Are the New Atheists just as messed up as Believers?

[nickqt]

I think that if you go out of your way to be an "Atheist", capital A, you're probably a person who is predisposed to shouting your beliefs at others and telling other people that they're wrong if they don't believe the same thing as you. Prime candidate for also being a conservative.

I was an Atheist by about age 12 when I knew everything, and then grew out of it as I matured and became an agnostic. There's absolutely no way anyone can know whether there's some sort of "God" or not, and saying you know there isn't, is just about as delusional as saying you know there is. At best, you have a belief as a theist or atheist. I choose to bypass the belief thing altogether. Agnosticism is definitely for me.

If you're identifying as a "New Atheist" and trying to cash in on it, then you might be the asshole.

 

[Moonbeam]

He's conflating two things that are unrelated.
He's picked something he doesn't like and then he's picked people who have that trait and another one then said they are linked.

So...

I think people who eat pineapple on pizza are terrible. Look at all these people with brown hair that eat pineapple on pizza. People with brown hair are terrible.

Atheism isn't a moral choice (and I say this as an atheist), it's a logical choice. I base my morals on other things than the existence/non existence of God.

Yes, well, the problem I see is that you do not believe is a god that does not exist but do not consider the fact that the reasons you have found for your moral beliefs are based can be seen as the actual proof that God exists. How is moral belief possible? Can you drop them like a hat and go out and kill people. The reason you do not find God out there or proof he exists is because you are looking in the wrong place. God and your proclivity for moral behavior are indistinguishable. You are a Believer who simply does not know why he believes. You don't know this because you have never lost faith.

But this is besides the point. I am an Agnostic. The subject of proving God or not God is empty for me. God does not exist but does exist. I am interested in the problem of certainty and the difference between that and Knowing.

 

[zzyzxroad]

I think that if you go out of your way to be an "Atheist", capital A, you're probably a person who is predisposed to shouting your beliefs at others and telling other people that they're wrong if they don't believe the same thing as you. Prime candidate for also being a conservative.

I was an Atheist by about age 12 when I knew everything, and then grew out of it as I matured and became an agnostic. There's absolutely no way anyone can know whether there's some sort of "God" or not, and saying you know there isn't, is just about as delusional as saying you know there is. At best, you have a belief as a theist or atheist. I choose to bypass the belief thing altogether. Agnosticism is definitely for me.

If you're identifying as a "New Atheist" and trying to cash in on it, then you might be the asshole.

Same here.

This sums up my belief system fairly well:
agnostic - a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

 

[MichaelMay]

I think that if you go out of your way to be an "Atheist", capital A, you're probably a person who is predisposed to shouting your beliefs at others and telling other people that they're wrong if they don't believe the same thing as you. Prime candidate for also being a conservative.

I was an Atheist by about age 12 when I knew everything, and then grew out of it as I matured and became an agnostic. There's absolutely no way anyone can know whether there's some sort of "God" or not, and saying you know there isn't, is just about as delusional as saying you know there is. At best, you have a belief as a theist or atheist. I choose to bypass the belief thing altogether. Agnosticism is definitely for me.

If you're identifying as a "New Atheist" and trying to cash in on it, then you might be the asshole.

I disagree, religion is a massive political power worldwide and people willing to stand up to them and debate them on the merits of their beliefs should be applauded, not shunned.

It's NOT oppression to only teach evolution in science classes for example but without these guys and those like them who is the actual opposition?

If I misunderstood your intention and you meant on a more personal level (attacking people for their personal beliefs) then we are in agreement but that isn't what this is about at all.

 

[IronWing]

Yes, well, the problem I see is that you do not believe is a god that does not exist but do not consider the fact that the reasons you have found for your moral beliefs are based can be seen as the actual proof that God exists. How is moral belief possible? Can you drop them like a hat and go out and kill people. The reason you do not find God out there or proof he exists is because you are looking in the wrong place. God and your proclivity for moral behavior are indistinguishable. You are a Believer who simply does not know why he believes. You don't know this because you have never lost faith.

But this is besides the point. I am an Agnostic. The subject of proving God or not God is empty for me. God does not exist but does exist. I am interested in the problem of certainty and the difference between that and Knowing.

On the contrary, atheism requires that we accept responsibility for our own moral codes and doesn’t allow us to hide behind a god we have created.

