Why do cult leaders and religious fanatics try to insult atheists by comparing atheism to a cult and atheists to religious fanatics?
Zealous atheists resemble religious fanatics.
Rabbi Dow Marmur
#Atheism is a cult with a small following.
Deepak Chopra
I really don’t get it. It’s as if I were to sneer at creationists by calling them scientists, or clobbered seminaries by referring to them as research institutions (those are things I would not do, by the way).
Rabbi, you’re a guy who has dedicated his life to learning arcane and largely irrelevant nonsense from holy books. You go through weekly (probably daily) religious rituals, you believe in improbable foolishness, you wear special garments — you’re a religious fanatic. My profession is educator: I spend every day putting together information and evaluating the work of my students. I dress as I will. I have no rituals, other than the deadlines dictated by the academic calendar. That I reject your brand of theology (and all brands of theology!) does not make me religious, nor does it make me a fanatic.
Chopra, you’re a guy who peddles feel-good woo to the gullible. You’ve got bizarre, unsubstantiated beliefs about a conscious universe that aspires to fulfill the desires of individual humans; you rake in big speaker’s fees and sell empty fluff in books to the fools who follow you. You’re a cult leader. Atheism tells people to think for themselves and learn about reality; we have a few people who rise to prominence in the movement by their words and actions, but they aren’t exactly leaders — they get barraged constantly with criticism by their fellow atheists.
So I’m a bit lost at what point those two loons are trying to make. Their comments don’t seem to fit atheists or atheism at all, but do apply with a vengeance to themselves.
I’ve noticed a trend recently where the religious take atheist arguments & put-downs & try to turn them back on their opponents as though they were being original or clever. Seem as though Deepak is joining this game.
Point? I think the only point is that repeating this stupid tripe 1) makes them money; 2) makes them (and their brainless followers) feel good.
The point is obvious. I’m a respected religious leader. Everyone ELSE is in a cult.
When the laws on your side pund on the law when justice is on you side pound on justice. When neither is on your side pound on the table
Religion seems to maintain its strength based not only in its simplicity (very black and white worldview), but also on the basic conflict of us vs them. I think they are just doing the basic set up of their warriors versus atheist (strawman) warriors.
The Dancing Monk, #1,
Recently?
Louis
Also that’s not glue hitting the rubber
Less sbarkily they’re doing this because it works. Roveian politics have show that attacking someone for YOUR weaknesses works
I love it when in an attempt to criticize the rational world view they end up using sneering claims of religious rationalizations. I have often run into something like this:
My reply is something like: I approve of the use of the word “faith” as an insult, but you are wrong to think our understanding of evolution is based on faith …
The Dancing Monk:
Accusing your opponent of exactly the same thing you’re guilty of yourself is an established technique for defending the indefensible. The aim is to reduce the debate to an infantile he-said-she-said shouting match.
I think that, at some level, the likes of Rabbi Dow Marmur and Deepak Chopra realise that arguments that are actually based on evidence and reason are the discursive ‘high ground’ in any debate involving reasonably well educated people, and that as a result they try to deny that advantage to their atheist opponents by trying to draw a false equivalancy between a position supported by evidence and blinkered fanaticism. If they can toss a little red meat to their followers by means of demonising the godless by deliberately employing language like ‘fanatic’ and ‘militant’ in order to draw a not so subtle semantic link between entirely peaceable atheism and religiously motivated violence in the form of the ever-convenient spectre of terrorism, so much the better.
When you have no credible arguments of your own, the best you can do is try to smear the other side – it is the first principle of politics.
Unfortunately, the “atheist chaplain” movement does tend to make an outsider think we are also a religion. Whoever thought up that deranged concept needs to be whacked with a few rotting smackerels.
How can you say that about Choptra. You’re forgetting he’s got quantum and is all scientificy and quantum and stuff like that. Also quantumumum! With extra quant!!1!
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls @ 12;
Lamentably true. The idea of an “atheist chaplain” is clearly an oxymoron, but I suppose that, as a growing segment of society, it was only a matter of time before we started attracting charlatans and snakle oil salespeople of our own. Alain de Botton may well prove to be only the first of many.
Or maybe they should be thrown from the top of that risible momument to his own ego that de Botton wants to build in London…?
Rabbi, you’re a guy who has dedicated his life to learning arcane and largely irrelevant nonsense from holy books. You go through weekly (probably daily) religious rituals, you believe in improbable foolishness, you wear special garments — you’re a religious fanatic.
Not only that, but he believes that this powerful and intelligent being created a universe filled with billions of galaxies each containing billions of planets, but that said being primarily concerns itself with being the personal tribal god of a bunch of people living in a small patch of land in the Middle East.
Exactly. You often see people saying that atheism, or evolution, is “just another form of religion,” and I’m like, “So we’re all agreed that being a religion is a bad then, then. Good. Moving on…”
If we’re a cult does that mean we can sue people for calling us a cult like this church?
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/15/church-sues-woman-for-500000-after-negative-google-review/
He’s given up on that idea now. I think he was surprised by the reaction he got. None of it seemed very positive. As I and other pointed out, London has no shortage of monuments to reason. We call the libraries and museums, and many have some pretty spectacular architecture.
May I suggest he be thrown of the roof of the Natural History museum instead ?
One reason they say that is that it suggests that atheists are absurd. That is to say, were it true, it would be absurd, because atheists are proclaiming freedom from idiocy and superstition, and if they’re just superstitious idiots (with perhaps some small difference that’s supposed to be a big difference) then they’re altogether too absurd.
Think, say, of communism, which often was often compared to religion, and for good reason, because it had beliefs that not only weren’t backed up empirically, but that often could be shown not to be so.
Atheists can believe in some dumb religion-like things, like dialectical materialism, and it doesn’t look very good when they do so.
Does it really work here, in these cases? No, or at least not for most Western atheists, and that’s why they’re throwing out empty claims and gibes, because they don’t have a case, while a smear will work with many people, especially the sheep.
Glen Davidson
Gregory Greenwood,
You’re forgetting the Harvard Humanists want us get all religiousy. They have “humanist chaplains”, a complete set of godless religious ceremonies, plans for de Bottonesque temples, and all the other paraphernalia of the goddists only without gods.
Oh yes, they’re more than happy to impose their views on us iggerant peasants. Er, I mean, provide atheists the leadership we so obviously lack.
*tsk tsk* PZ get back to work! Those papers won’t grade themselves and your multi-armed grading minion hasn’t hatched yet.
HA! You fanatic atheist cult members who are members of a fanatical atheistical cult continue to March In Lockstep (TM)! When will you free yourselves from religion and start following Jesus?
Oooh! DEEEEP RIFTS! Atheism is in crisis!!!1one!
/poe
Small following?
Other than Christianity, non-believers make up the largest group in the Pew survey. Granted, those that identify as atheist make up a small portion of that, but even if you ignore the 12.1% secular unaffiliated and religious unaffiliated, and look only at those who own the terms atheist and agnostic, it still makes up almost as large a group as all the non-Christian religions combined.
Matt Penfold @ 18;
That is what happens when you try to turn atheists into your very own flock of eminently fleece-able sheeple. It certainly is good news that his planned achitectural abomination is now well and truly on the scrap heap.
I predict that de Botton will, at some point over the next few years, suddenly convert to some form of religion or newage woo that is more conducive to his brand of con-artistry, and will then rant long and loud about how truly awful all those atheisdts are, while accepting fat cheques for appearances on the likes of Faux News where xians/newage lie-peddlers will seek to crow about the ‘conversion’ of a prominent atheist to the fold of the
deludedfaithful.Exactly – who needs the gaudy grandstanding of the frankly ludicrous idea of an ‘atheist temple’ when you have actual sites of leaning and knowledge housed in such wonderfully evocative and beautuful buildings already?
A fine alternative. We could also throw him from the highest window in the museum. That would be a classy way to go – defenestrated from the Natural History Museum…
Hmmm, he probably doesn’t deserve anything so grand.
The rabbi often refers to “zealous atheists” and uses quotes about “New Atheists,” as if to admit that, at the very least, his claims aren’t true of all atheists. Then he immediately conflates the two, and says things like “atheism is becoming a religion” (not “New Atheism is becoming a religion,” as at least his “argument” might suggest) and that he doesn’t debate “with atheists,” even though his excuse only refers to “zealous atheists,” or some such thing.
It’s a thoroughly disingenuous article.
Glen Davidson
The rabbi even has the tip of his penis missing because of religious doctrine. Taking a knife to your genitals because of your belief in a sex-pervert god — could it be any scarier?
‘Tis, you forgot to mention the continuinuinuinum. It’s all in the continuinuinuinuinum.
Unfortunately, I once sat an aptitude test wherein an excerpt from Chopra appeared. It was one of his glorious appeals to the uncertainty principle as justification for the existence of a soul. As every question related to the text ignored his central assertions, I’m presuming it was an ingenious attempt to see how analysis skills react when presented with overwhelming amounts of bollocks. It was infuriating and amusing at the same time.
With regard to attacks on atheists, I’ve always regarded it as yet another example of clique fortification. Chopra and others conveniently avoid acknowledging the validity of counterarguments by framing said arguments as emotive, irrespective of the actual content. It’s a pathetic straw man but it seems to reduce their attrition rates by closing minds. Equally, it allows them to project their own failures on to the opposition. In response, the opposition must give laborious explanations as to how inaccurate the assertion is prior to focusing on the debate. It’s disingenuous deflection, it’s repeatedly throwing dust in your enemy’s face in the hope that it tires them or gives you enough time to escape.
This isn’t helped by the fact there’s the absurdly prevalent belief that a middle-ground is inherently superior and that compromise is universally indicative of maturity in any debate, whether objective or subjective. In such a situation, some are free to gain a smug, sanctimonious sense of detachment by simply lambasting both sides of the debate. They portray themselves as the calm, rational eye of the storm, snickering as the children fight around them rather than offering anything of merit.
Of course, these are all irrational absurdities and placing the fundamental tenets of reason at one end of a spectrum is idiotic since they’re used to analyse everything of value. Some people just seem to wilfully ignore that due to the transient self-gratification (or stupidity) whilst others actively wish to remove logic or evidence because they’re inimical to their position.
Apologies for the length and disjointed nature, they particularly irk me.
‘Tis Himself @ 20;
Good point. Religiousy and thus controlable, which is the entire point and purpose of organised religion.
One wonders why, since they clearly miss the empty trappings of religion so much, they don’t simply join one of the
less bonkersmore moderate churches? They get their fix of pointless ritual and pseudo-community, we get rid of them – everyone’s happy.I can hear their creed already; “soft, marshmallow accomodationism for all!” Should they garner enough power in the future, they will doubtless add the currently unspoken “or else” clause at a later date. That is (as history has repeatedly demonstrated) the established pattern with religions and pseudo-religious movements, afterall – start out fairly unthreatening, but as soon as you get a taste of power the pogroms and crusades and witch and/or heretic-burnings begin in earnest…
I (eventually) thought my way through the common misconcpetions about atheists:
“It’s not that they don’t believe in God, it’s just that they’re angry at God. A denial of belief is still a form of belief. Likewise, a community organized as a rejection of religion/God could be called a religion. How can you have morality, or count on people to act morally, without religion/God? Atheists are scary! Scary and angry!”
Etc., etc., long-winded rationalization for the existence of people who appeared to function just fine (or at least, just the same as anybody) without something I’d been raised to believe was essential to this life and the next.
And I didn’t even have a massive financial or position of authority-preserving self-interest in trying to rationalize rational existence. It wasn’t a threat to my livelihood, it was a threat to my life – at least until I grew out of the notion that I couldn’t have a life outside of religion.
Religion (and woo) hates itself. It is insecure, and it projects those insecurities on things other than itself so that it can attack them in an effort to appear strong. Atheism can and will outlast it.
Isn’t that the purpose of Unitarianism?
It’s an attempt to disarm us with the “insight” that we are the very things we despise so much.
I don’t think de Botton is trying to fleece people exactly. I think he’s an amazingly sheltered asshole who has no fucking clue how religion works.
