothesis about reality can be discarded as useless until such time as evidence for it exists. It is you who should be trying to justify your beliefs with something other than vague quotations of the Stoics and your personal attachment to the idea of a non-material component to the human experience.

Originally Posted by peter12

Personally, me being a conditional deist, I'd be a lot more interested in atheism if many of you were capable of philosophically describing why you don't believe in God(s) and what impact you think it will have on humanity's ability to create without going into all this "living free without fear" rhetoric which I hear way, way too much.

Yet again your "logic" fails. Atheism has a truth value independent of whether or not its proponents can predict whether or not its widespread adoption would "impact... humanity's ability to create..." What does that even mean? If the divine spark, so to speak, is an illusion, then the capacity for creation always lay within humanity to begin with, so there is nothing in theory that an atheist could not create that a believer could.

Only if atheism suppresses actual divine inspiration does such a question matter, but that still doesn't have any bearing on whether or not there actually IS a God to provide such inspiration. You are working at the question from the wrong end - you are acting as if the consequences of what we perceive as truth should trump whether or not that perception actually corresponds to reality.

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

There are many religious groups carrying out missions to 3rd world countries, etc. when they really should be trying to reconvert Western Civilization because that's where the biggest slide as it were, has occured.

It is much harder to convert those who do not hope for something better because they already have it.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by peter12

Personally, me being a conditional deist, I'd be a lot more interested in atheism if many of you were capable of philosophically describing why you don't believe in God(s) and what impact you think it will have on humanity's ability to create without going into all this "living free without fear" rhetoric which I hear way, way too much.

What does this mean? Look at the industrical and economic productivity of countries that are almost completely atheist/agnostic/irreligious such as Western Europe, China, Japan, etc.

Religion has to be a personal thing to yourself. The argument of prosperity gospel or cliches such as the argument that without religion, there would be no good in people, etc. seem to ring hollow to me in the face of the fact that a majority of human beings in the world live, love, propagate, prosper, fight, suffer, die, etc. without religion.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by diane_phaneuf

This

I don't understand how devout atheists can criticize people who are devout in their religion, neither side can be proven or dis-proven

They are basically two sides of the same coin

The other day at 3:21 pm, I saw a flying turtle, wearing a balaclava shooting lasers out of its butt, while eating a donkey sandwich. Crazy it sounds, I know, but it did actually happen. Anyone who doesn't believe me cannot prove I didn't see it, so it undeniably, undoubtly, has to be true beyond any reason of a doubt. Therefore you must bow down and worship this great creature, follow his teachings, and eat a donkey sandwich for lunch at 3:21 pm, on the day of the summer solstice. Why the summer solstice? Because it sounds mystical, and cool. Failure to follow these beliefs will result in an after life of damnation, cause the turtle said so.

This story is just as ridiculous as any religous teachings. Had you introduced any form of current mainstream religion tomorrow, you would be laughed off the street, as most Scientologists are. At least Scientology put some cool, modern, sci-fi fantasy into the equation, as opposed to ancient fantasy.

If you are naive enough to truly believe women were the result of a rib tumor being chucked to the ground, snakes morphed into sticks, and some guy telepathically split billions of gallons of water, have at it. Religion does do a good job at teaching morale lessons though silly stories. However more and more people are relying on their morale compasses for guidance, and many of those people are just as genorous and kind as devout believers of any given religion.

As science progresses, and more answers are found, religion will one day fade to obscurity. However, science has dis-proven many of the claims the bible has made, where as show me one thing in the bible, that has disproven science.

When god flies out of the sky, lands in the middle of times square, and threatens to strike me down with a ball of lightning for being a non believer, then I will convert, until then, I'll just go with, charity rides, donating to the mustard seed, and supporting the salvation army.

[Weiser Wonder]

The thing I don't understand about atheism is why atheists even care about god and religion. I've grown from being a vague Christian to a vague atheist in the last 5 years or so. As I move towards atheism, I care less and less about religion and the afterlife and care more about this life (namely art and philosophy). I just can't get up for a God debate anymore.

[pylon]

double post

[pylon]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

The thing I don't understand about atheism is why atheists even care about god and religion. I've grown from being a vague Christian to a vague atheist in the last 5 years or so. As I move towards atheism, I care less and less about religion and the afterlife and care more about this life (namely art and philosophy). I just can't get up for a God debate anymore.

I think many atheists feel this way, because they are sick of the way the religions are affecting their lives indirectly. Lets say you were the parent of a dead soldier, or a gay child, and Fred Phelps and gang decided to crash your childs memorial service. What if your Atheist wife was brought down in one of the twin towers, what if you were imprisoned in a middle eastern country for kissing your wife in public?

The activities of Atheists do not typically inconvenience the lives of believers in the same types of way besides offending their beliefs, where as many religious people feel compelled to hurt people over their non beliefs, or different beliefs. When there is a war of Atheists against Christians, waged by the Atheists, then there will be a compelling argument. But it is typically always religion vs. religion, or religion against non-religion when it comes to war. And many Atheists are frankly, sick of seeing and paying for it.

