Kyle Kulinsky sat down with Glenn Greenwald to talk about us atheists. They’re both atheists, but are outside of movement atheism, so it’s good to see an intelligent perspective from a different point of view.
This is not a transcript. I’ll paraphrase a few of the points made in the discussion that I thought were interesting.
Atheists aren’t splitting hairs over fine doctrinal points. Greenwald gives the example of people who agree on a large collection of important issues: they’re all for feminism, for instance, but one person says they’re interested in promoting the superiority of the white race. These are not minor points of doctrine. The standard comparison of the Judean People’s Front to the People’s Front of Judea is misleading and an effort to diminish the significance of the differences.
Atheists trivialize their own unbelief. Without using the term, he talks about the dictionary atheist problem — people who basically run away from the consequences of their ideas by minimize those beliefs by saying that they have no implications.
Sam Harris is representative of a lot of the problems in atheism. His example is a comment by Sam Harris that Dick Cheney may be evil, but there are tens of millions of Muslims who are worse.
New Atheists are engaging in rank tribalism. See Ashley Miller.
A secular American is in no position to lead a reformation of Islam, so their role is limited in protesting against Islam; they will instead be providing justifications for the actions of their own country. They are propping up American imperialism. All forms of fundamentalism and extremism are dangerous, and certainly you should oppose religious dogma, but focusing on the demonization of one religion plays into the hands of the neocons.
He compares the New Atheist treatment of Muslims to how white supremacists treat Jews — taking bits of their holy book out of context to make sweeping judgments about an entire people.
The efforts to claim that the violence perpetrated by Muslims is driven by irrational faith denies people agency: they are often taking actions driven by a rational determination that this is the only way to end oppression. Trying to find a mechanism of causation is not an effort to justify the action.
It’s also unfair to characterize all atheists by the example of a few prominent leaders who are basically opposing both a progressive agenda and organized religion. Followers of Dawkins and Harris can also be advocates of progressive values, which can be confusing.
There’s a great discussion of the Sam Harris two-step shuffle around the 50 minute mark — how he’ll claim to be a brave bold intellectual who is one of the few willing to consider the unthinkable (torture or profiling, for instance), and then immediately backs off when criticized to a more rational position, while simultaneously claiming that his critic was lying.
In the last 15 minutes, he talks about Snowden, and how it felt to be handed an archive of secret, sensitive documents describing the perfidious actions of the US government.
It’s an interesting conversation, and one I largely agree with. I think what appeals about it is that these are two people who put progressive values first, and secondarily see religion as frequently opposing those values, instead of making the rejection of religion primary, which then makes the occasional embrace of illiberal ideas by our side acceptable.
And that, excelently put in a nutshell, is the key difference between the people on the two sides of the “big rifts” in online atheism. The saying “with or without religion…” holds true.
Regarding the point about non-believers abussing the “dictionary atheist” idea is that people are talking about atheism, as the philosophical position, rather than about atheists as human beings with a particular position on a philosophical issue. It’s not about atheism versus Atheism…it seems to me that it is about atheism versus atheists. By isolating the philosophical position people can pretend that it doesn’t have any implications and consequences for them as human beings in the context of ALL their other beliefs. I have no interest in atheism as a philosophical position anymore…it’s done for me, i’m confident in my position and until someone comes up with any reason to challenge it, there’s virtually no need to bother with it anymore. I am hugely interested in atheist, though…
This was an enjoyable video, thanx for sharing.
In another blog (Mark Reads Things), the topic is Terry Pratchett’s Small Gods, and user retrocasual posted this as a summary of Pratchett’s religious views:
Setting aside the people who use ‘humanism’ as the counterpoint to feminism rather than an overarching umbrella that includes feminism, anti-racism, anti-homophobia, etc. I like this as a description. I’m far more likely to be able to work with a theist who shares my views on humanism than an atheist that doesn’t. Because ‘atheism’ isn’t that important if it isn’t tied to a set of values that make human lives better.