This has probably occurred to you and many other people but…
I think the ‘religion’ part of the statement comes from them wanting to put us on the same level as them. If they cast atheism as a religion then they can imply (or maybe outright claim) that our criticisms of religion are just opinions, and we are just intolerant religious people who hate beliefs that differ from our own. That’s far better for them than if people start to appreciate the distinction between belief derived from evidence, and evidence-less belief.
The “fanatic” part is more interesting to me. We are ‘fanatical’ because we take the idea of truth seriously, and ‘good’ religion doesn’t. This tracks with the “open-mindedness” trope, where we are too “closed minded” to consider ideas without evidence for them. You’ll often hear the moderate religionists and the Robert Anton Wilsons of the world use the word “certainty” to express contempt for this state of affairs. It seems to me that especially in new agey religion, but also in more conventional moderate Christianity there is a postmodernist influence that sees the idea of “truth” as either naive and/or inapplicable to spirituality.
These people often crack me up because for them science is often under-determined*. Scientists have so much faith, doncha know, because we have to assume crazy things like our existence, and the notion that we can all view roughly the same evidence as other scientists. If they are talking about something spiritual though, the rhetoric just has to sound good. They can drop lots of deepities, and make it sound as though they have access to Profound Wisdom(TM), and never mind the picky little details, like cogency. Logic and evidence are for those crass “fundamentalists” who have overly literal minds.
* Yes, fundies play that game too.
Isn’t it ironic that the religious condemn atheists for being religious. All of us should just stop being religious. It will be difficult…for them, not so much the atheists.
Why do cult leaders and religious fanatics try to insult atheists by comparing atheism to a cult and atheists to religious fanatics?
Because they confuse passion with delusion.
Zeno @26
Yes. Yes, it can. Ultra Orthodox infants are contracting herpes because mohels perform Metzitza B’Peh on the infant after circumcision, that is, they put their mouth over the infant’s penis and suck the blood off. Herpes in infants causes brain damage and death
Metzitza B’Peh
Anyone who uses “following” in reference to atheism knows nothing of our movement.
Small Following, Chopra ? 16% of Americans surveyed in the last census said they were either non-practicing or non-believing.
That’s a big-ass number. Out of 300 million, that’s about 4.8 million. a whole lot more than follow your nutty woo-woo stuff.
Next up, Mitt Romney accuses Barack Obama of being weak on women’s rights.
Oh, like Ultra Orthodox and Reform Jews? like Protestant and catholic christians? like Sunni and Shia Muslims?
You fuckos can’t even create “cooperation without kinship” within your own religions, never mind cooperating with people outside your narrow sectarian tribe.
superficial, stupid article is superficial and stupid.
Unless it’s like, oh, 48 million or so. Kinda bigger, actually.
Glen Davidson
What a Maroon, Applied Linguist of Slight Foreboding @ 31;
As I understand it, pretty much.
——————————————————————
Ing: I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream So I Comment Instead @ 33;
I am not as generous as you in this regard. I think that, if de Botton ever succeeded in creating his ‘godless religion’, then he would start creaming off donations from his followers at the earliest opportunity. Purely in pursuit of ‘spreading the good news’, you understand…
Though I suppose that it is entirely posible that money never was his primary motivation – maybe this is all simply about stoking his own ego by setting himself up as the Pope of a notional ‘atheism 2.0’.
Oh, I think he understands how religion works, at least well enough to try to turn some of its mechanisms of control to his own advantage.
It seems I am getting cynical in my old age…
Hearing him on Ask an Atheists has opened me to the idea that he is unbelievably ignorant and privileged.
Big A Atheism, aka New Atheism, may not be a religion–I wouldn’t call it one–but it’s obviously an ideology since it’s a cartoonish philosophy whose supporters assume, quite dubiously, that a great many political and ethical conclusions follow from not believing in the gods (small a atheism). That’s how orthodoxies work: everything is very simple for right-thinking people. One sign that a point of view is an ideology is that it promotes a drastically Manichean historical narrative, in the case of New Atheism a barely modernized version of the long discredited Warfare of Science and Theology story. I think of New Atheism as a middlebrow hobbyhorse on a par with Objectivism or, ironically, some of the New Age fads of the 80s and 90s, all of which were examples of what Frederick Nietzsche identified long ago as “free thinking of the second rank.” O well, I guess it beats astrology.
@Jimharrison
The important thing is that you are better! Now you might want to wipe your screen off before it gets sticky.
Citation need that atheism is an ideology. Otherwise, “that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”…Christopher Hitchens. So, your evidence???
@Nerd
Don’t you know? Our simplistic and mythical view of history, which he will surely soon tell us exactly what we believe about history and why it is wrong.
Incidentally I think he’s wrong in his belief that cat poop makes a good soup base. Arguing is fun when you can decide the views of the other person for them!
I’ve always figured it was projection, sort of. Their leaders are religious, and their extreme leaders are fanatics…so they take all that and apply it blindly to those on the other side. The fact that sciencey types use the opposite methods and ways of thinking that religious types do doesn’t register with them, because they assume the false equivalency that science is just another form of religion.
The actual article itself is full of facepalms:
As if everyone didn’t say that the religious would jump at these ideas.
And then the venerable Rabbi almost pulls a Godwin (I was also expecting Stalin):
It ends on a more traditional reality-denying note:
What I always take out of these screeds is that yes, today ‘religion’ is actually an insult and a swearword.
Thank you for putting assumptions in my head–is that easier than putting words in my mouth?
So why do you assume that atheism is the cause and the political and ethical conclusions are the effects, rather than all three being effects of a rational thinking process? Is it because that doesn’t fit with your desired conclusion?
Thank you for demonstrating your faulty thinking so clearly.
jimharrison, #44,
You have put the cart before the horse. Error.
Thanks for erroneously telling me what I think. Any other tricks?
Louis
In this debate, Chopra is almost in tears as he whines about Shermer calling his arguments “woo-woo”. When it’s Michael’s turn he just goes ahead and does just that and Chopra whines again.
It’s about an hour and a half, and it’s a lot of fun watching Shermer and Harris tear Chopra a new one.
I hope someone can parse the link for me. Thanks
OOpps. Seems I embedded it. Didn’t mean to do that.
Before you make an even bigger fool of yourself, you might like to look around this site a bit, where you’ll see New/Gnu Atheists arguing furiously with each other over a wide range of topics. In particular, you might like to look at the recent threads focused on Sam Harris (you know – one of the so-called “Four Horsemen” of New Atheism) and what many of us, including me, consider the fuckwitted bigotry of his call for religion-based profiling at airports – he also got derided for his views on parapsychology. But that’s just one example – there have been recent disputes here between people who I think would self-identify as New/Gnu Atheists about the historicity of Jesus, animal rights and veganism, gun laws, free will (where many disagree with Dan Dennett – another “Horseman”), and Obama’s recent statement on gay marriage. Then there’s the huge and intermittently revived row about sexism in the sceptic/atheist community, in which most of the regulars here are on the opposite side to Richard Dawkins (a third “Horseman”). Many of us also disagree profoundly with him on evolutionary psychology, and his project for a private college. Just as many called out Christopher Hitchens (the fourth “Horseman”) for his sexism, and his support of the invasion of Iraq. But to dolts like you, we’re all ditto-head followers of an “orthodoxy”.
jimharrison is a lot prouder of this sentence than it warrants.
@Brownian
Should we score that sentence?
1) Questionable use of the word “irony”
2) Needlessly complex sentence structure.
3) Needless Jargon dropping to appear Sophistimicatmated
4) Appeal to Authority
5) A quote that actually says nothing due to undefined terms (what’s Freddy’s base line, is second rank good or bad? What scale: is it logarithmic, geometric?
6) The fallacious belief that sloppily slamming two people’s opinions together and trying to pass it off as one worthwhile assertion
7) farting and insisting it’s perfume
Goodness me, it’s a fuckwit with delusions of superiority. Never seen that before. :eyeroll:
Don’t be so mean. He must have put a lot of work into it.
@hyperdeath
True, it takes a lot of work to solidify smug at room temperature.
It’s an implicit acknowledgement that they know they suck. They’re saying (in effect) “you suck as much as we do!”
What really sucks, for them, is that isn’t even the case.
Gotta love the “So what, you’re just as bad as us.” defense. To which I usually reply “Touche”
Why? Under No Child Left Behind, it’ll just mean less money for his entire school.
Of that, I’ve no doubt. But, you’re right, hyperdeath: I’m being mean.
[Cuts out jimharrison’s sentence, puts it on the fridge using the magnet with the number for the root-clearing plumber that came free with the phone book.]
There, that’s better. [Moves the clip slightly to cover the dent in the fridge door.] Now everyone can enjoy jimmy’s work.
“Why do cult leaders and religious fanatics try to insult atheists by comparing atheism to a cult and atheists to religious fanatics?”
‘Cause its all they know and Projection. Also distraction: “You’re the cult, not us”.
Ing #59
+1
@Matt Penfold #18:
Please don’t. The paving slabs in Kensington deserve respect.
Gotta love the “So what, you’re just as bad as us.” defense. To which I usually reply “Touche”
more like “Tu quoque”
;)
It’s a bizarre ad hominem. “You claim to be against religion but look how similar to religions you are! Therefore your criticisms of religion aren’t valid and I can ignore what you say.”
…well, it is true that most religious sects ignore the criticisms of other religious sects.
the only valid criticisms come from within the sect, and since dissidents are routinely removed from sects…
criticism? what criticism? My sect is perfect!
Even though that’s not the kind of superstition Nietzsche’s talking about here, it doesn’t even rise to the level of quote-mining, just pure stupidity, since we’d also have to accept the anachronism of him talking about Objectivism and newage sewage. But maybe Nietzsche was a time-traveler. So when he said “God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him,” perhaps he and his compatriots did it in our future and only referred to it as part of their past. In any case, he clearly had a problem with outspoken, uppity atheists. *eyeroll*
Since you mention it, Nietzsche probably would’ve liked Objectivism. His rallying cry was “I got mine, fuck you” before it was cool, and it never actually became cool.
Poor, poor jimharrison. Had such a deprived childhood, it seems that no one bothered to teach him the old aphorism concerning fools, the removal of doubt, and the opening of mouths.
Poor dear.
jimharrison @ 44;
Atheism ‘may not be a religion’? I would say that it is quite self-evidently not a religion as the phrase is usually defined – we do not accept the existence of any supernatural deity, and that is kind of an important aspect of most theism.
Any attempt to define religion broadly enough to include atheism would lead to a definition so broad that everything from the Houses of Parliament to a local book club could be defined as a religion. In other words the term would be rendered meaningless.
As for; “but it’s obviously an ideology since it’s a cartoonish philosophy whose supporters assume, quite dubiously, that a great many political and ethical conclusions follow from not believing in the gods”, atheism does not, in and of itself, form the basis for my, or
Also, please don’t attempt to concoct a clearly self-derving false dichotomy between ‘big A’ and ‘little A’ atheism – the distinction only really exists in your own mind.
It’s not really amazing for a European.
In spades!!!
Indeed – movement? What movement?
“No Child’s Behind Left”
NO U
</aware of all Internet traditions>
+ 2
+ 1
Yes?
I agree with your main point but:
1) There are non-theistic religions; I’d argue that religions share what Wittgenstein called a “family resemblance”: there may be no single feature they all share; rather, there are overlapping sets of features. Even supernaturalism isn’t an invariable feature once you consider non-realists about the supernatural who still want to call themselves Christians or pagans, and some forms of Buddhism.
2) I’ve seen quite a few atheists claim Marxism is a religion, on grounds similar to jimharrison’s mischaracterisation of New Atheism. I disagree with that claim, which I think is usually made in order to blame religion for the crimes of Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot/Kim Il Sung, but it’s quite commonly made by atheists. (Kim Il Sungism is certainly getting close to a religion, depending on how literally the nonsense about him and his heirs is intended to be taken.)
3) The “big A” / “small a” distinction was made by one of the recent “Why I am an atheist” writers. I think “big A Atheism” or “New Atheism” is distinguished by its non-accommodationism.
