A very interesting debate between Daniel Dennett and Dinesh D'Souza took place yesterday at Tufts University. The subject is "Is God a man made invention?"
I'm about halfway through it. D'Souza seems quite angry, and he broke Godwin's law about five minutes into his talk. Take that to mean what you will.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
That's interesting. I saw Michael Shermer and D'Souza debate, and it was reasonably civil. I thought Shermer was a bit more of a fair debater, since he was actually willing to concede that Christianity had done some good (the debate was on whether Christianity had a positive effect on the world or not). D'Souza, on the other hand, refused to give ground to a ridiculous degree. He made some really interesting points about the effect of Christianity on legal and social traditions, but then downplayed the Inquisition, saying that it wasn't that bad. It was a pretty good debate, though. I even got Shermer to sign my books afterward, much to the shock of some members of my church who were there Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
I think D'Souza is angry because Dennett calls him out on misrepresenting his positions rather early in the debate.
Hurts to have your dishonesty pointed out to you.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I had never heard of him before, but after googling D'Souza, I certainly hope that people aren't foolish enought to believe that he represents Christianity in general.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I had never heard of him before, but after googling D'Souza, I certainly hope that people aren't foolish enought to believe that he represents Christianity in general.
I certainly don't think he represents Christians in general.
I respect my Christian friends far too much to say that.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
You know, it's kinda weird, but every time some Christian gets into the news, we're told that they don't represent Christians in general. You have to wonder where all these general Christians are, that we never hear of them.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Well-behaved Christians rarely make the news.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well, KoM, it is just possible that, as with many groups of billions of people, that we are somewhat too diverse for any particular person to represent all of our views. I very much doubt that Mr. D'Souza would think I would adequately represent him.
And, as Shigosei noted, people that hold extreme position and can be counted on to rave, make much more interesting news.
(Thank you, Javert.)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:You know, it's kinda weird, but every time some Christian gets into the news, we're told that they don't represent Christians in general. You have to wonder where all these general Christians are, that we never hear of them.
That guy Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.? You're right, total scumbag.
-----------
quote:...people that hold extreme position and can be counted on to rave...
Hey, that's your kinda people, KoM! You two should totally do lunch. You can talk to him about how religious people are idiots, and you're smarter than them, and he can talk about how atheists are Nazis, and evil.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Actually, now that I think about it, MLK probably shouldn't be used as an example of a religious person or a Christian. Tack on a hundred and fifty years or so to his death, and there will be people seriously suggesting he was secretly an atheist Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Actually, now that I think about it, MLK probably shouldn't be used as an example of a religious person or a Christian. Tack on a hundred and fifty years or so to his death, and there will be people seriously suggesting he was secretly an atheist
And this is constructive to a conversation in what way?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Rakeesh, I'd think there were other reasons that many Christians might object to MLK representing them. Like adultery and one or two other things.
It amuses me how many universities have cancelled D'Souza appearances -- and frequently then reinstated them when the cancellation was protested.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: It amuses me how many universities have cancelled D'Souza appearances -- and frequently then reinstated them when the cancellation was protested.
Who has done the protesting for him?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I haven't paid enough attention to know.
I'm guessing some of it is the general anti-censorship crowd, and some specific supporters of his.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I had never heard of him before, but after googling D'Souza, I certainly hope that people aren't foolish enought to believe that he represents Christianity in general.
I certainly don't think he represents Christians in general.
I respect my Christian friends far too much to say that.
I love D'Souza. He's very engaging, very passionate, and he really knows his stuff. Whether or not that stuff is wrong is of course the matter of debate, but he is undeniably a thinking man, and one of the most potentially influential Christian apologists out there today. I do consider many of his arguments to be pretty ridiculous - take his understanding of Pascal's Wager for instance - but even in this case it is evident that he has given a considerable amount of thought to the matter, and it requires a decent level of intellectual criticism in order to properly dispose of his reasoning. It is true that he can be pretty stubornly ignorant on certain points, but so are most people. And this is a debate after all.