 

[MichaelMay]

Yes, well, the problem I see is that you do not believe is a god that does not exist but do not consider the fact that the reasons you have found for your moral beliefs are based can be seen as the actual proof that God exists. How is moral belief possible? Can you drop them like a hat and go out and kill people. The reason you do not find God out there or proof he exists is because you are looking in the wrong place. God and your proclivity for moral behavior are indistinguishable. You are a Believer who simply does not know why he believes. You don't know this because you have never lost faith.

But this is besides the point. I am an Agnostic. The subject of proving God or not God is empty for me. God does not exist but does exist. I am interested in the problem of certainty and the difference between that and Knowing.

Empathy is an evolved trait not only in humans but in other social animals as well (observe chimpanzees, really, we have a lot to learn still because we let ideas like hatred based on religion get in the way of our empathy) and it's from that we derive all morals. It's literally "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" built in and unless there is a malfunction in your brain or you get trained out of it (for example, by following religious rules about how gays are evil) it is there for everyone.

I can feel others pain as if it was happening to me, that is where I derive my morality from.

 

[MtnMan]

If the Flying Spaghetti Monster is unseen, how do we know he does not influence our decisions? Because there's no proof he exists, that's why.

If the (insert deity of choice) is unseen, how do we know he does not influence our decisions? Because there's no proof he exists, that's why.

 

[WelshBloke]

Yes, well, the problem I see is that you do not believe is a god that does not exist but do not consider the fact that the reasons you have found for your moral beliefs are based can be seen as the actual proof that God exists. How is moral belief possible? Can you drop them like a hat and go out and kill people. The reason you do not find God out there or proof he exists is because you are looking in the wrong place. God and your proclivity for moral behavior are indistinguishable. You are a Believer who simply does not know why he believes. You don't know this because you have never lost faith.

Plenty of people with a belief in a God saw it as totally moral to go out and kill. It used to be the basis for lots of religions.

You seem to be using "moral" and "theist" as synonyms when they aren't. I could believe in the existence of God and still be immoral, I can be an atheist and moral. The two things aren't linked.

 

[MtnMan]

I think that if you go out of your way to be an "Atheist", capital A, you're probably a person who is predisposed to shouting your beliefs at others and telling other people that they're wrong if they don't believe the same thing as you. Prime candidate for also being a conservative.

True of anyone that is predisposed to shouting their beliefs.

I was an Atheist by about age 12 when I knew everything, and then grew out of it as I matured and became an agnostic. There's absolutely no way anyone can know whether there's some sort of "God" or not, and saying you know there isn't, is just about as delusional as saying you know there is. At best, you have a belief as a theist or atheist. I choose to bypass the belief thing altogether. Agnosticism is definitely for me.

If you're identifying as a "New Atheist" and trying to cash in on it, then you might be the asshole.

I was born an atheist... we all were.
I was raised by atheist parents. It was not preached, it was not taught, nothing. There was no religion or anti-religion in our home*. I was taught the moral behavior of a decent human, but without the empty threats of 'you will burn in an unimaginable horrible place for eternity'.

Seven plus decades later... nothing has changed.

* - When I was older I do remember my dad saying. "There is only one reason to go to church on Sunday. That is to see who is sitting in the front pew, for that is the bastard that will try and fuck you on Monday." And that is pretty much my 'at home' religious teaching.

There was never a bible in our home, there isn't today.

 

[MichaelMay]

Plenty of people with a belief in a God saw it as totally moral to go out and kill. It used to be the basis for lots of religions.

You seem to be using "moral" and "theist" as synonyms when they aren't. I could believe in the existence of God and still be immoral, I can be an atheist and moral. The two things aren't linked.

Indeed, the conflation of the two stems from a misunderstanding of what morality is. It is objective in the form of empathy (which we share) and subjective by religious and ideological divide.

If we could skip the last part we'd be so very, very, very much better off and yet we're not really those who were the most harmed by the ideas of religion.

Keep the good ideas, skip the bad, rely on empathy and a liberal democracy for the rest.

 

[WelshBloke]

I was an Atheist by about age 12 when I knew everything, and then grew out of it as I matured and became an agnostic. There's absolutely no way anyone can know whether there's some sort of "God" or not, and saying you know there isn't, is just about as delusional as saying you know there is. At best, you have a belief as a theist or atheist. I choose to bypass the belief thing altogether. Agnosticism is definitely for me.

Do you carry this belief forward for everything else that isn't falsifiable? If not why not? Why is religion different?