I notice that a lot, and I think it comes from a realisation that faith and truth are incompatible concepts. It’s a bit scary when you think about it; these are people who know what truth is, but actually reject it.
jimharrison @ 44;
Atheism ‘may not be a religion’? I would say that it is quite self-evidently not a religion as the phrase is usually defined – we do not accept the existence of any supernatural deity, and that is kind of an important aspect of most theism.
Any attempt to define religion broadly enough to include atheism would lead to a definition so broad that everything from the Houses of Parliament to a local book club could be defined as a religion. In other words the term would be rendered meaningless.
As for;
Atheism does not, in and of itself, form the basis for my, or I would hazard, most other atheists sense of ethics – secular humanism is far more important in that regard. Rather, the non-belief in god serves to remove an obstacle to viewing the world rationally, and frees us of an impediment to ethical behaviour that would otherwise require us to place obeisance to an imaginary celestial dictator over the wellbeing of our fellow humans.
Also, please don’t attempt to concoct a clearly self-derving false dichotomy between ‘big A’ and ‘little A’ atheism – the distinction only really exists in your own mind.
You imagine that atheists operate under some inflexible, dogmatic orthodoxy? You obviously haven’t being paying attention – we are a highly heterodox, loose association of people to say the least. Beyond a non-belief in gods (and in most cases a rational respect for the scientific method), our perspectives run the breadth of political and philosophical opinion. We debate, rigorously, all the time on all manner of topics as KG eloquently expained @ 54.
I dislike the florrid terminology of a ‘war’ between science and theology, but the two are incompatible. Why? Because science requires the rigorous collection and examination of evidence, and the application of logic and reason to arrive at an evidentially well supported conclusion that fits with reality as our species has observed it. Religion requires the outright denial of reality in order to preserve a cherished mythology of immortality in a post-mortem Disneyland. A person cannot do rigorously pursue one without necessarily abandoning the other.
What you think of atheism is hardly of much concern to us. We encounter individuals such as yourself, who suffer from severe cases of Dunning Kruger syndrom and an entirely unjustified sense of their own superiority, all the time. As for your comparison examples, they are poorly chosen. Objectivism is a morally repugnant and entirely discredited political philosophy, whereas atheism is simply the non-belief in unevidenced deity myths – the only rational reaction to the available evidence. As for the New Age fads, they all require that one ignore the evidence in order to cleave to a fantasy that the believer finds comforting – rationalist atheism always privileges the importance of allowing conclusions to flow from evidence, not of contorting the evidence to fit one’s preconceptions.
As consciousness razor demonstrated @ 69, the quote here is Nietzsche referring to superstition, an unevidenced belief in the supernatural, an accusation that can never credibly be aimed at atheism. In my experience, it helps to first understand a passage before seeking to quote it in support of your argument.
Darn it. Apologies for the double post.
KG @ 75;
I accept your point, but I was using the most common meaning of religion as it is usually applied for simplicity’s sake.
Again, I see where you are coming from. Some forms of Communism may share similarities with certain apsects of religion, notably the requirement that the adherent accept the unevidenced and believe in the frankly impossible, and the extreme cults of personality that spring up around the leadership of some Communist societies beginning to resemble the living ‘man-god’ beliefs surrounding certain dynasties. However, the vast majority of religions do include a belief in an afterlife and the existence of a supernatural creator or pantheon of deities.
Fair enough, but I think that jimharrison was seeking to establish a false distinction between a ‘Small A’ ‘acceptable’ (read; in the closet) non-belief in gods and a ‘Big A’ atheism that is supposedly some kind of ill defined sub-Randian political philsophy that pretends that non-belief coverts one into a ethically perfect Ubermensch – your standard strawmanning of assertive non-belief.
Sorry, but did DC – the intellectual’s answer to a combined mime & accordian school – say something?
Why in the world were you listening????
Should anyone ever say to me: “… but Deepak Chopra says…” I’m unlikely to hear the rest because of deafness caused by my snot of disbelief.
lol
Intended or not, nonsense about Mao and his Little Red Book was taken very seriously indeed. Like, farmers put it on their fields to make it rain, that kind of thing.
I have no problem with calling Leninism and its descendants a religion.
+ 1
I come from a family of orthodox Jews. My grandfather and uncle were rabbis and I had another uncle that was a cantor. They were all extremely learned and religious men. They came from Europe and Russia and lived through the holocaust. They took holocaust survivors into their homes regardless of religion though most were displaced jews. I remember sitting in the dining room with them as a child and a variety of guests of all denominations arguing religion, culture and politics. Never insulting and always willing to listen and learn. Their point was always we choose how we want to live, if you choose differently that was up to you. Reap the rewards or suffer the consequence. They had no time for inarticulate or strident inflexible discourse. This would have gotten you an invitation to leave. When I became an atheist they were disappointed and never understood it but they loved and supported me for the rest of their lives. It led to wonderful conversations in a dining room that smelled of schnaps (whiskey) and cigars. They would be appalled at a rabbi taking the position this rabbi has taken. But they would be equally appalled and even disappointed at a significant amount of the shrill conversation that masquerades as discourse today. They firmly believed conversation would always get us where we needed to go and compromise at times was a paramount moral imperative to facilitate change. And PZ, In my view they weren’t fanatics, just men that lived hard lives, worked hard, protected their families and cared for them and strangers without regard for race or skin color or religion. I never thought that religion defined them, I thought they defined religion. Arcane foolishness, weird garments, maybe…wonderful careing men…great human beings…without question. Let’s not confuse what is ultimately important, good people are good people. Period.
Kind of wonder, did religion learn the tactic from politics, or the politicians from religion, because it seems to be Republican strategy right now.
[meta]
Valindrius,
No apology is merited, your contribution was relevant, cogent and insightful.
(I would not wish to dispute it)
jimharrison:
Leaving aside that you’re indulging in exactly the very vacuous sneer to which the OP refers, I note that the only entailed conclusion is that basing ideology on the god-conceit is fatuous, and that other means are required.
(What alternatives to humanist values are there?)
[meta]
Recapitulation:
I love this place!
eliott1:
Granting certain values of ‘learned’ I don’t doubt you in the least.
They were good people in this respect. Noted.
Your adumbration of their beliefs is also duly noted.
Your view and thoughts are also duly noted.
Tautologies are tautological — who on this thread do you imagine is so confused?
(And “Period.”?! Does your thinking really just stop there?)
I note that ;
The first link is wrong. It goes to a review of the article you meant to link to. The review is also wrong so I am not sure what the point is.
This, in spades. I’ve enjoyed a lot of de Botton’s other books a lot, especially Consolations of Philosophy and Art of Travel. I forced myself to read Religion For Atheists, and it was a massive struggle. He has a classic outsider kid-with-his-nose-to-the-bakery-window attitude about religion, especially Catholicism. He tosses in stuff about Judaism and Buddhism, but knows quite little about either. He has no idea how religion functions in social groups, how it reflects hierarchies related to gender/race/economics, how people are very often harmed by religious teaching and practice. For him, it’s all love and fun foods and consoling rituals, not submission, child abuse, rape, pograms, etc. I really really wanted to like at least some parts of the book, and I did. It’s just that for every sentence or section I liked, I had to wade through pages and pages of clueless idiocy.
I have no problem with atheist chaplains, as long as a chaplain is deemed to be someone who has expertise in planning celebrations concerning life events (birth, weddings, funerals), leading discussions about ethical or meaning-making issues, and coordinating community activities. I’ve belonged to Jewish communities where there’s a coordinator (or several) for particular things, and it’s expected that services will be led by, the dead will be washed and prepared for burial, classes will be taught, and snacks will be provided by … get this … everyone in the community, depending on their particular interests and abilities. The main problem is that there are community funds (in universities and the military especially) available for “chaplains” but not for “coordinator/celebration planning consultant/educator” positions. It’s a tough call whether to insist that our needs for such services (AND meeting space, which is often tied to the word “chaplain”) get paid for out of these same funds, which WE contribute to, or whether to decide that the word is so contaminated by religious meaning that we should reject the funding and (maybe) the meeting space/coordinator/community possibilities that could result from a better funded effort.
I have pretty much decided that when I hear a speaker who does not identify as a big-A Atheist talk about New Atheists, I should just tune out whatever they say, since they’re virtually certain to be clueless about big-A Atheism and the muddle-headed, fact-free opinions about atheists are generally accompanied by muddle-headed, fact-free nonsense about whatever the address is supposed to be about. It’s actually a useful diagnostic, and false positives (speakers who say “New Atheists are…” and then turn out not to be foolish mooks) are fairly rare.
eliot1
I think almost all people have the ability to be kind, hardworking and generally decent, but a large number of them fail in that regard for a variety of reasons. I don’t think its wrong to look at reasons why this can occur.
If you want an oversimplified estimation that catches some number of “bad” people, I can propose a few categories that lead to problems. One reason why people can end up being “bad” is that they are mentally ill*. Another potential reason is that they have misplaced trust in a malevolent authority figure who has misguided them; this happens in political movements and in religion most commonly. Still another group decides to act criminally in order to survive poverty.
There is nothing about being mentally ill, desperately impoverished or religious/authoritarian that necessitates that one become “bad”. Lots of people in each category manage to get by without doing anything regrettable. But I think a lot of us here believe it would ease some of our social problems and generally reduce suffering if we could help people out of those situations.
In my opinion the approach of Gnu Atheism is generally more about disputing unsupportable ideas than denigrating all religious people as a bunch of shits**. I don’t think that is silly or find it unimportant: it helps lot of people out of undesirable situation number 2. Lots of us concern ourselves with number 1 and number 3 as well; you can find evidence for that in threads about civil rights and politics.
* These are not in any particular order; I make no representation as to which are more or less significant.
**Of course some people who come here are assholes, and we are generally not shy about calling those people out.
No person calls himself fanatical. He only calls people with different views from his own fanatical.
John, thank you for taking the time to read, parse and critique my note so thoughtfully. To respond to your question, my thinking doesn’t stop there, just that post.
eliott1 @93, thank you for that.
Any comment on Weinberg’s (in)famous adage?
(“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion.”)
Bah – the only way to get a ‘following’ of atheists is to say “I’m off down the pub!”
even then, half of them will choose a different bloody pub…
John, I want to be a wiseass for a moment and say, look at what happened with the SCA board putting Edwina Rogers in the ED position. I think politics and finance can get good people to do evil shit but love takes the prize.
@eliott1
You’re confused evil with stupid in Rogers’s case.
Ing, agreed.
[meta]
Ing, I think eliott1 was addressing the second clause of the contention about which I invited comment, and fairly directly.
(The first clause, not-so-much)
Bryan Fischer Awards for both of them?
David Marjanović,
Citation?
Care to justify this stance, because I’d say most varieties of Leninism lack a key feature of prototypical religions, supernaturalism, and this looks far too much like an attempt to ascribe everything bad to religion. Although, as I said, there are non-realist and hence non-supernaturalist variants of Christianity and paganism, their followers regard themselves as religious, and have clear historical and cultural ties to supernaturalist beliefs.
Come-on good people please stop with the term Atheism or atheism.
I know I know the dictionaries allow it via some tradition of usage but but to me not because of logic.
This is what I see: being atheist entails NO “-ism” .. it is not a philosophy nor a political system nor a system of governance of States, people, or self; it is solely the state of not believing in any gods at all.
The fact that my being atheist stems from THINKING and USING knowledge, senses, experiences, AND some meta-model or models of reasoning like science and/or philosophical logic does not mean the package reduces to an “-ism”.
Just like all of our conclusions and mental models – being atheist has a basis in a meta mental process – duh – like all we do.
“-isms” require adherence to some rulebook, some textbook, some authority, some purposeful objective, some dictated broad prescription for thinking.
Communism (capital) is an “-ism”.
The Chicago School of Criminal Justice could be an “-ism” for certain dedicated proponents.
Not believing that Giove existed or exists in any incarnation historical or contemporary is how an “-ism”?
Is believing George Washington existed “George Washington-ism”?
Either are ONLY if re: the former one makes a formal substitution like Jesus and all of the dogma and doctrine drapings of a Jesus as in “Catholicism”, or re: the latter one ascribes godlike qualities and attributes and absolute authority to the envisioned persona of the man and his words and then uses it to guide your life in some significant way.