All I'm saying is I respect the guy. If all Christians were like him, I don't think we (atheists) would have nearly as many problems with Christian beliefs. He's not representative of most Christians because most Christians - at least in this country and for whatever reason - simply don't care nearly as much about the moral and intellectual implications of their faith.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Or they care a great deal and have reached different conclusions about what that means.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
But you aren't the majority, which is what I was contrasting D'Souza with. Obviously there are many, many exceptions, but that has nothing to do with my point except in the sense that, at least based on what little I know about you and your beliefs, I would say the same of you as I did of D'Souza: if the majority of Christians were like you, I wouldn't have nearly as many problems with Christianity (keeping in mind that this still has absolutely nothing to do with why I'm an atheist).
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
It's arguments like these that frustrate me because they are blatently wrong. (1) To blame all of the deaths caused by Hitler, Stalin, and Mao on atheism is ridiculous. Religous belief was a crime under Stalin and Mao, but it was hardly the only reason that anyone got executed. Furthermore, Hitler never attempted to make general religious belief a crime. He had a problem with Judaism but it's far-fetched to claim that the Holocaust was done in the name of atheism. (2) He says "Whatever the motives for atheist bloodthirstiness, the indisputable fact is that all the religions of the world put together have in 2,000 years not managed to kill as many people as have been killed in the name of atheism in the past few decades." as if it were fact. Ignoring the fact that the claim is debunked by my first point, it's entirely possible that it would be wrong anyways. Example: the Muslim conquest of India may have killed nearly 80 million people over the course of a few centuries. (3) The claim is totally irrelevant. The number of people killed in all of these historical massacres has depended on the resources available to the killers. Religion is not the reason that Stalin was able to kill more than the crusaders. The purpose of pointing out massacres done in the name of religion is to show that religion is not unequivocally good. This means that the claim that atheists have no morals is not only wrong (for other reasons), but is also not a good point in general because none of the major religions have been very successful at keeping their followers in check. Just look at the United States. I severely doubt that all the criminals in our prisons are atheists.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Threads,
I'm sure you know there's a difference between respecting a person and respecting his/her beliefs. I don't respect many of D'Souza's beliefs. I do respect his intent and his effort.
Your points are good ones, but to state the blatant obviousness of their soundness is, I think, a bit ignorant of the fact that most people just don't find it all that obvious. That has nothing to do with their truth or falsity, of course, but even their "undeniable" truth doesn't give cause to be pompous about it or to feel that those who don't "get it" are somehow intellectually inferior or undeserving of respect.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
This isn't an issue of beliefs. He published an article that was factually inaccurate. If he's going to label a group of people as most responsible for the murders that have occurred throughout history, then he better be damn sure that he is correct.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: Threads,
I'm sure you know there's a difference between respecting a person and respecting his/her beliefs. I don't respect many of D'Souza's beliefs. I do respect his intent and his effort.
Your points are good ones, but to state the blatant obviousness of their soundness is, I think, a bit ignorant of the fact that most people just don't find it all that obvious. That has nothing to do with their truth or falsity, of course, but even their "undeniable" truth doesn't give cause to be pompous about it or to feel that those who don't "get it" are somehow intellectually inferior or undeserving of respect.
Have you watched this debate yet? If you haven't, do so, as you may lose some of your respect for him.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Yes, I watched it. And I have more respect for him than I do for most of his self-righteous questioners.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
rivka,
quote:Rakeesh, I'd think there were other reasons that many Christians might object to MLK representing them. Like adultery and one or two other things.
I don't understand your point. KoM, it's safe to say, wasn't just saying, "Christians are flawed." When projecting the flaws of D'Souza onto Christians in general, he was making a very different point. MLK soundly refutes that particular 'point'.
-------------
Javert,
quote:And this is constructive to a conversation in what way?
Hey, if it can be done for Lincoln, it can happen for anyone. But perhaps you think it's not constructive because it's unfavorable to the posthumous conversion-to-atheism efforts being made in other discussions on Hatrack
--------------
quote:It's arguments like these that frustrate me because they are blatently wrong.