I agree completely with everything Ashley Miller wrote. Reading the comments on that post, however…gad.* There should be a type of Lewis’s Law for atheistic idiocy.
*Ob ob: not all the comments, natch.
Jebus. Steersman and John Greg are having a grand time over there, the assholes.
Oh god, my eyes…my eyes!!! Why did i take a peak at that thread??
On the plus side, all you have to do to make a case against slymepitters is to let them post their horseshit. Blergh….slimy….
Oh dog. Well done to those willing to wade in and argue with those assholes, but that’s awful.
“He compares the New Atheist treatment of Muslims to how white supremacists treat Jews — taking bits of their holy book out of context to make sweeping judgments about an entire people.”
This from the man whose collaborator called Harris’ brown-skinned Muslim co-author a “well-coiffed talking monkey.”
Glass houses, and all that.
Looks like you want to turn atheism into religion without god. Not believing in god carries with it no obligation to support your particular ideology.
@8
Your right, mate. Maz Hussain is clearly racist against brown-skinned Muslims.
Being an atheist isn’t what makes me good. And I’m not even close to perfect. But I also have no obligation to being on the ‘side’ of someone who thinks that there’s no need for feminism, or that racism doesn’t exist, or that just because there isn’t a god they can do anything their selfish whims dictate.
Acting in a way that tries to improve society, both the bits of it that make things better for me, and the bits of it that make it better for other people who have been oppressed, is working towards making society better. Which eventually will be better for everyone. Including me. And might give this species a chance of surviving another couple of centuries.
@9 tsig
That is the most ridiculous thing i’ve read all day and i dared to look into the abyss that is the thread linked above. Well done, you.
tsig @9:
“Looks like”? What in the OP leads you to believe PZ wants to turn atheism into a religion without gods?
And while believing in no god carries no obligation to support a particular ideology, there are implications to rejection of god belief. Most of the people in the world worship Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. For those people, they don’t just believe in a god. They believe (to varying degrees) in the baggage that also comes with their god belief.
If one of those people rejects their belief in a god, they ought to reexamine their former, theistically-derived (or supported) beliefs through a non-theistic lens. IOW, there are implications to non-belief. If you used to be a Christian who was fervently opposed to homosexuality on the basis that your pastor told you it was wrong, and you believe your god thinks it’s wrong…what now? Do you still retain that belief about homosexuality? Or do you reexamine it through your atheistic lens now? There’s no guarantee that such an individual will necessarily reject their homophobia. And certainly, people learn homophobia from multiple sources. But again, my point is to reexamine the beliefs one holds that were previously attributed (to one degree or another) with one’s theism.
God-belief for a great many people carries certain implications. Why wouldn’t disbelieving in god carry certain implications?
@ tsig
The beliefs, ideas, attitudes and morals you initially hold were gifted to you by your parents, your culture, your teachers, your friends and society in general. As you age, you may change some of these, but you are still being influenced. And many, probably most, of those sources are influenced by, if not tainted by, religion at some point. When you cease to believe in a deity, what are you to do with these ways of thinking you had developed?
Are you saying that one need not examine the role god has played in their attitudes when one no longer believes in a god? If one does that, how does the disbelief make one at all different?
For example, I used to be ‘okay’ with the death penalty. I didn’t like it, and thought it should be used far less frequently, but when I was Christian, and then later pagan with a belief in reincarnation, having the state kill someone who did something heinously bad was ‘okay’… because the core of them would still survive and/or reincarnate and live again.
As an atheist, I am entirely against it because the death penalty is ending a person.
Most of the violence perpetrated by Muslims is directed toward other Muslims.
Of course such violence is not purely faith-driven–people all over the world appeal to faith to justify their power-grabs.
He said that about Maajid Nawaz?
What an ass.
you know that argument about how it does not matter what I do because there is no god reminds me of some of the reasoning behind ideas like libertarian-ism.