Please there is no “Atheism” (where is it? what is its official instantiation?)!
There may be Humanism.. there may be Unitarianism.. there may be Conservativism.. etc. etc. and a particular atheist or theist may be inclined toward some organized group and/or philosophy because of their nature and nurture.. but that is a different story and thing.
KG if your criteria to be religion must include some supernatural concept or entity then I can only say I do not hold that same criteria.
Only to clarify – I believe any school of thought and/or acting that demands allegiance to authority, and dogma and doctrine regardless of evidence and that demands your mind is subservient to the the formalized school of thought and/or acting is a religion. And I believe any person that blindly and unwaveringly follows said school is acting religiously. No gods required.
You differ in opinion – OK. I still hold mine.
Concerned Joe:
Mechanism, metabolism, embolism, botulism, feudalism, schism, formalism, albinism…
KG no disrespect honest (I mean it) .. but LOL
and sophism?
to me apples and oranges .. or semantics .. but technically you may be right .. but also I do not feel vanquished in the least.
context counts for me in things
peace out – nice counter seriously – made me smile but not derisively.
Consider a term like “journalism.” Of course that is taught in textbooks, it does have authorities of a sort, and there are general ethical principles which most think are applicable to journalism, but one can engage in journalism without following any of that. All one has to do is write “journals” for the public. That’s it. Likewise, to do atheism you just need to not believe in gods.
Of course there’s more to it than that, because none of our lives are so simple that every action can be isolated from everything else, but I think you have the wrong idea about what an “-ism” is supposed to imply. It doesn’t imply dogmatism, for example — in fact, that is its own -ism.
Where is this going? There clearly is atheism. You could just as well ask: Where is feminism? What is feminism’s “official instantiation”? But those aren’t the right questions. Someone can be a feminist without knowing or caring about any sort of “official” feminism.
That is a dogmatic ideology, but not necessarily a religion.
Religion or just plain old Cult of Personality?
[OT]
concernedjoe,
Then be aware that English uses the suffix -ism in more than one way, and your advocacy for the cessation of the usage of ‘atheism’ is based on ignorance of its context.
[meta]
concernedjoe:
Given your stated basis for your advocacy was semantics, you have indeed been vanquished.
(“No sense, no feeling”)
Consider a term like “journalism.” .. .. but one can engage in journalism without following any of that. All one has to do is write “journals” for the public.
One cannot formally engage in Journalism as you described (textbook journalism) without following the “textbook”. One has to practice Journalism to practice Journalism (note capital). One obviously can be a journalist by writing journals. Those that do study and sweat to qualify and practice Journalism might say legitimately based on evidence that “that journal writer is no Journalist!”.
My point is not semantic. It is contextual. In my eyes one that machines parts is not a Machinist unless they follow the professional dictates of machining parts and do so in a meet the specs way. Semantically I could be wrong – I do not care. I believe my point is a valid one. Ask a Machinist :-).
Interesting question in that case.
I think a religion has to either involve supernatural concepts; or be descended from, and redefining the jargon of, a religion which did involve supernatural concepts (this is what allegedly naturalistic Buddhisms seem to be doing).
So, is it common to pray to Kim like an ancestor spirit? I’ve heard this claim but I don’t know.
(If it’s not encouraged by official of the state, then it could be said the orthodox Kim personality cult is not a religion, but there exist folk religions about him.)
My basis for this understanding of religion is my exposure to sciences which study religion. I’ve shoehorned in that caveat for naturalistic Buddhism, since I haven’t seen that covered. But as far as the cognitive science of religion goes, I know it’s about supernaturalism, and in my limited exposure to anthropology of religion I’ve never seen anything to contradict this.
… officials of the state …
Concerned Joe,
No-one’s going to force you to use the word “atheism” if you don’t want to. But you’re not going to persuade other people to stop using it, so I suggest you drop the matter.
I see the capital “J.” It means the same thing as a lowercase “j.” Please use words to convey what you want to say, not the shapes of the letters, because those don’t mean anything to me.
No they couldn’t. That’s like saying a bad artist is not an artist. It’s a conflation of is and ought, which is not legitimate.
One can be a professional machinist or an amateur machinist. Either could fail to do machining well, yet they are still machinists.
Perhaps this is more contextually-relevant: Is liberalism inherently religious or a dogmatic ideology? How about communism?
[meta]
concernedjoe @111, you didn’t follow and peruse my link, did you?
Good people ..
A feminist can be feminist without following Feminism if all you mean is a Feminist is one who believes women should be treated like men say in the workplace, or some simple defining thing like that. As an Atheist is atheist simply because they do not believe in any god(s). No “-ism” involved.
I get all the semantic stuff. Atheism is dictionary defined in a context. But the context of this discussion herein is (to paraphrase) that “atheists are in a religion and are fanatical religious about their religion”. That Atheism is a religion.
I say – in the context of this discussion – there is no Atheism. So be it – I have that opinion. You may disagree for sake of argument. I think though that argument is too didactic for me. Hey – different strokes for different folks.
And John – my argument was in context – and thus semantic I guess but the to be vanquished one has to argue and win within my context – botulism is not of the same nature as Catholicism or Atheism – am I wrong to state this?
Then from that – what is the equivalency of Catholicism to Atheism?
I enjoy the discussion – and thank all for replying. Just not swayed yet.
And you haven’t swayed anybody here. Your mere OPINION doesn’t count to us.
[meta + OT]
concernedjoe, you’re just lucky I’m not truth machine, who would have articulated and documented (with bonus vitriol) just how intellectually dishonest is your #117.
So!
I’m saying David Marjanović is being unscientific about this, in that he is stretching “religion” beyond its meaning in those sciences which study it.
(Disciples of the DDMFM should mark their calendars; this is a holy day which teaches us he was fully human, and yea, did struggle. DDMFM docetics are heretics who shall be reborn as lowly crocoducks.)
You mean, like, material crocoducks or ghostly crocoducks?
*smokes joint, passes it to pitbull*
You know good argumentation is trying to play back the other point of view.
If you all have interest in helping uplift thinking – or at least spur more critical think, advance knowledge, etc. It would be nice to use some give and take – and even advance an empathic view in effort to garner better understanding and then counterpoint.
For example “I see the capital “J.” It means the same thing as a lowercase “j.” Please use words to convey what you want to say, not the shapes of the letters, because those don’t mean anything to me.” is to me more of an invalidation attempt than an argument.
If one said “I think you are trying to convey the professional journalism that does commit itself the dictates of the formal profession is different than journalism that just means one writes journals. Yes there is a body of knowledge and practice principles that one one might say is Journalism (with a capital) but I do not see any distinction. Here is why…” I’d be more inclined to listen and try to understand.
Really – lately some of you have been too hard on your own and to others. You all have good thinks to say – smart, educational, etc. – in my humble opinion – less yelling would serve the interests of enlightenment. As for me – I may be wrong and I hold that possibility for myself – but I am not being irrational in my opinions .. and I have a point worthy of consideration. But I recognize that is my opinion too.
As a fanatical Botulist, I am grievously offended by this remark.
John #119 .. yeah you have a point re: my friend TM :-)
As to my intellectual dishonesty .. if you want and can try to help me understand how that is.. I do not feel or see it.. but I I am all ears. Not a challenge to you – just asking someone I respect on this blog to help me understand how you see it and why I should.
KG #123 – glad I was not drinking coffee at the time :-)
It wasn’t meant to argue any point. I’m just saying you’re not giving me any useful information by doing that, and in order to continue the argument, that information is needed. To me, “Atheism” and “atheism” mean exactly the same thing. They are the same word. What one person might mean by capitalizing the first letter is not the same as what another might mean by doing the same. So to explain what you actually mean by it, you need to spell it out, or else this conversation isn’t going to go anywhere.
Is liberalism more like atheism than botulism (or journalism)? Or is that also not relevant to the context of your claims about -isms?
[meta + OT]
concernedjoe @124, you’re asking for help?
Here: peruse the link I bothered to provide for you, and convince me that you have indeed perused it.
(A very easy way to do that is to critique your very own initial contention, in the light of that information)
John #127 I honestly do not see the conflict in what I say vis-a-vis your link. Indeed (and I may be that stupid) it seems to me to validate my point in the main.
OK – but let’s say the descriptive point # 3
“the action, conduct or condition of a class of persons, “behaving like a —” ((with overtones of the “terms for doctrines” sense below):) atheism (1587) …”
is right especially in the sense ‘”terms for doctrines” sense below’
Where does that lead? It still demands the question what body of doctrines or allegiances does atheism require other than “no god belief”. In the context of the theists that argue we atheists are just like theists I think they imply we have much more in our school of thought called atheism.
And overall – the link as I read it is consistent with what I feel – “-isms” as we are discussing have more to them e.g., as #2 “forming the name of a system, school of thought or theory based on the name of its subject or object or alternatively on the name of its founder ((when de-capitalized, these overlap with the generic “terms for doctrines” sense below, e.g. Liberalism vs. liberalism):). ” suggests to me.
John .. I may be wrong but be so kind to point something out to me a bit more definitively – obviously I still do not see it. Thanks.
Uh, hm. Ghostly people inside material crocoducks, I guess. Shit, I dunno.
*shotguns pot smoke to a bronze idol of the DDMFM*
concernedjoe:
You might want to read Greta Christina’s blog, right here on FtB, or PZ’s post on sacking the city of god . Atheism as a movement is just as real as Occupy or feminism or the teaparty, and it’s tiresome to hear endless wanking about how it’s just a lack of belief in gods. Go ahead, cling to dictionary atheism all you want. You’ve already lost this particular argument – Atheism is a movement. It’s being built from the ground up, by non-believers who want more than sitting alone not believing in gods. Unless you’re doing something other than fapping on about dictionary definitions and “official instantiations,” you might want to be a bit quieter about how well you think.
How about aneur-ism ? Oy vey
That’s okay. Crocoducks work in mysterious ways. What’s important is that we’re genuinely sharing our feelings and that we still have plenty of drugs.
Word.
#126 consciousness razor “Is liberalism more like atheism than botulism (or journalism)? Or is that also not relevant to the context of your claims about -isms?”
Let’s see where my thoughts
Liberalism (capital) implies to me a school of thought – one I believe that is extensive in scope and definition. More importantly it has several important criteria that defines a liberal as a liberal vis-a-vis the practice Liberalism. To me simply said Liberalism is a well formed philosophical concept with defining principles. I am not saying it is monolithic in nature – just that whatever version or degree it takes has somewhat of a formal practical philosophy with criteria (implied or explicit) to judge so-called followers. It is more than just an individual deciding “live and let live” so to speak. Liberalism has a scope, purpose and objectives.
Atheism (small or capital not important to me here) is not a construct of philosophy like that – indeed “Atheism” it has no scope, purpose or objective. It describes only a state of mind. Its criteria is singular and binary.
Botulism is not in the same class.
Journalism (capital) is a professional body of approaches, skills, practices and ethics. One can practice Journalism as a journalist (one who writes journals) .. or NOT. To answer your question I stand by my statement on a Machinist (amateur or paid). You are a Machinist (capital) when you follow the principles and practices of the profession – if you machine poorly consistently I have no doubt being around this for so many years other Machinists will say “he’s no Machinist”. It is a school of thought concerning conduct and schools. These things have scope, purpose and objectives. Again Atheism is not that; it has a criteria but its scope, purpose and objectives are non-existent.
The distinctions I draw are indeed germane to my points.
I hope I added something to your understanding of my reasoning – right or wrong conclusions different issue.
“conduct and schools. ” conduct and SKILLS. I write but obviously I am not a Writer :-).
Ah, yes, projection. I don’t know anyone, myself included, who isn’t guilty of a little projection now and then, but the religious right really seems to have tapped the motherlode.
My understanding is that Kim Jong-Il was a “promoter” of his brand of atheism to the people of NK but it seems fairly consistent with the idea that it was a tool to replace god with Dear Leader. But was that religion?
At his death Il-Sung was named Eternal President meaning even after his death he is still president. Now does that mean they believe he is actually still presiding or he’s just the eternal president in name? No clue.
