Church of the Non-Believers

[ToadBrother]

In principle, everyone should aspire to being better people, and not just being as bad as everyone else...

In principle, of course we should. But in reality, there are jerks, and along with jerks are people who feel that they've been insulted and abused for generations by holier-than-thou theists who have done everything from call them servants of Satan to insisting they had no morals. So, while I have no particular interest in waving around the atheist flag, I can well understand why some of my fellow atheists now feel some righteous outrage. And it's not like people like Betsy don't have it coming.

[GostHacked]

In principle, of course we should. But in reality, there are jerks, and along with jerks are people who feel that they've been insulted and abused for generations by holier-than-thou theists who have done everything from call them servants of Satan to insisting they had no morals. So, while I have no particular interest in waving around the atheist flag, I can well understand why some of my fellow atheists now feel some righteous outrage. And it's not like people like Betsy don't have it coming.

Good points TB, I agree with them.

[Michael Hardner]

In principle, of course we should. But in reality, there are jerks, and along with jerks are people who feel that they've been insulted and abused for generations by holier-than-thou theists who have done everything from call them servants of Satan to insisting they had no morals. So, while I have no particular interest in waving around the atheist flag, I can well understand why some of my fellow atheists now feel some righteous outrage. And it's not like people like Betsy don't have it coming.

But don't they know it's not Christian to yell at people ?

You've encapsulated the big problem I have with atheists: they tend to make these arguments about the fact that some lousy nun yelled at them when they were ten. We all have our problems with religion - especially the religious - but shouldn't an argument about the nature of the universe be more cold and space-like ?

[ToadBrother]

But don't they know it's not Christian to yell at people ?

You've encapsulated the big problem I have with atheists: they tend to make these arguments about the fact that some lousy nun yelled at them when they were ten. We all have our problems with religion - especially the religious - but shouldn't an argument about the nature of the universe be more cold and space-like ?

Well, I'll tell it you from my side, as an atheist. In general, I don't go around with t-shirts saying "There is no god!" so it's not like anyone is going to know my world view just by looking at me, or even through casual conversation. So I would, I suppose, consider myself a non-proselytizing atheist. I don't give a crap whether anyone else is an atheist or not, I don't seek out the company of other atheists and I don't march under anyone's banner.

That being said, when it has come up and I've revealed that I'm an atheist, I've had my share of rude comments and bizarre accusations from the True Believer kind. Most people are fine, and give about as much of crap about my atheism as I do about whether their religious beliefs. But when confronted with someone like Betsy, who seems to have made it their mission to be as obnoxious and insulting as possible, I will defend myself and what I believe or disbelieve, will explain where it comes from. I'm not saying I'm superior, I'm not trying to kill anyone's religion, but neither am I going to hide in a closet like non-believers of the past. Beyond that, and while I generally can't stand guys like Hitchens and Dawkins, I support their right to mock the religious, and say every manner of absurd thing about religion. That's their right, and I'll gladly debate them where they say stupid things like "Religion is behind all wars" (of course, economics is actually behind all wars).

Most Christians have long ago turfed the whole "gotta convert the world" schtick, but there is still a rump who believe that they have to actively save people, or demean them, the two seemingly interchangeable.

Edited March 31, 2011 by ToadBrother

[Michael Hardner]

Well, I'll tell it you from my side, as an atheist.

Ok. Sorry are you the "no belief in gods" type or the "believe in no gods" type ?

[ToadBrother]

Ok. Sorry are you the "no belief in gods" type or the "believe in no gods" type ?

I lack a belief in any gods. I'm willing to reconsider if someone were to provide some evidence, but I see no particular reason to believe in them.

[wyly]

Well, fair enough. I've never met an evangelistic atheist either, now that you mention it.

And I"ve never read Dawkins, so I can't personally comment on him specifically.

I do find Hitchens quite off-putting; but then, that is rather unrelated to his atheism. His political writings are off-putting as well.

yup I've never met a atheist trying to convert anyone, we just don't care...Dawkins and Hitchens aren't trying to convert either they're more about standing up and letting atheist viewpoints be heard...I really dislike hitchins as well for his political leanings...dawkins is really a benign personality...

[betsy]

Crusade?

Haven't you noticed? Right under his title?

