• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Are the New Atheists just as messed up as Believers?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
16,035
5,958
136
You don't have to "prove one way or another". The theist is making the claim, the burden of proof is on them. The time to believe something is once you have evidence to support that belief, until then the logical thing is to not believe. That's all an atheist is. Both you and Nick are confused, what you're both talking about is an anti-theist or strong atheist.

I'm an agnostic atheist, I don't believe in a god, but I also don't know if one exists. Although I'm pretty damn sure the God of the bible doesn't exist, that one's pretty ridiculous.



So now you just make shit up and believe it, lol.
Check.
But in the set of things I cant disprove... God occupies an infinitely small space .. you might even call it a singularity.
Existence at large, as defined by mankind is built upon that we can prove, not the other way around.
One neuron = meh
Two neurons = XOR
Three neurons = to the sky and beyond
One gram of god = nothing.
 
Last edited:

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
30,169
3,565
126
New Atheists. Hmm. OK, not OK. Lump a bunch of people together and paint them with one brush. At least they are atheists. Look, I'll take atheism over any religion, you can pour your sauce over it, bake it, reheat it, smother in sugar. At least it's atheism. I pick my seers carefully. Those people discussed in the article, supposedly atheistic dogmatists, I don't care about them. I don't read their books. I checked out Sam Harris briefly, I'm not interested. I don't follow anyone. I discovered Hitchens recently, he's very interesting. He's dead, but he continues to be interesting. Recently acquired some of his books and have watched a number of videos. His wit, command of the English language, uncompromising attitudes, and readiness to defend his positions in real time (debates) and in his extensive writing were exemplary. Unfortunately, he abused his body and died too early.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MtnMan
Nov 29, 2006
14,686
2,501
126
To all you debating about "I'm an atheist",, or "I'm an agnostic". You all are Agnostic Atheists. You have to be, otherwise you would be able to prove to us all that god doesn't exist. And that you cannot do. I'm an Agnostic Atheist myself.

Almost everyone has to fit into one of these 4 boxes. Unless you just happen to live such a remote life in the Amazon or something, that you've never encountered the idea of gods at all.
Edit: actually everyone would only fit into the 2 bottom boxes, since no one can be 100% certain on the god thing one way or the other.

1623157129893.png
 
Last edited:

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
30,169
3,565
126
I don't want to serve any dogma. I'm fond of quoting William Blake and think this one appropriate enough in this discussion:

The Divine Image
BY WILLIAM BLAKE
To Mercy, Pity, Peace, and Love
All pray in their distress;
And to these virtues of delight
Return their thankfulness.

For Mercy, Pity, Peace, and Love
Is God, our father dear,
And Mercy, Pity, Peace, and Love
Is Man, his child and care.

For Mercy has a human heart,
Pity a human face,
And Love, the human form divine,
And Peace, the human dress.

Then every man, of every clime,
That prays in his distress,
Prays to the human form divine,
Love, Mercy, Pity, Peace.

And all must love the human form,
In heathen, Turk, or Jew;
Where Mercy, Love, and Pity dwell
There God is dwelling too.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
18,044
9,514
136
People like Harris and Dawkins are in no way anywhere near the level of batshit nuttiness and/or intellectual bankruptcy that the religulous revel in. Sorry. Do they stomp on people's feelings from time to time? Yes, they often have little patience for fiction and the orthodoxy it creates, but to say they are no different than the racist culture warriors holding a bible or koran is a gross misrepresentation, one that I suspect has been aided from them not toeing certain cultural/political lines more than anything. Their thoughts on the realities of Islam cost them some friends.

Equating individual abrasiveness and insults as no different than widely held religious or racial agendas that would mean violence and fascism, also throwing in some guilt by association?

Not impressed Salon.
 
Last edited:

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
18,044
9,514
136
Hitchens boiled it down pretty well with respect to the god(s) people choose to create, “What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." No defense of atheism is required.
This. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Some people are still upset at the very basic truth of that statement as it directly contravenes a cherished right wing belief: that their fiction is on the same level playing field as our facts. That's painful stuff for those who consider their feels vastly more important than others' rights.
 