While it is true that there is no god to judge you in an afterlife there is still the natural world and the society of rest of humanity. You can “morally” decide to go against the processes of nature but you can not escape them the results will be what they are regardless of what you personally or any religion wants. You can do anything you want but so can everyone else. If your behavior is judged by your fellows to be detrimental to the interests of society you will suffer the consequences in this life. You can call that morality if you like or you can call it tyranny or justice it makes no difference what you call it, that is how it works be there any gods or no!
uncle frogy
Isn’t New Atheism pretty crusty and old by now? I mean, going by Richard Dawkins’ Twitter feed and all.
I presume that you don’t tie atheism to the causes of debunking alternate medicine, creationism, etc. then.
Not this shit again.
So why the hostility to those that put progressive values first and see rejection of religion as unimportant in that calculation?
That was a good video.
For those who didn’t watch, here’s another interesting point made. Glenn Greenwald said there is clearly a lot of religiously motivated terrorism in the Middle East, but they’re primarily directed at other people in the same country. But the acts of terrorism we focus on most are obviously those directed at the US and the west, and these acts are clearly have geopolitical motivations.
Religion failed because it put ideas before people.
Too many atheists seem to be falling in the same trap, putting their rejection of belief before compassion and empathy.
Perhaps because of the part about religion frequently opposing those values, in the segment you just quoted?
Rey @17: Time to revert to Classic?
@ Rey Fox, 18:
I for one don’t. But then, I know a fair number of alt-med — and even anti-vaxx — atheists. I’d posit there are a lot of people for whom religion isn’t a highly relevant issue, but (tired repetition) being atheist doesn’t make you any less susceptible to bullshit.
In short, atheism is really not a great predictor of scientific literacy. At all.
@8 – Andrew – Riiiight. I think you may be at the wrong site. So, folks can dismiss the entire video cuz a writer who works at the Intercept said something questionable? Surprised PZ didn’t rip you a new asshole for that comment.
But but but… That would be like saying atheistic progressives are for all intent and purpose identical to religious progressives! You can’t smugly proclaim your intrinsic intellectual superiority if you adhere to such a worldview!
I’d be interested to know what you call hostility here. Personally i’d strongly disagree with anyone saying that religion, as well as almost any other irrational belief, are not in direct opposition to progressive values. My progressive values include science literacy, universal education and a desire to promote skepticism and rational thinking.
Been having a quiet discussion on Alternet (my user name Playonwords) with Maher/Dawkins/Harris fan-boiz. They really do not get that bigotry is a bad thing – no let me amend that, they don’t get bigotry. As far as the sycophantic followers (Psychophants?) are concerned Maher et al are perfectly justified in their attitudes toward Muslims because, to paraphrase, “They’re all the same.”
Mind you Alternet does attract defenders of the New Atheist cabal. During the dicussion of the Sam Harris/Moam Chomsky debate on ethics it was impossible for these psychophants (I’ve decided it is appropriate) to see how badly Sam Harris’ argument had been destroyed and how foolish it was for Harris to publish the exchange
I wouldn’t say they “don’t get” bigotry: I suspect the Harris & co fan-boys are Okay with bigotry, so long as it doesn’t target THEM
Laurentweppe @ 30:
That’s it exactly. They understand bigotry fine, there’s no problem there, it’s simply that they think their bigotry is justified, being all super rational and stuff.
Dawkins, Harris and Maher are quite opposed to both kinds of bigotry: Christian and Muslim.
I didn’t really understand the point about tribalism. Sure there’s the tribalism against Muslims that Sam Harris feeds into. That I understand. But the rifts itself have a good deal of tribalism to it, people staking their claim on one side of the issue or the other.
Isn’t that inevitable with any political divide? In some ways it’s not even bad because you sort of have to oppose bigotry when you see it. Is tribalism bad in that case?
Accusing one side of tribalism seems obviously hypocritical.
Yes, we have a tribe. Only our tribe is interested in expanding and becoming more inclusive. Their tribe wants to close ranks and maintain the status quo, perpetuating inequities (and even denying the existence of those inequities).