So it’s hard for me to make a clear distinction between the hero worship of the Il-Sung, Jong-Il, and now presumably Jong-Un and an actual worship of a supernatural only deity. However, I do think that there is a difference and that Cults of Personality, while exhibiting many traits of religion lack the important overriding supernatural piece.
Mr. Mattir, MQ MRA Chick so you are saying the religionists are right? We are just like Catholics below the surface?
Explain to me where I sign up, what leaders I follow, how I should live, etc. in order to remain Atheist.
This has nothing to do with your lack of belief in deities, which is atheism. You are trying to artificially restrict the definition of atheism by your fiat, without even presenting an alternative. Just “I don’t like this”.
ConcernedJoe’s whole argument reminds me of the tedious arguments about elemental naming. Helium for example. The -ium ending implies a metal, not an inert gas. To be totally systematic, it would have to be renamed as helion. And iron a metal and not an inert gas, would have to be renamed as ironium (and a few others, like mercury and arsenic). But common practice and an extensive amount of literature make this unfeasible.
I never change without an alternative. And I don’t see an alternative on the table.
Except when it’s not.
There certainly is a growing Atheist Movement, but it is not synonymous with ‘atheism’.
I’d guess that still the majority of atheism is non-Movement atheism.
And of course there are deep rifts intraMovement as well. Maybe y’all should talk about the Atheist Movements instead.
Nerd “This has nothing to do with your lack of belief in deities, which is atheism. You are trying to artificially restrict the definition of atheism by your fiat, without even presenting an alternative. Just “I don’t like this”.”
Parsing this I am still confused
This has nothing to do with your lack of belief in deities [I agree], which is atheism [as per dictionary I agree].
But it has a lot to do with my rejection that atheism is a MOVEMENT akin to a religious movement. Atheists may make a crusade of whatever including rationality or for aliens or for big foot. Their crusades are not necessarily mine nor defining of atheism in the least.
It isn’t that I “just don’t like it” … atheism per se does not require any model for philosophical or practical I am familar with.
Again my state is not trivial and legit in my mind: Explain to me where I sign up, what leaders I follow, how I should live, etc. in order to remain Atheist. That is the issue here – we are being pigeonholed as just like religionists. Factually I do not agree with that in a sense of what is atheism or what makes an atheists.
Vocal atheists or crusaders are fine – but I see movements as unessential to being atheist.
However – one cannot be Catholic, nor a Machinist, nor a Liberal, nor a Communist without a statement and agreement on scope, purpose, and objective – and practicing something with the body of the subject.
Rev, I agree, this is a crucial question:
And I don’t know either, what exactly are the dogmas concerning that.
+++++
concernedjoe,
This is quite irrelevant to your point, if you have a point.
There are religions without record-keeping, leaders, or mores distinct from local custom: many indigenous religions still existing today.
There are nonreligions with record-keeping, leaders, and mores distinct from local custom: nation states.
The argument also remids me of Shiloh, who would only allow one definition for agnostic that, besides being presuppositional in the belief of a deity, essentially defined everybody as an agnostic. He simply ignored other defintions and common usage.
Nerd – there is a power to words. I am not being overly esoteric or didactic. I am simply saying I see no evidence that atheism is like other philosophical or theological schools. Its essential nature (atheism) is a singular binary criteria. Nothing more.
It is dangerous for atheists to conflate movements and motivating philosophy and meta models for thinking through things with atheism per se. It is not right essentially and it plays into the hands of the theists unnecessarily.
IMO the supernatural has nothing to do with religion. If it uses the same mechanisms and psychological triggers as a religion it’s basically the same thing. See for example business cults like Amway that swap economic promises for supernatural beliefs.
“You guys totally suck! And you’re exactly the same as us!”
You don’t need to remind me that people routinely confuse the way things are with the way they ought to be. Whether or not it’s popular or committed by authorities, it isn’t a valid move.
Pit .. come on.. I said “.. how I should live, etc.”
Sorry it was not as obvious I thought it was. Let me try this – what is the criteria for being atheist verses (by nature and scope) the criteria for being .. pick a religion.
No fair saying just I am a Catholic because I just haven’t removed my name from the rolls.
Also what are the scope, purpose, objectives, and practices for being atheist? Religions have these things in some form. Atheism does not – or can you state them.
I cannot believe my point is missed – not that you may disagree – but that “if you have a point” is appropriate. I am not being sensitive – just puzzled as to why.
#148 CR .. what I am saying is the if Atheism is a religion then other Atheists will have a criteria to judge others that claim to be Atheist. I believe our Atheism criteria is singular and binary.
Other things like religious and professional schools of thought have a much more complex and textured and multifaceted criteria.
Other things (to which Atheism is being compared) have scope, purpose, objectives. Where does Atheism have these things? Are you saying Atheism is like religions?
Furthermore CR .. things like religion and professional schools of thought are all about what ought to be. Atheism is not about the ought but the is based on evidence or lack there of – or whatever.
Let’s rise above opinion, then. I have citations which show that study of religion is understood to essentially be study of concepts of the supernatural: Barrett, Boyer.
This is not an ideal counterexample, since Amway is religious in the explicitly supernatural sense. I have no objection to the claim that Amway is a religious sect, a subset of Christianity.
Displaying a poster of eyes induces cooperative behavior in people nearby. This appears to activate our hyperactive agent-detection device, for the purpose of social control. Those are the same mechanisms and psychological triggers as religion.
From the rest of your #149, it appears you think you are arguing with people who are saying that atheism is essentially a religion, and you disagree with this claim.
I think you are arguing past people who do not believe that atheism is essentially a religion, yet you appear not to notice this.
But yeah I am having a bit of a hard time following you. Maybe it’s me.
@SGBM
I mean that as far as I’m concerned something that puts up the social controls and stuff of religion is basically a religion/psuedoreligion. Some political groups or the like can be cult like. Maybe it’s better to rope religion into “authoritarian social control systems’ or something like that.
The fact that there’s an atheist movement, in which people actively “fight” for causes that matter to them as atheists, does not make it a religion, dogmatic, give it an “official” party line, etc. I agree that non-belief in gods doesn’t mean you participate in such a movement, but a movement is not a religion. Are you trying to make the meanings of these words more or less ambiguous?
Right an if someone were doing that to promote obedience of loyalty to the organization I would say that it’s starting to creep into cult like behavior.
Also thanks for the link, I had always wondered if the original experiment actually was due to the eyes promoting honesty, or if the eyes just drew attention to the donation box that people otherwise might have missed. This provides more evidence to the former.
There is an unoffical “party line” of the atheist movement though, one that seems to be an emergent property from consensus/demographics of the group. And much of the infighting is arguing for the hearts and minds that make this party line. It actually is annoying to me when people basically demand that we change the party line for conservatives because they feel isolated. Boohoo.
pit – probably me – sorry
I guess given my lack of communication skills let me try this
(1) I don’t believe atheism per se has the form and fit of religions, or even profession or other schools of thought in any essential way [I think most atheists here agree]
(2) I think it is (while definitionally correct) misleading to use atheism as opposed to our using we are atheists. One implies to most people that people FOLLOW something like religion (i.e., atheism) while the other more correctly states what is the fact – we do not believe in god(s) – period. [here others disagree and consider my power of words fears dishonest or unwarranted]
No shit
No one implies that there is an emergent consensus on what issues are important to a general collection of atheists interested in promoting atheism into the public discussion. Saying that Atheism on the whole isn’t pro-choice is just dishonest.
This doesn’t parse. As the Mythies say, “there’s your problem.” Movement? No. Just people getting together, like Sci-Fi fans at conventions. No goals, no agenda. You seem to be trying to invent a movement where there isn’t one.
Yes you are. Show me you aren’t by acknowledging all defintions. And what would you replace the term atheism with, that would be recognized by everybody and allow historical perspective?
#159 Ing .. Saying that Atheism on the whole isn’t pro-choice is just dishonest.
Explain please.
Did I ay atheists cannot have movements and causes? or make choices? or not have a unitary life philosophy??
All I am saying is none of this does or will define essential atheism to use the word in question.
People that do not believe in the existence of god(s) are atheists period. I am wrong or dishonest here?
Ing,
First counterexample that comes to mind: modern Satanism, in both atheistic and theistic variants, is radically opposed to social controls.
Most individualist New Age stuff, like solitary Wicca, or Celestine Prophecy fandom, also lacks such social controls, though they’re not typically so anti- as Satanists.
It seems your classification would mean these religions are not religions. This is contra the typical understanding off the word.
Agreed; Rev and I earlier were discussing how Kim Il Sungism is clearly at minimum a cult of personality.
I wouldn’t object to this usage because in this context, “cult of personality”, the term “cult” has uncontroversially acquired a clearly secular meaning.
But what if it’s just used to reduce littering? Then it’s still using the HADD. I know why I don’t consider this religion — simply because there is no explicit claim that the poster is an agent — but I don’t think your schema adds up, since not all religions are about social control.
Glad to assist.
I am not inventing a movement – but others may see one. I am not necessarily against them at all.
What I am saying is that it is obscuring to say “I follow Atheism” as opposed to “I am atheist” or “I do not believe in the supernatural”. And at a grander scale – “we are atheists”
Tell me – do you say “I follow atheism” or “believe in atheism” and if you do does that not set a mind (especially a non-atheist mind) to do some false equivalency.
I am not saying we should not promote science, or advocate for peace, or whatever. I am saying when it comes to your being atheist be clear as to what you you do or don’t do in your speech. I for one cannot use atheism in a sentence to not imply at the least that “I FOLLOW…”. And I think the baggage of “to follow” is unnecessary.
We atheists .. I am atheist .. there are atheist movements to promote science of example.. all OK to me and implicitly much more exact and rigorous essentially.
Something I read somewhere maybe 15 years ago… I’ll look for something on teh intarwebz. But it’s not a surprising claim at all – for China, where apotheosis of historical people is commonplace. Matteo Ricci became Li Madou, god of clocks.
Admittedly, I don’t remember if the party ever explicitly supported such practices. I suppose that’s the actual point here.
They claim so (“scientific socialism” and all), but they don’t, with their version of historical inevitabilities for instance – that’s as supernatural as karma – and of course all the other stuff: dogma that provides exactly one answer to every question, infallible scriptures, infallible leaders, schisms with persecution of the resulting heretics, and so on and so forth.
All that’s absent is an afterlife; only Kim Il-sung has so far got one. (I don’t think Jong-il is still in any offices.)
I mention karma because I’m under the vague impression that some believers in it don’t notice that it’s supernatural and believe it’s a law of physics or something.
Lots of religious details exist around the Kims. Jong-il was officially born on a mountain that just so happens to be traditionally sacred. In well-documented reality, he was born in exile in Siberia.
You’re awesome.
X-)
You know, if Pharyngula were in German, we wouldn’t have this discussion at all. :-)
Okay. I can see how that’s plausible. I don’t see that there’s much could be done about it, though.
One of the usual implications in English is that atheists believe in atheism. So while someone who’s very conscientious about their own usage of only one term and not the other — perhaps yourself — could probably prime immediate listeners to think of the connotations you list, it’s going to get out of hand pretty quickly as the listeners turn around and use the other inflection for their own sentences.
So I think I get it, but to me it’s just not worth the effort. I will note, though, that I think people typically are more likely to say “I am an atheist” rather than “I believe in atheism”, not necessarily for your reason but because one has fewer syllables. I imagine that’s the best you can really hope for.
I actually have a friend whose father was Double Diamond in Amway and from what I can tell they certainly worshiped one thing
The dollar.
pit thanks for getting back –
I agree somewhat a fight with a windmill
I hope at least someone keeps my concern in mind at least in unfriendly settings. The politics of language.
Ok I think I got it. Most religions are cults…not all cults are religions. I think cults are effectivly what the problem is with religion in that regards.
What is misleading about it if you agree that it’s correct? People are misleading themselves by making unwarranted assumptions about -isms. So? You could say liberals “follow” liberalism. That doesn’t make liberalism like a religion, likewise with feminism, Darwinism or similar -isms. I don’t think we need to be so cautiously paranoid in our use of terminology that it’s guided by the worst kind of sophistry which might be applied to it.