Why is it OK to delve into why atheists really did so much killing, but similar delving into ultimate motivations for why religious people did so much killing is dismissed because because religion is one of the proximate causes?
You don't need to be religious to be a mass-murderer, or a hateful tyrant. Sometimes it helps, but so does having a winning smile and a magnetic personality.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Hey, if it can be done for Lincoln, it can happen for anyone. But perhaps you think it's not constructive because it's unfavorable to the posthumous conversion-to-atheism efforts being made in other discussions on Hatrack [Smile]
Except that MLK had the title "Reverend". Lincoln had no such handy identifier.
quote:Why is it OK to delve into why atheists really did so much killing, but similar delving into ultimate motivations for why religious people did so much killing is dismissed because because religion is one of the proximate causes?
We do delve into those motivations. Unfortunately when we do, it often looks bad for religion.
Atheism is merely the position on one issue...there is nothing within atheism by itself to be the cause of killing.
Theism is the same. Nothing in the position of that one issue causes killing.
Religions that say things like "you shall not suffer a witch to live" and philosophies that say "these people are racially inferior", on the other hand, kill a lot of people.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Javert,
quote:And this is constructive to a conversation in what way?
Hey, if it can be done for Lincoln, it can happen for anyone. But perhaps you think it's not constructive because it's unfavorable to the posthumous conversion-to-atheism efforts being made in other discussions on Hatrack
He probably thinks that it's not constructive because it's a red herring.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:It's arguments like these that frustrate me because they are blatently wrong.
Why is it OK to delve into why atheists really did so much killing, but similar delving into ultimate motivations for why religious people did so much killing is dismissed because because religion is one of the proximate causes?
The whole debate over who killed more people is silly in general. The main reason that I would have for pointing out massacres motivated by religion is to show that religion is not an indisputably good force in the world. Atheists as a whole make no claim that atheism will bring peace and "good" to the world, so the point that atheist rulers have committed massacres isn't very relevant.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
I've met far too many atheists who automatically discount me as an evil, stupid, worthless cultist once they find out I'm Mormon to buy the "atheism does not lend itself to bigotry" view.
Atheists are no more likely to be free from prejudice than the most hardcore religious fanatic, at least in my own life experience.
Your mileage may vary.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Who are you replying to Puffy?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:He probably thinks that it's not constructive because it's a red herring.
I suppose it was. I wasn't really intending to do anything other than remark on a partially related very silly argument I noted elsewhere, that has since passed by. I never expected this to be seriously discussed here, or be a distraction.
But red herring and constructive aren't contradictory, either.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
That's true. I didn't mean to sound snobbish.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: I've met far too many atheists who automatically discount me as an evil, stupid, worthless cultist once they find out I'm Mormon to buy the "atheism does not lend itself to bigotry" view.
Atheists are no more likely to be free from prejudice than the most hardcore religious fanatic, at least in my own life experience.
Your mileage may vary.
All I can say is that there is nothing inherent in atheism that causes this. There's also nothing in atheism that prevents it.
And if it helps, this atheist doesn't think you're "an evil, stupid, worthless cultist".
I just disagree with you. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:All I can say is that there is nothing inherent in atheism that causes this. There's also nothing in atheism that prevents it.
If we're truly interested in truth, we're forced to admit there's nothing in religion that causes hate, bigotry, and violence.
It's just an excuse. The same way atheism can be an excuse for someone calling PT an evil, stupid, worthless cultist.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:All I can say is that there is nothing inherent in atheism that causes this. There's also nothing in atheism that prevents it.
If we're truly interested in truth, we're forced to admit there's nothing in religion that causes hate, bigotry, and violence.
It's just an excuse. The same way atheism can be an excuse for someone calling PT an evil, stupid, worthless cultist.
It depends on what you mean by "cause". If your religion says you own a particular piece of land, and someone else's religion says that they own it, it will cause confrontation. Perhaps we can't blame religion directly for the violence, but we can certainly blame it for giving people the excuse to be violent.