"Crusade" was the term used by the author. It's his description of his article, based on his observations and in-depth interviews with Dawkins, Harris and Dennett.

[betsy]

I dont even think evangelistic atheism is worth mentioning. It barely even exists outside of a small handful of authors and intellectuals. Atheists are probably the least evangelistic group out there, and most of them understand you arent going to talk a religious person out of their beliefs no matter evidence or reason you brought to bear. Its an oxymoron in fact, and the arguments made by atheists are the exact kind of arguments that dont work on religious people.

I don't think the writer is saying that these New Atheists are evangelizing. He's exposing their agenda - based on what they personally explained to him. They're going to take on religion - specifically the Christian religion - in the most offensive manner (which includes dis-respect for one's religious belief).

The writer is showing the New Atheists' extremism.

Those three are not your ordinary "handful" of authors and intellectuals. Dawkins is a popular scientist and staunch evolutionist. He is a poster boy for atheism and evolution. Dennett is well-known too as a philosopher (?) who gets into debates. All of them have authored numerous popular books.

They have a considerable amount of influence.

Religion on the hand is built from the ground up around Proselytism.

Iv probably had 20 preachers show up on my doorstep in the last few years with various holy books and pamphlets. But not one single atheist with a biology text book.

Also Iv read some of these authors before and I dont really think they ARE evangelistic. Dawkins himself says he finds its highly unlikely that he will ever be able to talk anyone out of their religious beliefs. I think they have a totally different audience... I think he speaks to secularists in secular countries and wants to remind him that a secular public space is something we inherited and take for granted... but might have to be willing to scrap for at some point.

I suspect you have not actually read the whole article or even the excerpts which I've posted....because your response here doesn't jibe with the article. Either that or you're in denial.

[betsy]

At its best, Christians who actually walk the talk, and live like the early Christians described in the Acts of the Apostles make the world a better place. I just came across a good example yesterday: this small group of Mennonites who went to Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina to help with the rebuilding, and are still there! Not born on the bayou, but staying for good A community of Mennonites has brought their way of life to the bayous of Louisiana. When it comes to selfless devotion, they are a pretty formidable example for anyone to follow.

I very much agree.

And we all know it's a difficult road to follow - the straight and narrow. The present day Christians who "actually walk the talk" are more impressive since their faith is based entirely on faith alone!

The early Christians in the days of the Acts had seen and experienced miracles. I do not mean to diminish the faith of the early Christians, but just to show how much harder it is to maintain faith nowadays with no clear evidence similar to miracles that were seen in the days of Christ, what more when we're bombarded with all kinds of worldly distractions/temptations.

Edited April 1, 2011 by betsy

[kimmy]

What proof of these early "miracles" is there?

And ... why have the "miracles" stopped?

-k

[betsy]

Christians are supposed to spread the good news.

But that doesn't mean Christians have to force or coersce anyone into belief. In fact, Jesus Himself instructed the Apostles not to waste their time on those who would not listen.

[cybercoma]

Also Iv read some of these authors before and I dont really think they ARE evangelistic. Dawkins himself says he finds its highly unlikely that he will ever be able to talk anyone out of their religious beliefs. I think they have a totally different audience... I think he speaks to secularists in secular countries and wants to remind him that a secular public space is something we inherited and take for granted... but might have to be willing to scrap for at some point.

Even Hitchens, who is arguably the most "evangelistic", delivers his message in order to give hope to those that are questioning their faith but are worried about being ostracized for it. He wants to show potential atheists that it's OK to be an atheist and that there are others out there who have also questioned faith and are living happy, altruistic lives inspite of religion.

[cybercoma]

Jesus Himself instructed the Apostles not to waste their time on those who would not listen.

Out of curiosity, where is that in the Bible?

[ToadBrother]

Even Hitchens, who is arguably the most "evangelistic", delivers his message in order to give hope to those that are questioning their faith but are worried about being ostracized for it. He wants to show potential atheists that it's OK to be an atheist and that there are others out there who have also questioned faith and are living happy, altruistic lives inspite of religion.

Nothing will get you into the sights of the Fundamentalists faster than offering an alternative.