The only hurtful things atheists typically bring are hurtful opinions on religion. Where as many religious zealots believe that guns, decapitations and genocides are more appropriate.

I have never hated anyone, ever based solely on their beliefs, but there are a couple billion people in this world that hate me for simply being born a jew, and no other reason at all.

And before someone points out the Nazi movement was not religious in nature siting the fact that christianity was not a requirement, it was still a form of political religion, and still a cult, which in my eyes is no really no different different than religion in structure. Religions are just faintly veiled cults. The main difference being cults typically worship a living leader viewed as a supreme being, as opposed to gods / dead people.

And no, I am not directly comparing Jesus to Hitler.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by peter12

What is a more full and complete life? What metric are you using?

Why would you have trouble understanding my statement?

Religion is mental slavery, pure and simple.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by SebC

And yet, something is causing the number of atheists to grow, and before those people were atheists, they were theists. There may be some immovable theists, but generally speaking, the arguments for atheism do affect people.

I'm not sure the rates of theists converting to atheism are all that high. In this I'm talking about adult, informed theists and not the teenager that starts to formulate their own beliefs and question why they were taken to church when they were 5.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

I'm not sure the rates of theists converting to atheism are all that high. In this I'm talking about adult, informed theists and not the teenager that starts to formulate their own beliefs and question why they were taken to church when they were 5.

It would be hard to estimate, but it seems to me many people are finally comfortable to "come out of the closet". I find many of these letters very sad - many people are dis-owned by their families for coming out:


http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml8361.htm

[mykalberta]

I cant believe this thread is still on the first page.

Who honestly cares if they do or if they dont.

[photon]

I had to remove the article posted by Smelly Fred since it was a republication without permission, feel free to provide a link Smelly Fred.

As far as I can tell though it was from something written by William Lane Craig, whom I don't find very credible as he gets a lot of science wrong or misconstrued in order to support his positions.. he is a pretty good debater though.

[Day Tripper]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

I'm not sure the rates of theists converting to atheism are all that high. In this I'm talking about adult, informed theists and not the teenager that starts to formulate their own beliefs and question why they were taken to church when they were 5.

Not all teenagers are uninformed, you know.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by pylon

I think many atheists feel this way, because they are sick of the way the religions are affecting their lives indirectly. Lets say you were the parent of a dead soldier, or a gay child, and Fred Phelps and gang decided to crash your childs memorial service. What if your Atheist wife was brought down in one of the twin towers, what if you were imprisoned in a middle eastern country for kissing your wife in public?

Except that in this day and age of the miracle of the print press, the media, education etc, for the most part people should be smart enough not to link Phelps to organized religion. I don't blame organized religion for 9/11, I blame radical militant off shoots that have nothing to do with majority Islam.

At the end of the day, for the sake of argument, its not organized religion thats really causing modern day war, its radical and manupulated interpretation of the text that is causing the problem.

The one problem though with organized religion is that when it comes down to the moral compass thats been interwoven thats slow to move forward. An example of that is the contraceptive argument that the church as had for the longest time. However most people, the majority of people in organized Christian based faith are still taking the pill, and still throwing dong bags on because they're able to reconcile their faith to modern day society.

Its the more outspoken majority that is the problem.

Look at one of the most mis-interpreted words in religion right now. The term Jihad. It doesn't mean holy war, or death to the infidel, it means struggle. When you talk about holy warriors in conjunction with the term Jihad it does not neccessarily link to military terminology according to the Qur'an.

I've said it before, the concept of organized religion is not a bad or evil concept, its radical interpretation and flawed interpretation that causes the problems.

Originally Posted by pylon

The activities of Atheists do not typically inconvenience the lives of believers in the same types of way besides offending their beliefs, where as many religious people feel compelled to hurt people over their non beliefs, or different beliefs. When there is a war of Atheists against Christians, waged by the Atheists, then there will be a compelling argument. But it is typically always religion vs. religion, or religion against non-religion when it comes to war. And many Atheists are frankly, sick of seeing and paying for it.

However even though its not a true organized religion, Atheism does again have its radical elements and that to me is hinting at the formation of a organized religion. And they are actively preaching from their own bully pulpit as well. The only difference is that its a non faith based religion and its a lot more outspoken then the moderate normal segment of organized religion.

When you start your argument by telling a person of faith that they might as well be praying to a sphagetti monster, or a flying pig who eats donkey sandwiches, your actually insulting a persons beliefs or belief system, and believe it or not thats actually really really insulting.

You can say that there's no scientific proof of god, and I would counter with

1) I wasn't aware that everything in the known universe has been explained, and that the process of science is done. Who knows, a million years ago we might find the ruins of a temple on Omicron Persia 6 that contains similar stories about god. We might peer into a blackhole someay and see god looking back. While science explains a great many things that quest for knowledge never ends.

2) I believe that someone started the process that lead to the big bang, the first spark of life in the ooze and defined the very science based rules that govern our universe, and maybe popped his head in from time to time to time. I believe in a non interventialist god maybe, so maybe a dude powerful enough to define his own playground is smart enough to hide behind the sciences to prob the universe, because he wants that thirst for knowledge that defines humanity to continue to grow.