Atheism doesn't work that way. Thinking believers are stupid could lead that way, of course.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:It depends on what you mean by "cause". If your religion says you own a particular piece of land, and someone else's religion says that they own it, it will cause confrontation. Perhaps we can't blame religion directly for the violence, but we can certainly blame it for giving people the excuse to be violent.
Find me a person whose religion tells them they own a piece of land, and see that that same person also really wants that land outside of religious considerations. Without delving into who's right and who's wrong, Israelis sure as hell want Israel for reasons not just religious.
As for atheism not working that way...well, atheism doesn't work any way. As far as being a motivator, it doesn't work at all. Atheism isn't a thing, it's a lack of a thing.
But if personal anecdotes about how stupid and awful religious people are are fair game, then surely the same works for atheists.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: As for atheism not working that way...well, atheism doesn't work any way. As far as being a motivator, it doesn't work at all. Atheism isn't a thing, it's a lack of a thing.
*DING DING DING* We have a winner!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
And so, if someone does something bad and they're also an atheist, we know it's not because they're an atheist.
It's the same with religion: the excuse is not the reason, it's the excuse. There's a reason we have those words.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
"As for atheism not working that way...well, atheism doesn't work any way. As far as being a motivator, it doesn't work at all. Atheism isn't a thing, it's a lack of a thing."
Exactly. Not only that, why is there this insistance from both sides on comparing atheism with such a blanket term as "religion" when the comparable equivalent is theism? Blaming this past violence on the belief, disbelief, or nonbelief of the existence of a god is just nonsense anyway, as is blaming it on "religion" as if it were some definitive entity with a specific set of beliefs.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: And so, if someone does something bad and they're also an atheist, we know it's not because they're an atheist.
It's the same with religion: the excuse is not the reason, it's the excuse. There's a reason we have those words.
If that's the argument, then I agree. But I don't see how atheism can even be an excuse.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Because it's not unnatural to assume that if atheism is correct, then people praying to a big non-existent skydaddy are pretty silly, aren't they?
I'm not suggesting every atheist feels that way, but it's definitely not a stretch. Atheism can be an excuse because if atheism is correct, religious people are chumps.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Because it's not unnatural to assume that if atheism is correct, then people praying to a big non-existent skydaddy are pretty silly, aren't they?
Depends on your personal philosophy. If you believe that the practice of religion can be beneficial for some people, regardless of the correctness of its truth claims, then there's nothing silly about it. But whether you hold that philosophical position or an opposing one is not dictated by atheism.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
*shrug*
If you belong to the "religious claims about God are probabilistically extremely unlikely" camp of atheists, then I can offer the following parallel.
People that play at casinos or play the lottery are arguably "chumps"(if I'm interpreting your definition of "chump" properly).
Doesn't particularly mean I feel like doing violence to the next guy I see with a Lotto 649 ticket though.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Depends on your personal philosophy. If you believe that the practice of religion can be beneficial for some people, regardless of the correctness of its truth claims, then there's nothing silly about it. But whether you hold that philosophical position or an opposing one is not dictated by atheism.
I had this same discussion with someone else last week, and the same sticking point came up. I'm not sure why people seem to think I'm suggesting silly=harmful.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Because it's not unnatural to assume that if atheism is correct, then people praying to a big non-existent skydaddy are pretty silly, aren't they?
I'm not suggesting every atheist feels that way, but it's definitely not a stretch. Atheism can be an excuse because if atheism is correct, religious people are chumps.
Again, perhaps it could follow, but there's nothing in atheism to make people think that way. Religions have certain beliefs, rules and orders that can influence people to think in those ways.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:All I can say is that there is nothing inherent in atheism that causes this. There's also nothing in atheism that prevents it.
If we're truly interested in truth, we're forced to admit there's nothing in religion that causes hate, bigotry, and violence.
It's just an excuse. The same way atheism can be an excuse for someone calling PT an evil, stupid, worthless cultist.