#27 Would it? Not in my world. But I am not sure what you argue here. It is trivially true that progressive values in a religious person are the same as the identical ones in an atheist. But these are still two different people. What am I supposed to be smug about?
#28 Surely you’re not denying that there isn’t hostility here to the “dictionary atheist”? (Whatever their political beliefs?) The question is also not whether religions are in opposition to progressive values. Some are and some aren’t. Contrast (many) Hindu and (most) Christian treatments of homosexuality; Islamist (for those that believe in the concept of jihad) and Quaker opinions on pacifism. So if I were an ex-Hindu, should I become homophobic? An ex-Quaker – join the gun-fondling club? An ex-Christian – start hating thy neighbour (as long as she’s straight)? No, clearly not. But if you pick and choose which religious beliefs you reject, then it is clear (to me at least) that the process of forming your progressive values are already well under way. Religion and rejection of religion are irrelevant. They are to me at least – this seems to provoke antipathy here.
#35 continued – I know I’m not going to change many minds and I usually avoid this argument now since it’s basically me trolling against the horde. So apologies for that. The final paragraph in the OP was too much to bear though.
That is why you need to examine your beliefs against reality, not books of mythology/fiction, or present bigoted cultural norms (often based on those books). Reality says homosexuals are human beings, and are entitled to full rights and protections thereof.
Nope, utterly and totally relevant. Since many cultural morals are religion based, how can it be irrelevant?
Rejection of religion and irrational belief doesn’t mean doing the exact opposite as to what any religious views dictates. First because that’s impossible to do as they cover all the range of possibilities, and second, because that’s an unbelievably stupid strawman.
If you can’t be bothered to do anything about people’s irrational beliefs, including religion, fine, that’s your business, but you should at the very least try to make an actual case for your position if you are going to complain that it is unfairly met with hostility. Good luck with that.
Blattafrax:
I’d say there’s a definite chilly reception to dictionary atheist around here. What I don’t understand is this: any time a discussion veers toward the meaning of atheism or living an atheist life, the dictionary atheists rush in, expending a great many words to defend the fact that atheism means nothing to them, outside the dictionary definition. I can’t buy that, because if I truly believed atheism meant jack shit outside of a definition, I could not be arsed, under any circumstance, to defend that stance on an atheist community. I don’t understand why dictionary atheists bother to keep up with atheist communities, yet, atheist communities are stuffed with dictionary only types of atheists.
I’ve also found the arguments of dictionary only people to be very bad ones, so speaking for myself, I’m not hostile as much as I’m indifferent to people who make such claims, as I can’t say I find them believable.
Dreaming @ 38:
Just want to say that Blattafrax has been posting here for a long time,* and I don’t think their point about being met with hostility is out of line. There is hostility on the part of a lot of people, along with auto-dismissal of arguments. I think a bit more patience and thoughtfulness on both sides might help.
*And has my respect, even if I most strongly disagree on the meaning of atheism.
#38 – …impossible to do… I think that’s _my_ point. It’s impossible to use religion as a whole as any guide to values, either in acceptance or rejection.
Strawman, yes – well spotted. I’d prefer reductio ad absurdum to unbelievably stupid, but, whatever.
I can be bothered (sometimes) to worry about other people’s irrational beliefs. On religion, I’ll tell someone why I think they’re wrong if they ask and argue to the best of my ability if I think their beliefs are damaging someone else. Do I indicate otherwise somewhere – sorry if I did.
PZ’s opening salvo on the subject, in February 2011 was “Dictionary Atheists. Boy, I really do hate these guys” and continued from there. Albeit in a more refined and better argued way. I don’t complain the hostility is unfair – you can do what you like in your own pond and I don’t have to come here – but it is hostility. I do find it very strange that I can agree with PZ on just about everything he writes and then on one single thing be so completely opposed.
#37 Nerd: We’ve been here before. I know your arguments and I’m not convinced.
Thank you Caine. Respect is mutual.