 

[nickqt]

I disagree, religion is a massive political power worldwide and people willing to stand up to them and debate them on the merits of their beliefs should be applauded, not shunned.

It's NOT oppression to only teach evolution in science classes for example but without these guys and those like them who is the actual opposition?

If I misunderstood your intention and you meant on a more personal level (attacking people for their personal beliefs) then we are in agreement but that isn't what this is about at all.

The only thing that should be taught in public schools is evidence-based, which is Evolution, a theory that as of yet has not been shown to be incorrect. In fact, it only gets stronger and stronger as we study and learn more about life.

What I'm talking about are the Atheists who start yelling about how there is no God and that if you believe in one, you're a fucking idiot and should have your rights taken away. There really are people like that, not a lot, but a vocal enough bunch, and if/when they try to cash in on it, then they're probably the asshole in a lot of situations they intentionally put themselves in.

Having a debate about God and or religion is not the same as identifying as a New Atheist and then screaming at people who you consider "others" because they don't have the same beliefs as you - those are just Atheist Conservatives finding a group of "others" to project their own self-loating and fear onto.

I'm an agnostic and believe Christianity and The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster have about equally enough chance at being "right". That said, I'll often refer to Christian tenets and biblical teachings of Jesus to call out a "Christian" who is really just a Mammon worshiper who is worshiping Mammon dressed up as Jesus. Not because I think Christianity is inherently more possible than the Church of the FSM, as much as I like to remind "Christians" about what their GOD actually said, rather than whatever hateful shit they're spewing because their actual Gods Mammon and Hannity have shit the idea into their brains so much that they're now brain damaged.

In other words, debate is fine. I'll throw Jesus' words at a pretend Christian all day long.

Telling someone that their belief is wrong because it's not the same belief that you have is conservative behavior and I'm not into that as an agnostic. Fuck, they might be right. The FSM may be out there ready to grant me serenity by the touch of His noodly Appendage, fuck if I know.

 

[MichaelMay]

I was born an atheist... we all were.

I think you have to have the ability to consider a proposition to reject it and I define atheism as the rejection of an idea with no evidence.

I was raised by atheist parents. It was not preached, it was not taught, nothing. There was no religion or anti-religion in our home*. I was taught the moral behavior of a decent human, but without the empty threats of 'you will burn in an unimaginable horrible place for eternity'.

My parents were theists but they never imposed their ideas on me, they figured that I should come to my own conclusions. I turned theist and atheist within one year. Theist because I went with some friends to church and atheist because I read the Bible. Still good friends though, good people are generally good people with or without religion.

 

[woolfe9998]

I think that if you go out of your way to be an "Atheist", capital A, you're probably a person who is predisposed to shouting your beliefs at others and telling other people that they're wrong if they don't believe the same thing as you. Prime candidate for also being a conservative.

I was an Atheist by about age 12 when I knew everything, and then grew out of it as I matured and became an agnostic. There's absolutely no way anyone can know whether there's some sort of "God" or not, and saying you know there isn't, is just about as delusional as saying you know there is. At best, you have a belief as a theist or atheist. I choose to bypass the belief thing altogether. Agnosticism is definitely for me.

If you're identifying as a "New Atheist" and trying to cash in on it, then you might be the asshole.

The so-called difference between atheism and agnosticism is nothing but semantics. Both look at the evidence and say there is insufficient proof. The atheist then says, therefore I don't believe. While the agnostic says, therefore I don't know.

Some people prefer the label agnostic because they somehow buy the notion that "atheism" is a belief, when it is not. It's the absence of one, nothing more. Hence why the word is constructed as a-theism, meaning not a theist. By literal definition, if you are not a theist, you are an a-theist.

The form of atheism which asserts that the non-existence of God is a provable fact is something I have only heard of, never encountered, even online. That's why atheism isn't a belief, or at least, it isn't for any atheist I've ever encountered.

I think when there is a failure to meet the burden of proof, it's absurd to say "I don't know." Of course you technically do not know. You technically do not know if there's a Flying Spaghetti Monster either. Or anything else imagined by humans but unproven.

 

[Moonbeam]

How would you detect it (her/him)? Unseen and undetectable things, even in the physical world, have an influence. For instance gravity is unseen, right? It can be "detected" by its effect on falling objects, but until Newton, nobody recognized or understood its existence.