I'm not sure you can make a blanket statement like that to cover every instance of violence and injustice associated with religion. A case-by-case analysis would be necessary to determine whether and how much religion is accountable for any atrocity.
To say that "nothing in religion causes hate, bigotry, [or] violence," is a glossing over of the truth.
Hooookay, I hope I'm not biting off more than I can chew here, but take homosexuality as an example. Many straight males experience an acute visceral reaction at the thought of gay sex. It's difficult to know how Leviticus 18:6 affects that reaction, or to what extent, but I doubt it's a tempering effect. To the extent then, that some people are enabled to express that reaction in hurtful ways, I think it's fair to say that religion has caused hate, bigotry, and in certain instances, violence.
I'd also like to note that I think, generally, most of what I've said also applies to atheists, with different examples. How the respective body counts, so to speak, might stack up, I don't know. It is something I'd be interested to learn, but it would require a massive academic undertaking.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote: had this same discussion with someone else last week, and the same sticking point came up. I'm not sure why people seem to think I'm suggesting silly=harmful.
I don't know why people seem to think that either. I was stating why it's *not* silly to do something that on the face seems useless if it's demonstrably beneficial. For instance, several studies have indicated that religious people, on average, live longer lives.
For me this comes down to the fact that there are a whole lot of steps that one must go through to get from "I don't believe in God" to "therefore I must kill you." There are, similarly, many steps between "I DO believe in God" and "therefore I must kill you" but so many of those steps are filled out in advance in the form of scripture and priestly power structures.
While it's possible to build an atheistic philosophy that advocates the destruction of others, one can also logically assault that philosophy because, ultimately, it's a product of men which can be challenged by other men.
It's a bit more difficult to logically counter "God said so" when that reasoning is presented by a duly ordained priest with the authority to speak on behalf of God.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: To the extent then, that some people are enabled to express that reaction in hurtful ways, I think it's fair to say that religion has caused hate, bigotry, and in certain instances, violence.
I think that the paradigms of atheism, pushed by prophets like Dawkins and Hitchens (and Dennett) enable atheists to do things like, to use Puffy's example, see an individual as "an evil, stupid, worthless cultist." I think atheism is just as adept at dehumanizing the Other as religion, and just as likely to lead to hate, bigotry and violence. Certainly atheism was an enabler (in the sense you cite) of Maoist China's cultural destruction and brutal repression of the people of Tibet. I don't buy the argument that religion can enable hatred but atheism can't.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: To the extent then, that some people are enabled to express that reaction in hurtful ways, I think it's fair to say that religion has caused hate, bigotry, and in certain instances, violence.
I think that the paradigms of atheism, pushed by prophets like Dawkins and Hitchens (and Dennett) enable atheists to do things like, to use Puffy's example, see an individual as "an evil, stupid, worthless cultist." I think atheism is just as adept at dehumanizing the Other as religion, and just as likely to lead to hate, bigotry and violence. Certainly atheism was an enabler (in the sense you cite) of Maoist China's cultural destruction and brutal repression of the people of Tibet. I don't buy the argument that religion can enable hatred but atheism can't.
Again, atheism and theism can't enable violence or hatred. When you add particular philosophical positions to either of those things is when the trouble begins.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:I don't buy the argument that religion can enable hatred but atheism can't.
I don't think anyone here has made that argument.
I do think that humanism, which often goes with atheism, can temper some of the in-group/out-group moral instincts people have.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:For me this comes down to the fact that there are a whole lot of steps that one must go through to get from "I don't believe in God" to "therefore I must kill you." There are, similarly, many steps between "I DO believe in God" and "therefore I must kill you" but so many of those steps are filled out in advance in the form of scripture and priestly power structures.
Here's the thing: religion doesn't just spring up in someone like Athena from Zeus's noggin, fully formed. People are religious and obedient in varying degrees, and ultimately it all comes down to choice. Not every member of the Nazi party was a Jew-hating murderer,even though they subscribed to the same general belief set that so many others who were did.