This is a pretty good argument, in that it’s fun and challenging to take down.
The difference is that historical inevitability is based on a flawed but clearly articulated mathematics — dialectics being a school of logic.
If asked to articulate how historical inevitability would happen, the dialectical materialist will say essentially that people talk to each other, certain ideas provoke other ideas, economic conditions produce inter-class tension, and certain ideas widely spread during certain tensions will incite revolution. But it’s just about people talking to each other. It’s all clearly naturalistic, with no hidden assumptions, only some incorrect assumptions regarding the essentially dialectical character of memetics.
But if asked to articulate karma, the believer must, at some fine-grained level of detail, resort to spooky action at a distance, at minimum some accounting system by which the universe keeps track of morality, a function of mind.
Thus karma is necessarily supernaturalistic even if the believer has not thought it through yet, while historical inevitability is not.
There’s nothing essentially religious about this stuff. This is just how humans solve nontrivial disputes when they don’t have empiricism. Dogmatic religion is what happens when that fundamentally human strategy gets applied to the question of
spookymindful action at a distance.I find this pedantic concern boring. Atheist is derived from theist. Both have -isms listed in the dictionary, and in common usage. No amount of pendantic non-usage of atheism will remove it from the English language. And no matter how careful we are in our prose, those listening to us will still make the connections and conclusions. A futile idea.
Ing,
I know of some other studies which show that the former is probably occurring (not to say that the latter isn’t also). I gotta run but I’ll try and remember to give you some links later on TET.
I guess I am a science fiction atheist. My strange quasi-socialist fundamentalist christian belief that I briefly held as a teen was challenged and overcome partially by the humanist and atheist themes that we part of the novels of Isaac Asimov and Arthur C Clark.
Or would this make me a nerd atheist?
#169 CR
Fair enough
But I have one thing that still nags me; all of the things you mentioned (You could say liberals “follow” liberalism. That doesn’t make liberalism like a religion, likewise with feminism, Darwinism or similar -isms.) have a body of principles and criteria and prescriptions of some sort for acting. They are things you can FOLLOW (I am sorry I capitalize but I feel it is an important word in the discussion). There are essential things to FOLLOW.
One has nothing to FOLLOW nor to PRACTICE in essential atheism – unless they unnecessarily and to me incorrectly expand the concept of atheism into a philosophy of life in some fashion. You can pile on things like Humanism for example. I call it conflating and dangerous – my bad I guess.
Liberalism just like Communism becomes a religion (or like one) when its FOLLOWERS accept its principles and practices blindly and “religiously”. It becomes especially religious like to the point of being a religion when it becomes dogma and doctrine that must be followed by State edict (Communism to wit).
I know others above are arguing otherwise.
To me if quacks like a duck walks like a duck it is a duck. I can believe in a god without religion. Something can be a religion for all intents and purposes without invoking the supernatural.
I know I will be accused of whatever. And I see and appreciate arguments above. But that is how I see it.
I’m not even remotely well-versed in it, but the Hegelian version seems like a borderline case, if not straightforwardly supernaturalistic. As I understand it, he sort of anthropomorphized history as an idealized “spirit” and imposed a teleology on it, in the sense that “progress” is happening intentionally (as well as inevitably).
Not believing in gods has an effect on how you live your life, doesn’t it? I’m not saying there is or ought to be any single conclusion (or set of conclusions) that are entailed by your non-belief in gods, just that it isn’t completely irrelevant to everything that you do. For one thing, you wouldn’t have been commenting here for so long if it didn’t matter to you at all, even though you claim to be a strict “dictionary atheist.” You can’t avoid having a network of beliefs and actions which relate to one another in some way (whether or not they’re internally consistent). At least, I don’t see how you could fit that into a realistic psychological description.
#176 CR – you are spot on – I am a product of nature and nurture and that includes one conclusion lending itself to another etc.
My being atheist certainly profoundly sets the stage for how I look at life – I think positively – and others here feel so too regarding themselves.
Have a good one and thanks for the back and forth.
How exactly does this this concern about atheists and atheism actually change how one behaves in real life?
I know that being an atheist and engaging in discourse with other atheists about values, behaviors, and which character in Avengers we like best DOES change my behavior. This discussion, on the other hand, strikes me as quite a lot of fapping.
Of course, I am basically a muddle-headed pragmatist…
Whether he meant to do this is disputed, but even if not, Hegel could fall into this trap easily because he believed in the Christian God. He thus didn’t have a strong motivation to avoid attributing mind to non-persons.
In their critique, The German Ideology, Marx and Engles lay out their strategy for avoiding this:
«In direct contrast to German philosophy which descends from heaven to earth, here we ascend from earth to heaven. That is to say, we do not set out from what men say, imagine, conceive, nor from men as narrated, thought of, imagined, conceived, in order to arrive at men in the flesh. We set out from real, active men, and on the basis of their real life-process we demonstrate the development of the ideological reflexes and echoes of this life-process. The phantoms formed in the human brain are also, necessarily, sublimates of their material life-process, which is empirically verifiable and bound to material premises. Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness, thus no longer retain the semblance of independence. They have no history, no development; but men, developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter, along with this their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking. Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life. In the first method of approach the starting-point is consciousness taken as the living individual; in the second method, which conforms to real life, it is the real living individuals themselves, and consciousness is considered solely as their consciousness.
This method of approach is not devoid of premises. It starts out from the real premises and does not abandon them for a moment. Its premises are men, not in any fantastic isolation and rigidity, but in their actual, empirically perceptible process of development under definite conditions. As soon as this active life-process is described, history ceases to be a collection of dead facts as it is with the empiricists (themselves still abstract), or an imagined activity of imagined subjects, as with the idealists.»
Anyone who pursues anything zealously is by definition, a fanatic. A Zealot.
I’ve witnessed any number of atheists and evangelicals who were strident, bellicose or condescending in their advocacy. All were equally irritating and ineffective, trying to whip that horse into drinking. Often they’re recently come to their convictions.
I’m an atheist. An Atheist Movement™ can do nothing for me.
#179 Mr. Mattir, MQ MRA Chick
The issue is important to some of us because
(1) As atheists it is important that we define ourselves correctly and unambiguously – and more importantly do not let others with agendas negative to the concept of a World without superstition and fairy tales define us. I believe that “need” is the crux of PZ’s post for instance.
(2) the issue of “-ism” is important to the definition of what is an atheist which I say simply it is no belief in god(s)/supernatural. So that leaves the negative “-ism” of Atheism pretty vacuous. My point above was that most “-isms” have more meat on the bones. They have purpose and objective; they instruct and dictate to promote, define, measure thoughts and behaviors. I do not believe Atheism as an “-ism” does these things really – so it leaves room for us and others to define not only who we are but what we ought to do as Atheists.
Filling that vacuum correctly is important (for the sake of our place and status in the World). Nietzsche and others recognized this (at least for individuals and by extension society) I believe and I believe he was right basically.
Filling that vacuum is essential to closing the disadvantage a godless viewpoint has in a World used to the certainty and comfort of the god industry.
Some want to go to war head on to defend and hold up the holy grail of reason and beat the godiots into submission. Some want to establish more secular (atheist actually) but church-like constructs of societal counsel and support to attract more “converts”. Some want to remain in the shadows. Some want a mixture.
I believe it is a mixture of carrots and sticks. Don’t exactly know how or what method and means and wagon to hitch up is exactly right.
But I think it is important to define the construct of “-ism” we want and then fill it with data and programs we want so to speak.
People who want medals for their apathy are even more fucking annoying.
the bold bit QFFT
concernedjoe:
Shorter version: you have an issue with the suffix
-ismbut not with the suffix-ist, though they are closely related and serve similar functions.concernedjoe:
You may have such a vacuum, I don’t.
(Why do you seek ‘oughts’ when none such are necessary?)
John Morales #185
I knew when I thought about it people will think I need an “ought” [I think you meant here the comfort and solace of religion, god, its institutions, as that was the context of my comment that you referenced).
FUCK NO — John I am with you like 100% – I for myself (important – myself) scream “You may have such a vacuum, I don’t.”!
I may be hallucinating – and I also ain’t a clear writer especially rushing in between daily activities – but let me try to be clear:
I think the purpose of PZ’s post and I believe others here in discussion think so also (based on their comments) that
(1) we (I mean those Atheists that actively want to steer society from the foolishness of the god industry which includes me) are in a battle for the hearts and minds of people (to be brief I’ll leave it at that).
(2) in any such battle one has to assess the drivers of the behaviors you want to change. I from my own experiences, readings, and evidence I see think a lot of people’s clinging to god is not a true intellectual belief in the deity as described. Rather it stems from:
(a) cultural identification and acceptance
(b) social support and comfort from the group and god institutions
(c) a degree of superiority and other positive reinforcements that are afforded to those “god fearing church goers” by society at large
(d) an inner feeling of superiority that accrues to being “on god’s side” – a feeling fostered by dogma and doctrine and church teaching – and importantly by self type of person you are
(e) a fear of the unknown – of losing bearings and moral compass without the dictates of god via the church – even if really you know deep down intellectually the god stuff is mostly “magic
fluff”
Even for less RWA types but certainly for RWA – and certainly for parts of this Country (USA) – the church and god play a big role in their lives. And the churches know how to pull the strings. And these people (especially the more RWA types) WILL feel a vacuum and also hate giving up the benefits god membership brings.
So how do we win this complex political battle – political in sense of vying for resources, prestige and support. I was saying my comments above in the context of strategizing the battle.
Please read my comments again in this light. Thank you and sorry for any confusion.
And John Morales #184
“-ism” is not the same as “-ist”. The former is applied to concepts and systems, the latter to people.
For example one can truthfully say “I believe in Socialism” (in private perhaps in this example) but because of whatever character trait or internal or external driver be an vehement and poster-child Capitalist and Capitalist legislation advocate.
Now to my problem with our use of Atheism which to me means
“In broad sense the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist”
to describe us is that it seems impossible to construct a clear, rigorous, and unambiguous sentence for ourselves around it. Since Atheism carries nothing but the negative proposition it is not a rigorous philosophical position.
As I said “Atheism” lacks purpose, objectives, models for action and thinking, etc. There is nothing to bite into – strictly on face value definition. Saying “I believe in Atheism” may suggest “I am an Atheist” but that is all. Saying “I follow Atheism” seems to beg “so what does that mean – what entity and what prescriptions do you follow?” Atheism by definition does not make these things evident.
Now remember our context – I am strategizing about how to win hearts and minds. We need a counterpoint to the god industry not to Theism. So we have to define more about what we offer as a philosophy. We do this among ourselves. Harder to do outside especially in USA.
Personally I think we need to say things along the lines (but not necessarily this) of “I am an Atheist who believes in the power of the scientific method to answer .. blah blah blah” because Atheism is to vacuous to say much to win the battle.
That is my problem. Others think I am silly. So be it.
In fact, of course, consciousness is an aspect of life, so the above statement is nonsense taken literally. But in “dialectical materialism”, the old idealism of Hegel shows through, as history is interpreted as having the form of an argument. Turning Hegel’s nonsense upside down just produces upside down nonsense.
Why would anyone believe in Atheism? You conclude atheism, due to lack of evidence for deities, you don’t believe it in. Belief is required when there is no evidence. This has puzzled me your whole argument.
What about Humanism? I dislike the whole “I hate this word”, without providing a substitute. Just don’t go “brights” on us.
#189 Nerd
Do this for me – since I am being told that Atheism is perfectly OK to use – use it in a sentence to describe yourself. I am interested in verbs. People use believe, follow, am proponent of. None of this seem right to me. You for instance agree with me on “believe”.
Thanks.
Nerd – appreciate your comments – thanks for your taking the time
One can say “I follow/believe/am proponent of Humanism” as far as I am concerned and have some rigor in the statement by definition.
Humanism is a well formed “-ism” not just a negative proposition like Atheism is.
Hope I am clear.
Nerd I agree with you that a substitute is necessary – I say for purposes of the battle.
We cannot be amorphous and win the target group over. We need more meat as to what we are and what we offer. That is how it goes for battles for hearts and minds.