Don't really want to argue this but is accurate as far as your knowledge of how to detect your idea of God goes. The God you don't believe in does not exist so he wont be detected by detection methods you believe in. God only exists when real selfless love awakens. Then like a whole in a tent, His love shines through. Millions and billions of holes can exist revealing the same light.

 

[Moonbeam]

Are new "New Atheist" really just a group of nuts who happen to be atheists? Seems like an extremely fringe movement and hardly newsworthy.

I think the author finds their fascism and the fascist drift in the country something noteworthy, assuming, of course, both are real.

 

[nickqt]

The so-called difference between atheism and agnosticism is nothing but semantics. Both look at the evidence and say there is insufficient proof. The atheist then says, therefore I don't believe. While the agnostic says, therefore I don't know.

Some people prefer the label agnostic because they somehow buy the notion that "atheism" is a belief, when it is not. It's the absence of one, nothing more. Hence why the word is constructed as a-theism, meaning not a theist. By literal definition, if you are not a theist, you are an a-theist.

The form of atheism which asserts that the non-existence of God is a provable fact is something I have only heard of, never encountered, even online.

I think when there is a failure to meet the burden of proof, it's absurd to say "I don't know." Of course you technically do not know. You technically do not know if there's a Flying Spaghetti Monster either. Or anything else imagined by humans but unproven.

Oh yes, the "fence-sitter" charge that atheists like to throw at people who identify as an agnostic. Way to be that Atheist.

To be clear: If you identify as an a-theist, you are saying that there is no god. You are making a positive statement of fact. There isn't X".

To be clear: if you identify as a theist, you are saying that there is a god. You are making a positive statement of fact. "There is X".

I am neither as an agnostic, and that difference is not absurd. I am saying that I don't know and could never know and that saying that I know one way or the other is impossible. There might be "X", there might not be "X". That is right there on its face not the same as "There isn't X".

The fact that there is a clear difference between Atheism and Agnosticism that can be explained in sentence form means that it isn't absurd to say that you're an agnostic and not an atheist. Or to put it another way, I'm not on your team here, just like I'm not on the theists' team.

 

[MichaelMay]

The only thing that should be taught in public schools is evidence-based, which is Evolution, a theory that as of yet has not been shown to be incorrect. In fact, it only gets stronger and stronger as we study and learn more about life.

What I'm talking about are the Atheists who start yelling about how there is no God and that if you believe in one, you're a fucking idiot and should have your rights taken away. There really are people like that, not a lot, but a vocal enough bunch, and if/when they try to cash in on it, then they're probably the asshole in a lot of situations they intentionally put themselves in.

Having a debate about God and or religion is not the same as identifying as a New Atheist and then screaming at people who you consider "others" because they don't have the same beliefs as you - those are just Atheist Conservatives finding a group of "others" to project their own self-loating and fear onto.

I'm an agnostic and believe Christianity and The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster have about equally enough chance at being "right". That said, I'll often refer to Christian tenets and biblical teachings of Jesus to call out a "Christian" who is really just a Mammon worshiper who is worshiping Mammon dressed up as Jesus. Not because I think Christianity is inherently more possible than the Church of the FSM, as much as I like to remind "Christians" about what their GOD actually said, rather than whatever hateful shit they're spewing because their actual Gods Mammon and Hannity have shit the idea into their brains so much that they're now brain damaged.

In other words, debate is fine. I'll throw Jesus' words at a pretend Christian all day long.

Telling someone that their belief is wrong because it's not the same belief that you have is conservative behavior and I'm not into that as an agnostic. Fuck, they might be right. The FSM may be out there ready to grant me serenity by the touch of His noodly Appendage, fuck if I know.

I obviously do not know what a "New Atheist" is but I still have a feeling that much like the Satanic Church they exist mainly to push back? (I googled for a bit, so a bit of a clue just so I won't make myself out to be a liar)

I wonder if you'd consider Stephen Fry or Dennet as a part of them, he's in the same camp as Dawkins and Harris and certainly in the same camp as Hitchens (a more staunch atheist in comparison both Dawkins and Harris). I feel like it's a bit of singling out some of the more successful debaters who are indeed very knowledgeable (they quite often make fools out of theists such as the hack Jordan Peterson because they are simply in another league of understanding the scientific principles and laws of logic).

I have nothing else to disagree with here other than that I'm maximally (not absolutely) certain that there is no God but then again... I think you are too.