Those other steps? Still a personal thing.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:For me this comes down to the fact that there are a whole lot of steps that one must go through to get from "I don't believe in God" to "therefore I must kill you." There are, similarly, many steps between "I DO believe in God" and "therefore I must kill you" but so many of those steps are filled out in advance in the form of scripture and priestly power structures.
Here's the thing: religion doesn't just spring up in someone like Athena from Zeus's noggin, fully formed. People are religious and obedient in varying degrees, and ultimately it all comes down to choice. Not every member of the Nazi party was a Jew-hating murderer,even though they subscribed to the same general belief set that so many others who were did.
Those other steps? Still a personal thing.
Then perhaps a person like that should stop calling themselves a Nazi and throwing their default support behind the murdering Nazis.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Then perhaps a person like that should stop calling themselves a Nazi and throwing their default support behind the murdering Nazis.
Are you really going to seriously examine my very coarse comparison, Javert?
Well, alright. Sure, that guy should stop being a Nazi, but just being a Nazi does not make him actually guilty of murdering Jews. The point is that however satisfying it may be to you to associate murder and violence with religion, you really need to go one step further than that to find the true common factor.
It's not religion.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:You know, it's kinda weird, but every time some Christian gets into the news, we're told that they don't represent Christians in general. You have to wonder where all these general Christians are, that we never hear of them.
I'm inclined to think most people in the news don't represent people in general.
quote:Again, atheism and theism can't enable violence or hatred. When you add particular philosophical positions to either of those things is when the trouble begins.
The confusion probably surrounds the fact that most atheists do share certain philosophical positions other than simply "God doesn't exist." In that way it becomes a set of shared beliefs - but if we don't call that set of shared beliefs "Atheism" then what should we call it?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Then perhaps a person like that should stop calling themselves a Nazi and throwing their default support behind the murdering Nazis.
Are you really going to seriously examine my very coarse comparison, Javert?
Well, alright. Sure, that guy should stop being a Nazi, but just being a Nazi does not make him actually guilty of murdering Jews. The point is that however satisfying it may be to you to associate murder and violence with religion, you really need to go one step further than that to find the true common factor.
It's not religion.
I don't associate murder and violence with religion. But I associate many writings and beliefs from religions as advocating those things.
Obviously not all members of those religions go by those teachings. That's why I'm against the teachings, because those specific teachings make violence and murder so much easier to justify.
[ December 03, 2007, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: Javert ]
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: The confusion probably surrounds the fact that most atheists do share certain philosophical positions other than simply "God doesn't exist." In that way it becomes a set of shared beliefs that is the equivalent of a religion - but if we don't call that set of shared beliefs "Atheism" then what should we call it?
Look around and see for yourself. You have secular humanists, trans-humanists, freethinkers, skeptics, Raelians (who technically are atheists, though really weird), Buddhists (some are atheists), rationalists...and I'm sure there are plenty more.
None of them (with the exception of Raelians and Buddhists) are organized enough to be religions, nor do they really have dogmas (though they do have tenets), but they're certainly philosophies that all have atheism as a common trait.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:I'm inclined to think most people in the news don't represent people in general.
I hear that.
Interestingly enough though, I do feel pretty well represented by the atheists that do get screen-time. I have some disagreements, of course, but for the most part I think they do a better job than I would.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
On the particular subject of atheism or religion, then yes, Dawkins and company do represent me quite well. I'm not aware of any strong political disagreements, either, although they may exist.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Hitchens is pro-Iraq war and, I think, Dawkins and Harris are not.
I like most of what Dawkins and Harris have to say, but Hitchens bugs the hell out of me. It's not just that he's an arrogant ass - that can be fun - it's that he often just doesn't present his arguments very well and when you do that AND you're an arrogant ass, it's just not very helpful to the cause.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
The political opinions I've gotten out of Dawkins and Harris tend to jive with mine. I haven't seen as much of Hitchens though, so I might need to amend my statement.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Hitchens is pro-Iraq war and, I think, Dawkins and Harris are not.