The reason I comment on this subject – and contribute to the piling in (which I address above) – is that i) I find from personal experience, PZ’s and the majority view to be without logic and irrational ii) It really irritates me that “dictionary atheist” is equated with woman-hating, homophobic hedonist in the commentariat and I would like to correct that. It is perfectly possible to hold very progressive views without following the Pharyngula line on this; the only difference is how we think we get there. And iii) the OPs last paragraph reads to me as supporting my position – I couldn’t resist.
So rather than telling me I’m wrong – after all, I have heard it all before – how does that last paragraph fit in with the world-view?
It’s a little simplistic to come up with a checklist of one progressive value, then another and another, to ask which ones a religion does or doesn’t oppose. First, it’s not fair to the individuals who don’t agree with all of the official dogmas of their own denominations. Second, this could easily turn into cherry-picking or well-poisoning, if for example we’ve got a soft spot (or no patience) for a religion that we want to portray positively/negatively by selecting which progressive value(s) we’ve decided to highlight.
Besides, I would say they’re all regressive at some level. Having one progressive value (or many) doesn’t negate everything else that religion is about how it works as a social institution. Authoritarianism, believing things on faith, thinking that the physical world is testing us or is illusory, having a sky tyrant (or many) who takes responsibility and purpose and meaning from us, along with quite a few other general features of religions, are all utterly corrosive to progressivism. Even if it’s supposed to be a nice sky tyrant who doesn’t hate gays, that is not at all a progressive worldview. You just can’t get there without dropping that bullshit first. And then you no longer have a religion.
Maybe I don’t get what you mean, but why do they need to be forming progressive values? Can’t they pick and choose any sort of value?
Irrelevant to what? They’re obviously irrelevant to a lot of things, like the price of tea in China (probably). But categorically irrelevant? That needs some kind of qualification, doesn’t it?
Now i’m very confused because you don’t actually seem to be representing the “dictionary atheist” position in any recognisable way.
If it’s impossible to use religion as a guide for values, it also means it’s inherently anti-progressive. I’m not using rejection of religion as my basis for developing a value system, my value system includes rejection of religion.
“Can’t be bothered” it’s not a very good argument in defense of the merits of “dictionary atheism”…
I agree with Caine, except that i would add that i am indeed hostile towards the people filling the internet with “dictionary atheism” screeds because i think their motivations are absolutely awful in most cases, superficial and a complete waste of everybody’s time in the rest… The fact that they always pop up when certain progressive values are being promoted but rarely do when many others are, is highly indicative of why these people do what they do, and it deserves nothing but my contempt and opposition.
#43 “Irrelevant to the process of forming progressive views”, is what I meant.
But I suppose you could also extend it generally to other things that are non-religious.
There’s a long list of things I don’t believe in — astrology, witchcraft, weather predictions by groundhogs on February 2, palm reading, reincarnation — and nobody would seriously claim that disbelief in astrology carries with it any implications other than that I don’t believe in astrology. So why would disbelief in deities, a/k/a atheism, carry any implications beyond disbelief in deities? And I object to this entire discussion, because it has the effect of elevating deities into a separate category that’s special, rather than just being one more thing on a long list of things that don’t exist. God is not entitled to special billing; he’s on the same list as ghosts, goblins and evil spirits.
I get the argument that religion has given us a lot of really bad shit, but Christians like Martin Luther King and the SCLC also gave us the civil rights movement, and today liberal denominations like the Episcopalians are at the forefront of gay rights, so I think religion has actually been a mixed bag. There are people who are feminists, pro-gay, pro-choice specifically because of their Christian faith; the just understand the tenets of Christianity differently than the Westboro Baptist folks do.
#44 Well now I’m confused as well.
This is precisely my position. My value system – which includes rational thinking** as a virtue – has led me to reject (or rather not take up) religion.
What (my understanding of what) is believed here in Pharyngula, is that there is also a feedback from the rejection of religion to inform the development of the value system. In some cases, when the feedback is very strongly argued for, the initial values are forgotten. I believe it is valid for there to be no feedback at all, which is my situation. But even without that feedback (i.e. there are no consequences to being an atheist), the values remain.