If god just showed up to explain things, well what fun would that be.

Originally Posted by pylon

The only hurtful things atheists typically bring are hurtful opinions on religion. Where as many religious zealots believe that guns, decapitations and genocides are more appropriate.

Your making a big big big assumption here. There are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, I'd say a very small percentage are actually picking up guns and chopping heads off of non believers and pushing genocide. Let me ask you this, how many of their followers are actually tried and true believers, and how many are doing these horrible acts for paychecks or for self preservation.

I mean you can point to the wars between the protestants and Catholics, however was that religious battles or was it a battle of political will?

You can point to the battle between radical Islam and the West, but is that really based around Religion, or is it based around a belief in a political possibility. Those men are no more bringing Islamic values to the people then I am bringing value to this conversation to an extent.

The problem is that due to the belief of freedom of religion, and the moderate religios belief of non violence, there's not much that these religions can do to self police. I would love the Catholic church to disavow Fred Phelps beliefs, but he's not part of that organized religon so they ignore him.

Originally Posted by pylon

I have never hated anyone, ever based solely on their beliefs, but there are a couple billion people in this world that hate me for simply being born a jew, and no other reason at all.

Oh I agree, there are probably a lot of people hated for being black, chinese or gay. Hatred isn't a religious property, its a human based flaw. I've stated many times, that if religion had never formed, humanity would have merely killed for a different reason. In an alternate time line we could be debating that the Long haired people are causing all of the problems in the world.

Originally Posted by pylon

And before someone points out the Nazi movement was not religious in nature siting the fact that christianity was not a requirement, it was still a form of political religion, and still a cult, which in my eyes is no really no different different than religion in structure. Religions are just faintly veiled cults. The main difference being cults typically worship a living leader viewed as a supreme being, as opposed to gods / dead people.

And no, I am not directly comparing Jesus to Hitler.

I really don't buy that argument, unless your arguing that political systems have to be treated the same way as religion.

Communism, Democracy, Facism, Socialism are to me the furthest things from a religious order, because for example, Nasism had no moral compase to lean on. It was a political system that took control due to political desire. Its ends were political, its means were based on control of the few by the many, and not all members of the Nazi Party were believers. Thats why it didn't survive.

Communism was the anti religion, and you can argue that it desired to replace religion with pragmatism. In fact, its as close to radical Atheism as you can get. There is no god, you only live in this lifetime, there are no consequences for an immoral action beyond the laws of man. Because there is no diety, no final judgement we can shift the laws and requirements of the system so it serves the elite few, who don't care because there is no cost to their actions.

The difference between political systems and faith based system is that there is literally no restraint in a political system as long as your smart enough and secretive enough to get away with it.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

Why would you have trouble understanding my statement?

Religion is mental slavery, pure and simple.

Hardly

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Day Tripper

Not all teenagers are uninformed, you know.

Ummm reread my post? The only references to teenagers I had there are the ones in the process of becoming more aware and formulating their belief systems - pretty common in the teenage years. The only reference to uninformed people was the hypothetical 5 year old that got brought to church cause that's what mom and dad do.

Basically, that's my entire point. 12 year olds, generally, aren't properly informed or aware of this kind of stuff but by the time you're out of your teenage years you've pretty much made your informed decision (or likely as informed as your decision is going to get) about your belief system. After 20, I doubt there are too many converts for either 'side' of the debate.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

Ummm reread my post? The only references to teenagers I had there are the ones in the process of becoming more aware and formulating their belief systems - pretty common in the teenage years. The only reference to uninformed people was the hypothetical 5 year old that got brought to church cause that's what mom and dad do.

Basically, that's my entire point. 12 year olds, generally, aren't properly informed or aware of this kind of stuff but by the time you're out of your teenage years you've pretty much made your informed decision (or likely as informed as your decision is going to get) about your belief system. After 20, I doubt there are too many converts for either 'side' of the debate.

I am not too sure that I agree with that. It's when you are going through post-secondary education or finding your way through work or career that often you first find yourself challenging your life beliefs because of new information you are exposed to, new people, new social attitudes or pressures, or simply challenges that come with adulthood that make many people reconsider what they believed or not believed in when they were young. I would think that after and around 20 years of age, that is where you find the most converts for either 'side' of the debate. It's probably around the time when adults start settling down and have a family that their beliefs are finally entrenched.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I really don't buy that argument, unless your arguing that political systems have to be treated the same way as religion.

Any extreme political philosophy *is* much the same as a religion, though. The specifics of what is believed are different, but the end result is the same - the world is bent to fit the system, and opposing viewpoints are anathema that must be rooted out. It is belief itself that is the problem; whether you believe in Jesus or Marx or Mohammed, you still have surrendered part of your freedom to think.

Your point that people would hate and kill each other whether or not religion existed might be true, but is akin to saying we shouldn't bother curing cancer because people would still die of heart attacks. Ridding the world of religion would remove one of the major differences between peoples that make it easy to depersonalize them; this is a worthy end in itself, whether or not it leads to Happy Rainbow Puppy Land once accomplished.