I like most of what Dawkins and Harris have to say, but Hitchens bugs the hell out of me. It's not just that he's an arrogant ass - that can be fun - it's that he often just doesn't present his arguments very well and when you do that AND you're an arrogant ass, it's just not very helpful to the cause.
That and he seems to be drunk an awful lot. Or too sober, as I imagine his body might be used to certain amounts and he will function less effectively without the proper level of alcohol in his system.
That being said, I like Dawkins, Harris and Dennett. Though in Harris' case, I think he's a bit too new age-y for my tastes.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: why is there this insistance from both sides on comparing atheism with such a blanket term as "religion" when the comparable equivalent is theism?
I'm not quite sure how to formulate this question, but I think it's an interesting one, and so I'll try and see what happens.
Are there sects within atheism, as there are sects within "religion?" It seems evident from this discussion alone that KoM, Javert, rollainm, threads, MattP, Mucus, and the other atheists writing all have very individualistic viewpoints, while they all identify as "atheists." The same is true of theists, but choices are usually made to belong to one camp or another; from a Western perspective (I understand that Eastern religions are less exclusionary, as far as "belonging" to one group or another), one may choose to follow Christianity, or Judaism, or Islam. Then, within that choice, one may follow Catholicism, or Hasidism, or Sunni Islam. And even where formal lines end, informal divisions continue; I've met many Catholics who fall into what, for shorthand, I'd call the Dagonee camp or the kmboots camp.
So are there different camps, subcamps, etc. with different leaders, different reading materials, different principles, different dogmas within atheism? Or is atheism not large enough, or not structured enough, or inherently non-conducive to that sort of thing?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
The various organizations under the banner of theism seem to be caused by attempts to discover and share the nature of the divine. The primary differentiation between them is one of either authority (prophet A died, was prophet B or prophet C the true successor) or doctrine. (three gods! one god! both!).
As atheism doesn't recognize that there is any divine to disagree about in the first place, there's less need to either organize to discuss its nature, or to branch off into different organizations when disagreements arise.
Some atheists do gather under related philosophies, like humanism, or for political purposes, but they seem to be the minority. I've never personally known an atheist that was part of any sort of atheist organization.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Aren't there doctrinal divisions within atheism? Like, for instance, those who are relativists ("my God" may not exist, but that says nothing about "your God") and absolutists (there is no God. Period.) I mean, it's not just religionists; scientists often schism into different camps and fight for years. In my field, Bayesians are still at war with Dempster-Schafer heretics. It seems that any sort of belief system would be prone to schism.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Atheism isn't really a belief system though. It's a lack of belief in deity. Where you go beyond that doesn't really inspire much conflict. You're belief that there is absolutely no possibility that God exists does not materially conflict with my belief that God's existence is merely extremely unlikely. Within atheism people are pretty much free to believe what they will without any eternal or earthly consequences. No one shoots you for disbelieving in the wrong God and you aren't inclined to save the eternal soul of the man who's sinning against the God you don't believe in.
Atheists, as individuals, also spend much less time on their atheism than theists tend to spend on their theism. For most of us it's really a non-issue except when the topic comes up on a forum or when a friend asks about it. The non-existence of God is just as important as the non-existence of unicorns. It's only an issue for the philosophically inclined.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: No one shoots you for disbelieving in the wrong God
But might someone shoot you for disbelieving wrongly in God? I have actually witnessed a significant amount of vituperation by hard core, militant atheists toward agnostics.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by MattP: No one shoots you for disbelieving in the wrong God
But might someone shoot you for disbelieving wrongly in God? I have actually witnessed a significant amount of vituperation by hard core, militant atheists toward agnostics.
I have not seen much of this. At some point "you're not like me, so eff you" is going to happen with some members of a group, but I don't think these militant, hardcore types are representative. Just as I haven't known any atheists who have organized, I haven't known any with anything bad to say about agnostics beyond mild rebukes about fence sitting.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)