[cybercoma]

Indeed, my wart-infested sibling. Hence, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. They didn't want to abolish the teaching of creationism in schools; they wanted equal time with their alternative that has stood up to the same scientific rigor as creationism.

[WIP]

Well said. The local Quakers and United Church folk got together and built a youth shelter here--not a "Christian" youth shelter, but just a youth shelter. Their fund-raising efforts didn't pan out as hoped, so individual members took on the remainder of the cost out of their own pockets. (Meanwhile, I was no doubt lecturing some anonymous internet opponent about human rights or some such thing. )

And my mother, a devout Anglican, has long been active in the food bank, in providing help to third world immigrants, and other such trivial matters.

More proof that what people do is a lot more important than what they believe in! Some of the antitheist atheists who look forward to a world without religion, should consider that it might also be a more self-centered world with very few great acts of charity also.

Noam Chomsky said both humanitarian and political activism in Latin America can only be achieved through working hand-in-hand with dedicated Christians, who have long led most political movements there...out of their Christian beliefs in principle, honesty, and Christ's preference for the poor. (They tend to be socialy conservative, but not like North American social conservatives: they're economically Left, anti-imperialist, and feel that the poor are victimized by everyone else.)

Yes, it's not a battle between secular and religious forces in most of Latin America; it's more of a struggle between church leaders who serve the dictators and wealthy landowners, verses the heroes like Archbishop Oscar Romero, who was shot after telling soldiers they had a duty to disobey orders to kill.

[WIP]

In principle, of course we should. But in reality, there are jerks, and along with jerks are people who feel that they've been insulted and abused for generations by holier-than-thou theists who have done everything from call them servants of Satan to insisting they had no morals. So, while I have no particular interest in waving around the atheist flag, I can well understand why some of my fellow atheists now feel some righteous outrage. And it's not like people like Betsy don't have it coming.

But, even if you get insulted and abused, what good does it do to return the same in kind to your opponent. That is besides having the opportunity to vent. I don't think there are many examples of people changing their minds when they encounter hostility. It's more likely that they become more deeply entrenched in their views.

[betsy]

Indeed, my wart-infested sibling. Hence, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. They didn't want to abolish the teaching of creationism in schools; they wanted equal time with their alternative that has stood up to the same scientific rigor as creationism.

If evolution (which is based on faith - atheistic faith) is being taught in school, then why shouldn't the opposing view of Intelligent Design be not included too?

Other scientists have reluctantly admitted to being stumped by evolution, and are thinking outside the box! Only those scientists who remain firmly shackled to their faith prefer to be close-minded!

After all, as you yourself acknowledged:

they wanted equal time with their alternative that has stood up to the same scientific rigor as creationism

Therefore, in your view they're standing on the same ground. We, of course see the hopeless fiasco of evolution (which up to the present time is being desperately propped up by fill-in-the-gaps hypotheses and assumtions of all kinds!) They won't scrap it and throw in the towel. Because of their stubborn belief!

The only reason that evolution is still being taught in school (and Intelligent Design is not) is due to the secularists in the system and their anti-Christian ideology!

If there's any theory that deserves to be presented in schools, it's Intelligent Design! So we deserve same air-time!

Edited April 1, 2011 by betsy

[pinko]

If evolution (which is based on faith - atheistic faith) is being taught in school, then why shouldn't the opposing view of Intelligent Design be not included too?

Other scientists have reluctantly admitted to being stumped by evolution, and are thinking outside the box! Only those scientists who remain firmly shackled to their faith prefer to be close-minded!

After all, as you yourself acknowledged:

Therefore, in your view they're standing on the same ground. We, of course see the hopeless fiasco of evolution (which up to the present time is being desperately propped up by fill-in-the-gaps hypotheses and assumtions of all kinds!) They won't scrap it and throw in the towel. Because of their stubborn belief!

The only reason that evolution is still being taught in school (and Intelligent Design is not) is due to the secularists in the system and their anti-Christian ideology!

If there's any theory that deserves to be presented in schools, it's Intelligent Design! So we deserve same air-time!

Perhaps you should accept the certainties of the scientific method and confine your belief system to those of a like mind.

[Michael Hardner]

If evolution (which is based on faith - atheistic faith) is being taught in school, then why shouldn't the opposing view of Intelligent Design be not included too?