It’s splitting hairs, I know. But bad ideas should be fought against – I hope we agree on that.
**in as far as I can manage.
@ Eeyore, 46-
I’ll just repeat for you what I wrote for tsig:
You think we’ve given no logical reason for being opposed (or hostile, I accept that term) to dictionary atheism? What do you think we’ve said? That is, if you’re not just paying attention to your own personal experiences, you could describe what it is that we’ve said which is illogical or irrational.
I haven’t done that. I do think some are clearly motivated by things like that, but that’s not equating them with each other.
However, I don’t think you’re trolling us, so presumably there’s just something about this particular philosophical position that you don’t get (or I don’t get). But discussing that sort of stuff means asking some fairly direct questions about what you really do think at a very fundamental level — which isn’t to put any of your values into doubt but to make sure everybody is on the same page. I just don’t know what people online think usually, and they sometimes are a little too defensive by what looks like an insolent question. Then the misunderstandings multiply as things spiral out of control from there. It can be a real mess, but it certainly doesn’t need to be. I’ve had some fairly pleasant and productive conversations where people just had misconceptions about what the problem supposedly is, from “our” point of view.
Maybe you should say who has claimed otherwise, and what exactly you think a valid way to get there looks like. If for example scripture tells you (since people can read anything they want into it) that you should support human rights, oppose war, tax the rich, and hold the government accountable for benefiting the whole society instead of those who are already privileged…. Then those are some progressive results. But this is not how a progressive argument works in a free and democratic society: god says so, therefore everyone should agree to make society this way. No.
IMHO, “dictionary atheism” is wrong because it insists on one true definition of atheism, when the word clearly has multiple meanings. There’s the “no belief in gods” meaning, and the “atheist movement” meaning.
And it isn’t just a harmless factual error. People like Sam Harris alternate freely between the definitions all the time in order to claim to speak for a large group of people, while simultaneously denying responsibility for them.
But even if that’s not the motivation, dictionary atheism is still just wrong.
I don’t speak for Pharyngula, but I wouldn’t put it this way. This stuff about feedback and informing a system I just don’t get perhaps. But let me give a basic example, to try to avoid some terms which aren’t very clear to me as descriptions.
Suppose you believe that there is a purpose to life, in the sense that a deity has created the world, including us of course, and is guiding it (via natural laws or miracles or however it works) toward some end. It’s like we’re on a big theme park ride, and god picks the theme. This time, let’s say it’s pirates. God really cares about everything pirate-related and not much else, at least not as much. That’s what the whole structure of the world is for. If we tried to get rid of the pirates, or tried to fix things up a bit to be some way that really matters to us, our efforts might be in vain because the deity is supposedly powerful enough to prevent it. We could oppose the deity (if it’s very evil, let’s say), but any actions we take along those lines would be based on the idea that there is a deity to oppose (or thank, worship, etc.).
Atheists don’t believe things like this. That is, you can’t consistently take away a god, and at the same time think somebody is intentionally guiding history/biology/physics/whatever toward certain kinds of results. There is nobody (except people like us) who exists with such intentions. So, people aren’t created in order to do or be anything. We just exist and do whatever we do for ourselves.
We don’t have roles or callings or castes or places in history, which are forced on us by any sort of supernatural agent. So, women weren’t created to be a certain way which is different from men (subordinate or inferior usually), and the same goes for black people as opposed to whites, divinely-appointed kings (or the wealthy) as opposed to us peasants, straight people who make babies for god’s enjoyment instead of gays who go against “the natural order,” or whatever group or category of individual that you like. Facts like this clearly do matter when it comes to ethics and politics. It may not be immediately obvious when you first say to yourself “gods don’t exist,” but they are undeniably entailed by the truth of atheism.