Do we define our own “-ism”? use another like Humanism? Scientism? eclectic mixtures? Do we just ridicule, or just rant and rave?
Do we just use logic lessons and facts as a club?
I don’t know exactly – I just know we cannot just leave it to the word Atheism if we go outside our own borders.
PS Nerd – Faith is required when evidence is lacking. Belief includes things from Faith and things from Evidence.
hmm, atheism as a movement? Not so much imho. I see atheists as a subset of a group of people who value the role of science and seek the the banishment of religious dogma and other irrational lines of thought when it comes to public policy making, in the country in which they live and abroad.
Sure there are atheists that simply seek the banishment of religion period, I don’t think that’s possible or necessary or even predicts the ultimate goal, a free society with a standard of living that provides for leisure time sufficient to live happy and fulfilled lives.
At the end of the day, this all boils down to one thing, what laws are being made that affect the populace and what schools of thought are those laws being based on? Science and reason or dogma and ideology?
There is a clear dividing line here and almost all atheists, with the exceptions of atheist liberturds and MRA’s, will almost always find themselves on the same side of the political spectrum in that we want a secular democracy and not a theocracy; we want public policy when it comes to scientific questions like vaccine safety and global warming to be reflective of the science and not people’s opinions.
Outside of that, I could give a shit what people believe and bow to no leader of any movement known as atheism, but rather appreciate the work of a great many atheists and skeptics when it comes to fighting the battles that I think matter.
Sorry, faith is only required when evidence is lacking. With evidence, one obtains conclusions. Which is why one can’t have faith in Atheism. For almost all gnu atheists, it is an evidence based conclusion, not an article of faith.
Sciencetism is a word invented by the religious specifically for equating science with their religion. It can’t be used.
erikthebassist – a cogent viewpoint IMHO. One of the camps I alluded to way above.
But also one can cogently say in counterpoint that more organization and coherency of our definition and objectives and method and means are necessary to fight a battle with such entrenched and organized opponents.
I BTW agree that Theism/Deism is not the fundamental problem. That is I agree with this for myself “I could give a shit what people believe [assume you mean god belief] and [shifted gears to this] bow to no leader of any movement known as atheism”.
But I do believe religion (the god industry) is a BIG problem and that is evidenced in so many ways. I agree with you that religion[-ish things] – certainly for RWA types – may always play a role in society. The question is how to sublimate and substitute.
nerd #195 100% agree
nerd sorry hit submit too early.
My comment on faith was a statement to clarify your “Belief is required when there is no evidence.” which I thought was just a inadvertent faux pas on your part but wasn’t sure.
The question is how to sublimate
and substitute.fify
#199 erikthebassist
My sentence wasn’t robust enough. Cannot blame you for thinking I was redundantly using words. I do not think I was or am.
My more complete thought briefly and hope one gets the gist:
Sublimate (this applies to people) in the sense of transforming the negative energies and impulses of religion-ists toward the positive aims for instance to which you alluded e.g., free society with a standard of living that provides for leisure time sufficient to live happy and fulfilled lives.
Substitute (this applies to institutions) in the sense of replacing the old dogma and doctrine with rational philosophy, logic, facts, and also replacing the church infrastructure that brings comfort and other support to many with even better secular stuff.
If you were simply correcting a perceived redundancy hope this clarifies.
If you disagree that “we” should substitute anything fair enough; I just do not think that is how it is done; for instance I think one of the major reasons other societies are less religion driven is because religion is less necessary in people’s lives.
concernedjoe:
Bold claim.
What does, say, Australia have as substitute for religion that the USA doesn’t?
(No, Aussie Rules ain’t it! ;) )
[meta]
concernedjoe, you amuse me because you’re basically parroting the HCP and kinda remind me of Figdor.
John – not a substitute in a religious sense but in a social sense. If you have ever traveled in the USA to more rural areas for instance you’d find much is centered around church – help and support etc. This makes contact with the religious stuff more prevalent. My premise is the more “socialized” countries are more prone to a drift from the church because there are substitutes for socialized help and activities perhaps. Maybe I am wrong on that score but seems that way – and I do know much is church oriented in parts of this Country – indeed without the church many people would have nothing.
As to your comment on “parroting the HCP and kinda remind me of Figdor.” I truly have never considered or studied that or John. Indeed I just looked it up to see what you were talking about. I parrot nothing.. I may be wrong but I am wrong on my own.
Finally glad I amuse you – I’ll take that as a compliment.
John PS :-) – I enjoy your comments in general BTW
concernedjoe:
So… religion is more necessary because it’s more prevalent?
I am aware of this; thus, my question to you, above.
I apologise for my poor phrasing that intimated innuendo, which was careless inadvertence.
I should have written something like ‘is similar to’ rather than parroting.
—
[OT]
Thanks for the flattery; in my estimation, you’ve still got a bit to go to get to where you were before your little episode on that other blog.
(You are way ahead of many others, though)
[OT]
<sigh>
Not ‘flattery’, ‘compliment’.
(Perhaps my subconscious is telling me something?)
[OT]
OK, I think I give up for the night.
So very sorry, concernedjoe!
I have confused you with Improbable Joe, and wrote without fact checking.
KG,
:) They mean that people’s ideas are determined by the socioeconomic conditions they find themselves in, rather than those conditions being determined by the way human brains work. It’s too strong a claim, being apparently absolute — but a weaker version of it might be reminiscent of your own views on “human nature”, or the lack thereof.
I agree with this. I think “as history is interpreted as having the form of an argument” addresses the same “incorrect assumptions regarding the essentially dialectical character of memetics.”
My point was only that an argument is still a naturalistic phenomenon.
John “So… religion is more necessary because it’s more prevalent?”
Let me be perrrfectly clear: I do not think religion is in REALITY necessary at all – and certainly not because so many others seem to feel it is for them in their lives.
I just look at the reality that there is a rational (it is not irrational) for some people in some circumstances to be lead to feel that way. When the prevailing infrastructure for support and counsel in your environment is institutionalized religion I suspect many would be drawn to they feeling of need.
I see this in the rural USA (especially in South) in which I am firsthand familiar. I could also argue the case in certain more impoverished traditional areas of Italy (again especially in the South). But I am NOT authoritatively saying all this specifically – but in general I think my observations bear out my feeling.
In a political argument perceptions of the people we want to convince are often the “facts” in the matter.
Hope you had good sleep :-)
Those assumptions are clearly enough wrong that only a supernatural force could make the world work inevitably this way. The devil, or god, is in the details.
Good that you bring up spooky action at a distance. I was about to compare it to gravity. If you don’t know particle physics, you can’t tell if keeping track of mass is fundamentally different from keeping track of injustice; “what goes up must come down” is just too easy to interpret metaphorically.
Given today’s knowledge of physics, only a supernatural mind could keep track of justice. Given today’s knowledge of history, and most likely that of the mid-19th century, only a supernatural mind could make sure that the Marxist likelihoods turn into inevitabilities. That’s my claim.
But I am talking about the strong version, about what became dogma in… I’m trying to be careful… Leninist countries. Taking this upside-down nonsense (thanks, KG!) for granted on clearly insufficient evidence is faith and implicitly assumes a supernatural mind.
I was going to say “but there, people have the Mafia as an alternative”, but the Mafia always tries to portray itself as deeply pious…
No, they aren’t. Simply being quite wrong does not necessarily invoke supernaturalism. If I tell you that mixing hydrogen and helium at room temperature will produce lithium, I’m spectacularly wrong, but there’s nothing supernatural about it, and upon questioning it may become apparent how I came to be so wrong.
I have some awareness of how to do these historical inevitability argument; though I have never believed it I have had, I think, sufficient contact with people who do. If you want me to play Lenin’s advocate so you can see how it plays out, I’m game. Just point to a gap, and I’ll show you how there needn’t be any disembodied mind in it.
What you are evidently doing is failing to work through how someone could make these errors, and thus attributing their error to supernaturalism as that’s something you’re more familiar with.
Yes, you can. Morality is necessarily a function of mind. It’s philosophically incoherent in a universe which does not contain any thinking beings, because morality is all about the actions of thinking beings.
However, we can understand that mass would exist in a universe without thinking beings, even without knowing how gravity works. Mass is mysterious without particle physics, but it is not necessarily about minds; morality is necessarily about minds.
Dialectics is not metaphorical.
Well then maybe I see your misunderstanding. The claims of dialetical materialism aren’t about “making sure” that inevitabilities do in fact occur.
Dialectics works like this: if someone with idea A hears about idea B, the person will try to integrate (synthesize) the two, and there is a limited number of ways for those ideas to be synthesized (here is a failure of the imagination, but failures of the imagination are not necessarily invocations of supernaturalism). Sometimes just one way, C. When there’s just one way, inevitability is trivial. But maybe there are multiple ways, C and D. Okay, but when somebody with idea D encounters idea E, this will produce idea C (again because I can’t imagine anything else happening; failure of the imagination). Because there are multiple paths but they end up at C, C is said to be “over-determined”.
So that’s dialectics. And dialectical materialism is the claim that the impetus for new ideas is socioeconomic condition, specifically that any particular socioeconomic order rises to a state of full efficiency (meanwhile producing certain theses in people of certain classes) while producing externalities (more or less; that’s not the word but I forget what it is, and this is very similar) which will contribute to its declining efficiency and eventual downfall (antitheses; wrt capitalism, the resentment of the lower classes). [The observation of the fall of feudalism and its replacement by capitalism was the proximate cause for these notions about efficiency and its effects.]
There’s no need for “making sure” that one thing leads to another. It’s just that the historical possibilities are ultimately very limited, because economic possibilities are very limited, resulting one way or another in over-determination.
As my explanation above shows, it’s not faith, only a lack of imagination. If I think I’m rolling a d10 but I’m really rolling a d12, I will mistakenly be certain that there are only ten possible outcomes, but that’s not because of faith, and certainly not supernaturalism. It’s just a mistake.
No. It could be a rigorous position (depending on one’s reasons for non-belief), but it’s not a complete position, in the sense of an all-encompassing worldview that answers any question one might dream up. But is any worldview complete?
There are lot of things that have nothing to do with whether or not gods exist, so belief or non-belief in gods can’t guide one toward particular conclusions about those things. This isn’t because atheism is a “negative” proposition. The “positive” belief in a god also doesn’t lead you to many other values or beliefs, because a god’s existence is simply irrelevant to them. However, there are some conclusions one can make if you believe gods exist or don’t exist — the issue isn’t completely irrelevant to every other. I thought you had already agreed to that.
David #211 yes “Pious” for Mafia but this Sicilian boy must say the Camorra is just a bunch of barbarian heathens!
CR #213 “However, there are some conclusions one can make if you believe gods exist or don’t exist — the issue isn’t completely irrelevant to every other. I thought you had already agreed to that.”
Yes I did and do ..
I am saying that Atheism is by primary definition only a negative proposition. In similar vein I would say Theism is only a positive proposition. One can heap loads of stuff around the “no-god” position and likewise for the “god(s)” position.
But one could (and it is possible) believe in a god and thus be Theist yet they could hold all the operational philosophy an Atheist holds and non-other for all practical purposes.
And likewise vice versa.
Just for example: a Theist could simply be operationally a Humanist (follow Humanism) and an Atheist could simply be a Quaker Friend (follow Quakerism).
Their Atheism/Theism is unperturbed. Neither demands anything but meeting a singular binary criteria.
1) You’re wriggling: you said, specifically, “Leninism and its descendants”. Now at a minimum, that must include Lenin’s own belief system. If that’s not Leninism, nothing is.
2) Even if you could show (which you certainly have not done) that Leninism logically entails the existence of a supernatural mind, that would not establish that Leninism was a religion, because quite clearly, Lenin did not draw that conclusion from the beliefs he did espouse (and nor, by the way, have any of his followers – the nonsense about Kim Il Sung or Mao’s book certainly does not follow from Leninism).
Just like being feminist or anti-feminist only concerns a single issue: whether or not we should treat women as equal to men.
That doesn’t lead me to be wary of feminism while calling myself a feminist (because -isms are bad?), or to say things like “There is no Feminism” or “Feminism is not a rigorous philosophical position.”