Last edited:
Mar 11, 2004
21,143
3,320
126
To all you debating about "I'm an atheist",, or "I'm an agnostic". You all are Agnostic Atheists. You have to be, otherwise you would be able to prove to us all that god doesn't exist. And that you cannot do. I'm an Agnostic Atheist myself.

Almost everyone has to fit into one of these 4 boxes. Unless you just happen to live such a remote life in the Amazon or something, that you've never encountered the idea of gods at all.
Edit: actually everyone would only fit into the 2 bottom boxes, since no one can be 100% certain on the god thing one way or the other.

View attachment 45448
If you can't understand how nonsensical that argument is I don't know what to say. The most baffling part is your rationale for it is a chart that doesn't even agree with you.

Just because you're apparently unwilling to accept the blatant evidence of the man made God doesn't make people that can see how thoroughly bullshit it is wrong. And this is where you'll go but like not those Gods but like you know God as a concept! And then I point out how that's not God then or its just the same thing (a man made concept to try and make sense of something beyond our ability to know or comprehend, which is inherently pretty silly and pointless). And then you go but like we can't prove where existence comes from and I point out that we don't need to in order to point to the obvious objective nonsense of the man made idea of God or the concept of God.

What you're actually trying to say is that you do believe in something, but not religion or religions' Gods. I honestly don't even get the issue with having a hangup about that (just sounds like you want to be a full of shit person like Libertarians where you actually do believe something but you don't want to admit you do because you know its pretty silly and you don't want to come off as silly, but you also think dickhead atheists are dicks and instead of going "you know, some people are just dicks" you are instead trying to do mental gymnastics to mostly agree with them but also free yourself from association because other dicks that believe in religion want to claim all atheists are dicks, not unlike the people that point to the religious dicks and say that's why they're not religious), let alone using that to argue that everyone else are wrong, but hey, you can argue an ever infinitesimally more mundane semantics if you want.

Religions and belief systems though are objectively just mental concepts for man to placate our fucked up minds that have developed enough to be cognizant of the universe, but lacking enough to actually know the great big things that are simply just out our our scope due to our particular time and place. People deal with it in their own ways, and unfortunately almost all of them are pretty nonsensical if you actually apply objective hard logic (which human minds are ill equipped to do). You can accept that or not, but 99% of that discussion is people trying to justify their own specific nonsense to rationalize their own life (most of which had nothing to do with their belief system). Mine included. You guys can keep circle jerking your brains if you want, but that's all this ever is.
 
Mar 11, 2004
21,143
3,320
126
People like Harris and Dawkins are in no way anywhere near the level of batshit nuttiness and/or intellectual bankruptcy that the religulous revel in. Sorry. Do they stomp on people's feelings from time to time? Yes, they often have little patience for fiction and the orthodoxy it creates, but to say they are no different than the racist culture warriors holding a bible is a gross misrepresentation, one that I suspect has been aided from them not toeing certain cultural/political lines more than anything. Their thoughts on the realities of Islam cost them some friends.

Equating individual abrasiveness and insults as no different than widely held religious or racial agendas that would mean violence and fascism, also throwing in some guilt by association?

Not impressed Salon.
I didn't bother reading the article the OP got all hot and bothered for, but I think there's some objective fact that a lot of the so called "objectivist" atheist movement on social media got duped massively and after being called dicks for various dick moves they've done inadverdently ended up aligned with modern non-objectivist racist asshole right wing movements because of their fanaticism about being opposed to censorship (and because of their bruised manbaby egos or them not wanting to accept how fucked up shit like rape culture and other misogynistic shit is). There's plenty of analysis and discourse you could spend on that, but essentially, dickheads were dicks, then when called out for being dicks, their inherent humanistic traits of self preservation kicked in and they thinking they were making an objectivist stand against censorship, ended up falling for a bunch of bullshit that people that objectively are not being objective (take for instance that dickhead former Google guy that wrote what he proclaimed as objectivist manifesto ignoring how the people that did the studies he was citing to support his supposed objectivist argument told him he fundamentally did not understand the study - for instance the "alpha" shit, alpha just meant parent but a bunch of dumbfucks have twisted it into a bunch of nonsensical justification for being "macho" because they feel immasculated by a world that sees that for the bullshit it is - but thus he was not being objective and was instead doing exactly what he claimed he was championing against).