It's not based on atheism, it's based on agnosticism. That means "not knowing". When something is not known, then we ask "why". We come up with a hypothesis and test whether it makes sense. Eventually a consensus builds around a likely explanation. At a certain threshold of certainty, it becomes accepted as fact.

[Tilter]

"and on the 6th day God created Adam"

and on the 144th week someone created a "holy man"--- himself.

His duty was to make sure that all things mysterious & not understood by man would be delegated to a new word-- "RELIGION"

The creator of this phenomenon was sure to include the Tithe, a means by which all "holy men" could get rich, multiply and prosper. This elite group prospered to a point where names like Billy Graham, Swaggart, Baker, Pope whatever and the archbishop of Canterbury could live better than most kings, own 400 foot yachts, a city (the Vatican) a country (the Vatican & England) and whatever and whomever they wanted to by holding the mystical power ranging from eternal damnation in the fires of hell to the attendance of 74 virgins forever for those who followed the word of the "holy men" of various names.

On the 6th day he also created a bunch of stupid asses would ensure that "Billy Graham, Swaggart, Baker, Pope whatever and the archbishop of Canterbury could live better than most kings".

[cybercoma]

betsy, should they teach about the Flying Spaghetti Monster in biology class too?

[Pliny]

It's not based on atheism, it's based on agnosticism. That means "not knowing". When something is not known, then we ask "why". We come up with a hypothesis and test whether it makes sense. Eventually a consensus builds around a likely explanation. At a certain threshold of certainty, it becomes accepted as fact.

A certain threshold of "certainty" or a certain threshold of weight by numbers?

Science just likes to ignore ideas that are inconvenient to their hypotheses. It pretends to rely totally on deductive reasoning and not inductive reasoning in order to be convincing. It can't admit to any inductive process and pretends it's findings and conclusions are based in observational and empirical fact. A self-prophesying exercise when the inductive premise is ignored. Certain things are not observable or measurable but we know are there - such as thought. Thoughts are supposedly electro-chemical processes and are what we empirically cite as their essence. We can measure the electro-chemical process and thus deductively, thought exists. But are those elctro-chemical impulses the actual thought or an effect of thought? We can only measure the electro-chemical process so that is demonstrably what thought must be. Hence we have a "science" totally based in attempting to adjust electro-chemical processes to change behavior.

Atheists don't originate from science. They have been around for a lot longer. It is fashionable today to use science to prove one's ideas, erroneously thinking the facts formulate them rather than the idea formulating the facts. Having an idea is skeptically sacreligious.

Edited April 1, 2011 by Pliny

[WIP]

A certain threshold of "certainty" or a certain threshold of weight by numbers?

Science just likes to ignore ideas that are inconvenient to their hypotheses.

What exactly are you talking about here that you are defining as "science?" Do you think every scientist around the world gets together to ignore something like creationism? If so, I'd like to hear how this works; since there always seems to be rivals within every scientific discipline looking for flaws and errors in published research papers. Any hypothesis that has a shred of plausibility is going to find a supporter looking to advance his own position in the community by knocking down or challenging a popular theory.

It pretends to rely totally on deductive reasoning and not inductive reasoning in order to be convincing. It can't admit to any inductive process and pretends it's findings and conclusions are based in observational and empirical fact. A self-prophesying exercise when the inductive premise is ignored.

Since when? Scientists have to use induction all the time, because there are few if any theories that can be completed without appealing to a bias based on the success of past results to make predictions. If we take the black swan example: inductive reasoning might tell us that all swans are white, until that black swan comes swimming by one day, and then an unexpected result requires that existing theories have to be altered or scrapped in favour of an alternative that explains the new test results better.

Now, the difference between the scientific method and religious revelation, is that for a standard religion, the same inductive assumption that there are no such things as black swans cannot easily incorporate the new discovery of the black swan into its canon. Science works from a principle of emergence - developing knowledge and understanding from the ground up; whereas religion begins with revealed knowledge. When a revealed truth collides with new discovery such as: the Earth not being flat and the center of creation; being much older than the dates applied in scripture; and that plants and animals are not separate creations -- the conflict can lead to a cognitive dissonance, where a believer may hold to a literal scriptural belief when thinking of spiritual matters, but shift to a modern, scientific view in a biology class or watching some Discovery Channel show on dinosaurs etc.. Many enlightened believers and church leaders may decide it's time for an upgrade and go with a non-literal understanding of Genesis. A few believers may lose faith in the religious worldview and ask 'if they can't get this right, what else are the wrong about?' But the worst choice to make is the fundamentalist choice of 'I'm going to keep believing the same damn thing regardless of the evidence!'