That works as a good comparison. After all, the US South has embraced the GOP as an alternative. And the GOP, like the mafia, tries to portray itself as deeply pious.
#216 CR
I see a qualitative and quantitative differences a (excuse my loss of other words) a meta model level.
Feminism has a scope, purpose, objectives, implies organization, aims, behavior, and complex criteria – assumed or implied, homogeneously or not, they exist – to judge “true feminists” among the circle who claim they are true to Feminism.
I personally feel I am a feminist to the degree to which I think you would judge me based on your definition I read in your comment .. but I am very wary of Feminism as a “collection of movements”, do not subscribe to all their aims, purposes, methods, means.
Granted Feminism is amorphous enough that in its plasticity I might be able to shape a philosophy for support and action that fits my feminist self mental model – and my actions BTW.
But even there with enough support (which I probably would not get from those that are really defining Feminism – but if my model did) that model in action would just be one of many collection of movements that fall under the umbrella of Feminism.
Any movement under this umbrella would have to pass muster in some complex way in some hierarchical fashion. Test would not be singular and then binary; the “-ism” movement would have to somehow define how we walk the walk rigorously.
Again I stand by my statement that “Atheism” has no requirement but one, demands no membership in a collective, and has no scope, no purpose, no objectives, implies no organization, no aims, no behavior, and only one criterion to judge “True Atheists”.
CR let me try to say what I just said more simply (but differently).
Concerning itself with one issue is not the same as asking one question.
You said “being feminist or anti-feminist only concerns a single issue: whether or not we should treat women as equal to men”
which I take that you mean:
“a person is feminist or not-feminist if they believe we should treat women as equal to men or not”
to which I say insufficient and incomplete vis-a-vis adherence to Feminism as defined:
As opposed to this:
What do you mean by “complex” and “hierarchical”?
It’s either true or false that men and women should be treated as equals — that’s singular and binary, is it not? When you simplify it down that much, so is the existence or nonexistence of gods. I see no substantial difference in them, and I also don’t see how it’s supposed to be relevant to anything else you’ve been saying.
I’m sure you could raise all sorts of complications (though I don’t know how you’d fit in “hierarchy”) which are entailed by the basic feminist position: how we can and should achieve equality, how it relates to other intellectual and social movements, and so on. How it works in practice, how it might be organization, its context in society — that’s all important but it’s separate from the basic concept itself, meaning we shouldn’t conflate them.
And we could do the exact same thing with atheism. Does atheism mean you only disbelieve in a monotheistic god, or does it involve many other supernatural entities or related metaphysical concepts? The God of Spinoza, for example: where does it fit into atheism? Or how about panpsychism or the Tao of Taoism, or whatever-the-fuck? We could go on and on with many more tedious variations that some “atheists” actually believe, their different degrees of certainty, their different reasons for believing as they do, whether they’re consistent with other non-theological issues, etc. It’s also debatable what kind of ethical implications non-belief might have, if we should care about ethics at all, if atheists ought to have their own social structures, if we ought to try to protect our legal rights, blah blah blah. The point is that you can make it sound like “does god exist?” is a very simple yes-or-no question, but it’s just as complicated as “should women be treated the same as men?” if you’re taking both questions seriously.
CR – I hear your blood pressure rising – I also hear what you say and I’m trying to process it – have a drink with me – give it some time. Perhaps try to read what I said in terms of the definitions:
Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women. In addition, feminism seeks to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist is a “person whose beliefs and behavior are based on feminism.”
As opposed to this:
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.
You may still disagree with my conclusions but that’s OK – you may see angles I do not and I’ll learn from you. But rest assured I am listening.
As to hierarchical … by way of some analogy there are state laws that define at a level (call it lower – but reverse hierarchy – that is bottoms up) corporation rules, regulators and behavior — with criteria. This perhaps the basic premise dogma and doctrine of basic Feminism. There are many corporations – they can have their own and different charters – they impose another higher level of on the pyramid – but that level must somehow conform and complement the base level – like organizations and people committed within the Feminism umbrella, etc., etc.
I doubt that.
Probably not until you said this.
Still not.
concernedjoe, still on about this?
Without reiterating its linguistic basis, it works logically too.
theist:theism::atheist:atheism(They’re complementary terms)
Wow! You’re an asshole!
*hands “I’m an asshole and proud” badge to Concernedjoe*
Wear this with pride
Geez guys I said “CR – I hear your blood pressure rising ” in a friendly fashion … within a context to just say I’m not fighting I’m trying to bounce opinions back and forth. Now I’m a asshole?!?!?
I tried to present an opinion – I offered my efforts to to couch my opinions best I could in a non-formal discussion in the context of facts (like the definition of terms for Atheism and others) and to logically present my concerns with examples.
I took the time because I believe we have for too long we’ve losing a battle and it is about time we forge a more effective political battle plan. PZ’s post somehow inspired me to take the time.
You all may not see any problem I do re: politics of language – you all may not agree with my logic or conclusions – you all may see my writing as imperfect in form and fit. But then lay out your cases more for me so I can see such too. One way is to try to play back as an advocate what you think I am saying to ensure understanding and to help you think about it – and then maybe form an counter argument from my own viewpoint.
OK I am a washed up old soldier. But I really do not think my comments or I merit disdain; you all do not know me yet you feel justified in labeling me an asshole because you do not agree perhaps but mostly because of a comment I made to a follow commenter that I basically respect and appreciate that was made with good intentions in #221.
I’ve been through war and life’s ups and downs – things that have real consequence. I survived and helped many; I tried to live an honorable life; I tried to learn and contribute. I am not an asshole – I am imperfect for sure – but not an asshole. I am confident in that.
But I am saddened that herein – in the vanguard of moving to a better world – lately I find herein that people who have lots to contribute and also who profess a higher standard of evaluating things and maintaining an open mind go almost immediately into invalidation mode so quickly – an invalidation that bypasses the argument and seeks to eviscerate the proposer.
I may not have convinced many or any of you of anything save inadvertently that I am an asshole. But frankly nor have you all convinced me that my points are 100% wrong/unworthy.
I did my best to learn.
I am not upset but I am saddened it comes down to this. Human nature? Have a good night.
I am asshole enough to carry on
CR’s #220 really laid out the basic problem — I got distracted so did not address it. Sorry CR.
OK I disagree that all “-isms” are devoid of purpose, method and means. Feminism by definition demands activism for instance.
But Atheism and Theism actually do not. And CR rightly cautions about conflating method, means, purpose (my paraphrase) with them. At east that is how I read CR’s #220.
My problem is that since the topic is a “religious” one our Atheism is taken as just other form of their “-isms”. That Atheism is well formed – but in the sense that it has dogma and authorities in power like they do. It flows from their experience with “-isms”.
Now the question – and I think CR asks this in a way – is should we form a well formed “-ism”.
My opinion is yes but not because we need ethics etc. But because we need a battle strategy and forces. Feminism needed the Prohibition movement.. and then Ms. and Bella Abzug .. and Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity..
My point here is that is a political battle. Most of the people actually are with us re: the issues we want (erikthebassist #194 laid this out).
We need more political definition and actually we need a Party that speaks to rationality and demands scientific like honesty to say it simply. We’d never win a national election – perhaps only Dog Catcher – but we’d have a forum that really counts .. and that seed my take root and grow.
I do not want the religionist defining an “Atheist Movement” with their cult-like mindsets. But more importantly I don’t want them diluting our power by having them have us concentrate on defending Atheism when we really do not have a problem politically with Theism (again see #194).
The battle is for us to break the stronghold of the 30% over the 70% of us.. a 30% fueled a lot by religion.
Look sorry – this must be important to me. I’ll try to take my meds and hit the sack :-).
concernedjoe, your concerns aren’t mine, and I’m no ideologue.
Atheism is a lack of theism; an atheist is someone who is not a theist.
(Simple, it is)
concernedjoe:
I need no such, so exclude me from your “we”.
(BTW, if you’re looking for an ideological term, look to capital-H Humanism)
Feminist activism is necessary because there is inequality. Activism is likewise in the definition of atheism, as long as it’s necessary, because our situation as atheists involves its own inequalities. It’s inconsistent to claim that feminism has an action-oriented socially-contextualized definition, but that atheism’s is some rigid essence of non-belief and nothing else.
And like feminism, it’s not just a political cause but a much broader social one. Every aspect of society ought to change, not just public policy: interpersonal relationships, community- and corporation-level dynamics, how these issues are portrayed in all sorts of media by journalists and artists, etc.
John –
“Atheism is a lack of theism; an atheist is someone who is not a theist. (Simple, it is)” Never did I disagree with that or not clearly see that. (Simple, it is) was indeed my point.
So you have no objective in mind regarding Atheism per se. Nor do I. I am content to leave it: “Simple, it is”.
But some of us have a notion – perhaps driven by the same nature (our own nature) and mechanisms that make us atheist .. or embrace(?) atheism I guess I could say .. that makes us feel things are not right in some significant way and they need change.
And some of us might feel that having religion so privileged in society and the type of sloppy thinking that allows people to exist tied to religion and its draping trains and prepares people to allow – indeed promote – the very system that acts against the collective best interests.
When I read PZ or other blog masters .. and comments herein I see validation for my statement “And some of us might feel that ..” paragraph. You disagree?
Herein read #194 for something at least sort of illustrative of that.
Then also read CR’s #230 in which activism is called out. I do not share CR’s feeling that such a call is defined in “Atheism” but that is NOT important to me that we agree on that specific aspect really. I do agree with CR’s basic premise for sure that “And like feminism, it’s [Atheism’s] not just a political cause but a much broader social one. Every aspect of society ought to change, not just public policy: interpersonal relationships, community- and corporation-level dynamics, how these issues are portrayed in all sorts of media by journalists and artists, etc.”
I infer from CR that the rationality, the honest methods of thinking, and the realization that all we have really is what is each other and the planet – and that we make the rules not some god or priest is a driver for activism at a broader scale than just we atheist’s are 2nd class citizens sometimes.
Now am I an ideologue because I want a voice – a force – for rationality (to be simple here but I know I am not being rigor in one word) formally in the political arena?
Or that I want people to be played more honestly by their leaders? Or that I want people that obviously are using their Christianity or whatever sect or form of religion they have to promote themselves and/or their counterproductive agendas?
John I do not like ideology – that is why I have some aversion to “-isms” because they too often succumb in a sense to like irrational religion. I even do not like movements generally.
But I do feel it is time we had more focused objectives and targeted “enemies”. I also feel Theism is not the problem to the same degree as the use of religion. I am not sure what the end game should be – but I am very eclectic by nature – what honestly works to satisfy OBJECTIVES I can agree to – I am not as concerned what POSITION gets us to the OBJECTIVE (look caps just to have you note the words are important and they are different).
John I resonate with your “I am not an ideologue” .. but I also resonate with CR’s implicit call to activism in #230.
What I have been trying to do is articulate a notion of how one achieves traction for objectives in the marketplace.
Frankly John I don’t think you have no objectives of a political nature. That you seek no change, that you see no injustice to right. I make no statement as to what but just that as stated I feel I am right.
And also I do not think they are discontinued from the drivers of your atheism to use the word.
To wit – I do not think you are apathetic to everything. And most of us here taking the time to comment probably are not also.
As to Humanism .. of course it has elements that appeal to me. However it is not now nor will it be a strong political force per se. Still Humanist movements and structures incrementally help. I do not need to go to its church but I appreciate its situational usefulness and some shared objectives.
sorry
“Or that I want [to de-power] people that obviously are using their Christianity or whatever sect or form of religion they have to promote themselves and/or their counterproductive agendas?”
fixed
Lol I hear your blood pressure rising. Why so angry *trollface*
I see concerned Joe is still concerned. I’m not concerned about his inane concerns. Anybody can self-mentally-wank to a position that makes no sense except as self-dithering, which is where concerned Joe is. And it has stopped listening, except to keep presenting its concerns which I am not concerned about.
Ing and Nerd,
I tried to share some thoughts best I could,
I failed apparently. It happens to all of us.
Yours very truly,
A fellow traveler