Rowan, No. 48, I agree with what you said. Don’t forget, though, that some people are progressive because they believe in God, and other people are reactionary because they believe in God. Belief in God might lead you to support women’s rights and gay rights, or it might lead you to oppose both. Likewise, atheism might lead you (if you’re Ayn Rand) to decide to get as much for yourself as you can and everyone else be damned, or, if you’re PZ, it might lead you to believe that we’re all in this together and we rise or fall together.
So it isn’t that my beliefs aren’t a product of my upbringing — they most definitely are. And it isn’t that I shouldn’t examine the role my past has played in making my beliefs what they are today. It’s more that belief in God, or disbelief in God, might have influenced my beliefs into any of a thousand different directions, and it’s a mistake to say that progressivism necessarily flows from disbelief in God. Lots of neo-con atheists would disagree. So, are they neo-cons because they are atheists, or would they be neo-cons if they were theists? I think we both know the answer to that question.
10 years ago there was a guy who was the Alabama state director for American Atheists, Larry Darby, who also led opposition to Judge Roy Moore which then led to the removal of the 10 Commandments rock from the Alabama State Supreme Court building. Darby was a star in the movement and well regarded.
Then he decided to promote Holocaust denial by inviting the worst historian in the world besides David Barton to speak at one of his local group meetings. That loon was named David Irving.
Those of us who appreciate history strongly complained about inviting Irving to the meeting. This is what Darby said:
Sound familiar?
Larry Darby supported holocaust denial because he opposed Judaism as a religion. Yep he fell off the logic bus.
Eventually he dug his hole so deep he became “born again” and joined the white nationalists where he belonged.
I don’t believe criticizing religion makes one a bigot and I would be honest in saying that spouting theories about a group that might not be factually true or a gross generalization don’t always make one a bigot either but there are degrees and lines one shouldn’t cross. Denying the holocaust is one of those lines one shouldn’t cross.
I know that debating where to draw the line is probably not welcome here but I do have a litmus test I use thanks to Larry Darby.
you know this discussion reminds me of what lead me to the disbelief in gods in the first place. It was the profound realization of being part of and the product or expression nature. To put it another way as above that we are all in this together and it was the separation and absolutism of many gods and religions that I could not reconcile with that unity that finally lead to abandoning the idea of religion as unworkable and nonsensical.
uncle frogy
# 51 conciousness razor
I’ll not respond to your earlier comment, which was fairly complete if you read it in context – i.e. a response to Caine. But since you’ve done exactly what I was going to suggest you did, then I’ll follow on from this.
Well, there’s lots of things going on here.
Suppose you believe that there is a purpose to life well, as pointed out later, we don’t, so I don’t quite see the point of this bit. But given that we have supposed…
…We could oppose the deity (if it’s very evil, let’s say) – have you already decided it’s evil?
…you can’t consistently take away a god atheists don’t take away a god, they reject the imposition of one.
And:
We don’t have roles or callings or castes… forced upon us by any sort of supernatural agent etc. Then you list a lot of facts and tell me they matter. I agree wholeheartedly, but I note at this point that you seem to take these facts as being self evident and self-evidently good. Then the whole of your argument appears to be.
but they are undeniably entailed by the truth of atheism. That’s a bit weak.
I’m sorry, I just don’t see anything here that tells me the fact of my atheism should inform in any way whether (for example) black or white people or neither should be subservient. Do you?
Blattafax, did your beliefs prior to your atheism have any deific influences that purported to give the correct answer? As an atheist are you just going to keep that original answer without pondering whether or not it is the correct one for actually valid reasons?
Speak for yourself, my life very much has a purpose to me, it just doesn’t come from a god, it comes from my own desires and needs and those of others.
Blattafrax I think we are essentially in agreement, i’m just confused as to why you seem to be annoyed about the push-back or irritation at “dictionary atheism” because i don’t see how that follows from your stated values and beliefs.
#56. By the time I had got to an age where I could distinguish fact from fantasy, I was effectively an atheist and put a label on it a few years later. So no deity-directed beliefs prior to being an atheist. Not everybody has the same experience.