And so, we have the Republican War On Science, and all scientific consensus is held in contempt unless it just happens to fit conservative wants and wishes. This is especially in evidence in the fundamentalist conservative rejection of the mounting evidence for anthropogenic climate change. There's nothing in the Bible to conflict with the proposition that humans have reached a stage where they can alter the climate to everyone's detriment, but the accumulated hostility engendered by decades of creationist attacks on mainstream science as ungodly, has made it easy for oil company front groups to use similar tactics of the creationists to win them over.

Certain things are not observable or measurable but we know are there - such as thought. Thoughts are supposedly electro-chemical processes and are what we empirically cite as their essence. We can measure the electro-chemical process and thus deductively, thought exists. But are those elctro-chemical impulses the actual thought or an effect of thought? We can only measure the electro-chemical process so that is demonstrably what thought must be. Hence we have a "science" totally based in attempting to adjust electro-chemical processes to change behavior.

Well, here's what we do know from neuroscience: people with brain damage have provided evidence for many decades that our personalities, our memories, and our abilities to think naturally, are skewed by very physical processes going on in the brain, and have provided evidence that mind is not something immaterial that exists outside of the physical realm. Just the fact that anti-psychotic drugs can change the behaviour of someone who is psychotic, tells us that what is going on in a damaged mind is a physical process, regardless of how well it is presently understood. And damaged minds, such as severe epileptics, who in the past were subjected to radical surgery that separated the two hemispheres in the cortex, functioned as if they had two separate, independent minds, and yet they still conducted themselves as if they believed they had a unified mind. This tells us that our sense of unified mind, free will, and our thoughts, are self-reported information that has nothing to do with the actual workings of the mind, that is created through a complex array of neurons that are generating conscious states of mind.

What do we know about "thoughts?" Except that they seem real to us, and separate from the physical function of the body. But, if we discount the thoughts of a schizophrenic off medication, how much more reliable are the thoughts of mostly rational people at telling us how the mind works?

Atheists don't originate from science.

Atheism comes from inductive reasoning, since there is no way to prove the non-existence of gods or anything supernatural, since something supernatural is by its own definition outside of nature, and therefore outside of the ability for a scientific process to prove or disprove its existence.

But, when the believers in gods or ghosts or souls make empirical claims that there are proofs; they offer up no evidence that withstands a rigorous examination....no surprise that this feeds the hostility to science! If a believer says God causes earthquakes, causes winds to blow, lightning and rains to fall, and the sun to rise and fall in the sky every day (which are past claims btw) and natural explanations have been found to explain these phenomena, that never seems to qualify as a disproof of the God-claim to most people. Same thing when both paleontology and molecular biology find correlated evidence that all present life on Earth has common origins, that does not disprove God to most people. God either becomes a different form of understanding the world, or for the literalists - God retreats further into the gaps of scientific evidence....so creationism devolves into intelligent design!

Now, the reason I felt the need to mention all this is because you seem to have no understanding what the atheist position is, or why some of us adopt an atheist position, rather than believe in God. Science may not prove atheism, but science has not proved the existence of any gods either! Some of us are inclined to believe anyway, and some of us are not without some evidence that is a little more convincing than what's been offered up so far....and that's basically what the theist/atheist divide boils down to in the end, our approach to understanding and finding meaning in the world.

They have been around for a lot longer. It is fashionable today to use science to prove one's ideas, erroneously thinking the facts formulate them rather than the idea formulating the facts. Having an idea is skeptically sacreligious.

I doubt that there was any such thing as an atheist, in the modern understanding of the term, before the The Theory of Evolution provided a natural explanation for the development of life, and modern cosmology started providing natural hypotheses for how a universe, or many universes exist. In ancient times, 'atheist' meant not believing in the right God; so many Roman writers called the early Christians atheists, because they didn't accept the Roman Pantheon.