I am in no way a preachy atheist other than when people get the meaning of the word wrong because that is just annoying and I've never heard any of the people mentioned in the article EVER say that there is no god in normal tone nor screaming it.

 

[WelshBloke]

Don't really want to argue this but is accurate as far as your knowledge of how to detect your idea of God goes. The God you don't believe in does not exist so he wont be detected by detection methods you believe in. God only exists when real selfless love awakens. Then like a whole in a tent, His love shines through. Millions and billions of holes can exist revealing the same light.

Belief doesn't change what exists. What you are talking about is magic. And that doesn't exist either.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think that if you go out of your way to be an "Atheist", capital A, you're probably a person who is predisposed to shouting your beliefs at others and telling other people that they're wrong if they don't believe the same thing as you. Prime candidate for also being a conservative.

I was an Atheist by about age 12 when I knew everything, and then grew out of it as I matured and became an agnostic. There's absolutely no way anyone can know whether there's some sort of "God" or not, and saying you know there isn't, is just about as delusional as saying you know there is. At best, you have a belief as a theist or atheist. I choose to bypass the belief thing altogether. Agnosticism is definitely for me.

If you're identifying as a "New Atheist" and trying to cash in on it, then you might be the asshole.

I rather agree with this but Atheists claim they simply do not believe but they seem to deeply believe they do not and insist that is the proper stance. Their insistance that God can't be proved seem to slide easily over into he does not exist, period. The author points out that may be a character flaw that results from moral failure associated with excessive certainty. I find the motivation as to why people are susceptable to that kind of mentalith to be worth examination. What is the origin of needing to be right?

 

[WelshBloke]

Oh yes, the "fence-sitter" charge that atheists like to throw at people who identify as an agnostic. Way to be that Atheist.

It seems weird to take umbrage at implications of fence sitting then say...

I am saying that I don't know and could never know and that saying that I know one way or the other is impossible. There might be "X", there might not be "X".

 

[WelshBloke]

Their insistance that God can't be proved seem to slide easily over into he does not exist, period.

I mean why wouldn't that one point slide into the other? You don't need a to prove the fully fledged God of the Bible with his blue eyes and blond hair, just any tiny little verifiable physical mote would do.

 

[MichaelMay]

Oh yes, the "fence-sitter" charge that atheists like to throw at people who identify as an agnostic. Way to be that Atheist.

I agree with him and you are wrong, agnostic/gnostic refers to knowledge while atheist/theist refers to belief.

To be clear: If you identify as an a-theist, you are saying that there is no god. You are making a positive statement of fact. There isn't X".

No, atheist from the Greek a-theos literally means not-theist. It isn't a positive statement because "not" cannot be a positive statement.

To be clear: if you identify as a theist, you are saying that there is a god. You are making a positive statement of fact. "There is X".

This is also false, theist from the Greek theos literally means "with *belief* in a God(s)" and says nothing about knowledge.

I am neither as an agnostic, and that difference is not absurd. I am saying that I don't know and could never know and that saying that I know one way or the other is impossible. There might be "X", there might not be "X". That is right there on its face not the same as "There is X".

The fact that there is a clear difference between Atheism and Agnosticism that can be explained in sentence form means that it isn't absurd to say that you're an agnostic and not an atheist. Or to put it another way, I'm not on your team here, just like I'm not on the theists' team.

You're either atheist or theist (the two are mutually exclusive), you either believe that there is a god or you do not believe that there is a god.

I'd say your position is agnostic atheist or weak atheist if you want to use language correctly.

 

[MichaelMay]

I rather agree with this but Atheists claim they simply do not believe but they seem to deeply believe they do not and insist that is the proper stance. Their insistance that God can't be proved seem to slide easily over into he does not exist, period. The author points out that may be a character flaw that results from moral failure associated with excessive certainty. I find the motivation as to why people are susceptable to that kind of mentalith to be worth examination. What is the origin of needing to be right?

Remove the meanings of the words others use as they mean them play pretend you're not dishonest?

I find it to be the height of dishonesty.

 

[Moonbeam]

Belief doesn't change what exists. What you are talking about is magic. And that doesn't exist either.

Oh, ho, ho

Attitude and belief are everything. We are the world and what you see is a projection of your mental state. Faith moves mountains and blah blah blah.

Perhaps what you think of as the real is a magical delusion you believe. Remember that while you may believe something it may not be true.