#57 I truncated too soon in my quotation:
Suppose you believe that there is a purpose to life, in the sense that a deity has created the world
I got the impression that Greenwald kinda doesn’t like Sam Harris is some profound sort of way.
But dictionary-only atheists help to encourage those who DID/DO have religiously biased ideas not examine them. This is partly how you end up with racist, mysoginistic, homophobic atheists.
Siggy @ 50:
Beautifully expressed, Siggy. I think this is where much of the hostility towards dictionary onlies is based. As I mentioned earlier, atheist and skeptic spaces are stuffed with dictionary onlies, who apparently enjoy talking and arguing about pretty much everything (including values, ethics, principles) with other atheists and skeptics, but when it comes time to take any sort of responsibility, the shouts of “hey, atheist doesn’t mean anything beyond the definition!” come roaring in, deafening everything else. That behaviour is bothersome, to say the least.
Are you just being fucking stubborn? Why don’t you try to read it again?
There isn’t an it. Remember?
Anyway, I said “if,” and that clearly fucking means I haven’t decided any such thing. What’s your point now?
Do you sincerely not understand something here? It looks like you’re trying to be picky about anything you can come up with, since you apparently don’t have a reasonable response to the actual points I made.
What does that even mean? If there were a god, it makes no difference whether it’s being “imposed” on me somehow by somebody, since I would still be wrong to believe there isn’t one. How is this relevant to what we’re talking about?
When did I seem to say this? It is logically implied by the nonexistence of gods (or anything else that doesn’t exist) that gods don’t do jack shit, which means intervening in the world in any way whatsoever. It is not “self-evident” that atheism is true; and if it is true, then all sorts of facts like that about the world follow from it. Those very well can be relevant to moral judgments or the political systems we make, as in the case of the examples I gave. This is presumably what you were confused about (or disagree about) concerning why some people criticize “dictionary atheism.” And you just said those are facts and that they matter — so what do you have disagreeing with?
This is such an absurd question. If in fact the world were different than it is, it is an utterly trivial point that we would need to make different kinds of decisions about how we should act, if for no other reason than the fact that some things we would do now wouldn’t have the same effects. For instance, praying for a person with an illness is not an effective treatment, so we should do something else; and if there were a god, that might be something that actually works. And very generally, the nonexistence of gods implies all sorts of different things about the world than does the existence of gods. Many such facts are relevant to moral decisions. That’s all we’re talking about here. What’s so difficult about that?
Caine wrote:
I’d have slightly more respect for the dictionary-enforcers if it weren’t for the fact that they only seem to crop up when issues of social justice are discussed. If they frequently cropped up during discussions about secularism, creationism, science education or general skepticism, then I might be willing to grant that they really felt that way, but I don’t believe I’ve ever witnessed that happening.
You told me to suppose the existence of a deity – one that likes pirates. I did, assuming that you were proposing some sort of thought experiment. So, given the premise that there is a god (that likes pirates) and given that opposing it is an option, then I stupidly assumed that you saying “if it’s very evil, let’s say” could be taken as a justification for that opposition within the thought experiment. My bad.
But I read this as one being able to decide if god is evil at the same time as believing in that god. i.e. a value judgement, where the values exist outside of the fact or otherwise of the existence of the god. (Standard anti-apologetics, I had assumed you would realise the implications though.) If that opposition eventually leads one to becoming an atheist, then those values were pre-existing and the atheism is irrelevant to the fact.
Since we’re discussing whether the fact of being an atheist informs the values we should have or vice versa, this is significant.
You then seem to go off your trolley after I agree with you and start ranting on about your own statements. Not sure why.
I’ll take that as a no then.
(This is about as far as I think I’m going and I may or may not respond to any follow up.)
If you’re an atheist who used to believe in heaven and hell*, your atheism has influenced your morality.
* At least the JCI version.
CK @ 63:
You’re right. I haven’t seen that either. I would like any (or all) of the dictionary onlies to address this.