It really shouldn't surprise anyone that people that actively were focused on defining cultural identities got caught up when society started scrutinizing cultural identities. There's lots of overlaps in beliefs and movements. Essentially what it boils down to is that there is no "good" identity that is above reproach, and human beings are struggling mightily with grasping that humans are messy and everyone is just a mix of factors, most of which they can't control (and can't undo even if they can change). So yes, athiests can be racist dicks just like religious racist dicks, even if they're self proclaimed "objectivist". Not even the worst most despicable humans that ever existance were devoid of all compassion or humanity, but on the flipside there's no perfect human. But that's rough to deal with. To learn that people you consider friends, family, etc, might have some awful beliefs or behaviors is rough. Social media has made it all but impossible to ignore. But humans are wanting to deal with bad behavior. And some are taking an instinctual "fuck you, I won't do what you tell me" response, so we're seeing people that normally wouldn't be such dicks, be such dicks as a reflexive answer to culturalism that doesn't always get things right. But humans inherently want things simplified and easy "wrong or right" so they can justify our limited and often broken brain chemistry that dictates emotions.

Cliffs:
As society became highly polarized, some "objectivists" fell into it as well. This apparently surprised some people, or they saw it as an avenue to take them to task for dick moves.
 

skyking

Lifer
Nov 21, 2001
19,558
1,317
136
Religions and belief systems though are objectively just mental concepts for man to placate our fucked up minds that have developed enough to be cognizant of the universe, but lacking enough to actually know the great big things that are simply just out our our scope due to our particular time and place.
That is what makes the matrix of gnostic vs. agnostic moot for me too. Which one of the vastly different thousands of god concepts that man has created is right? Which one of those am I 100% certain is not correct? Why? Lastly, who cares?
The matrix is for those who have left religion, but still have doubts and fears. Those are comfortable boxes, the not knowing for certain boxes.
Pascal's wager is just a heaping pile of guilt and fear wrapped in a weak argument.
 
Nov 8, 2012
19,725
4,436
136
To all you debating about "I'm an atheist",, or "I'm an agnostic". You all are Agnostic Atheists. You have to be, otherwise you would be able to prove to us all that god doesn't exist. And that you cannot do. I'm an Agnostic Atheist myself.

Almost everyone has to fit into one of these 4 boxes. Unless you just happen to live such a remote life in the Amazon or something, that you've never encountered the idea of gods at all.
Edit: actually everyone would only fit into the 2 bottom boxes, since no one can be 100% certain on the god thing one way or the other.

View attachment 45448
It's just people confused and conflating the two.

Any atheist of any intelligence that has used things like the flying spaghetti monster has realized that the entire point of atheism is saying "Because there is no scientific proof, basis, or evidence, I do not believe in a god.". But the same holds true for agnosticism - "Because there is no scientific proof, basis, or evidence, I cannot proclaim that one doesn't exist".
 
Last edited:
Nov 29, 2006
14,686
2,501
126
If you can't understand how nonsensical that argument is I don't know what to say. The most baffling part is your rationale for it is a chart that doesn't even agree with you.

Just because you're apparently unwilling to accept the blatant evidence of the man made God doesn't make people that can see how thoroughly bullshit it is wrong. And this is where you'll go but like not those Gods but like you know God as a concept! And then I point out how that's not God then or its just the same thing (a man made concept to try and make sense of something beyond our ability to know or comprehend, which is inherently pretty silly and pointless). And then you go but like we can't prove where existence comes from and I point out that we don't need to in order to point to the obvious objective nonsense of the man made idea of God or the concept of God.

What you're actually trying to say is that you do believe in something, but not religion or religions' Gods. I honestly don't even get the issue with having a hangup about that (just sounds like you want to be a full of shit person like Libertarians where you actually do believe something but you don't want to admit you do because you know its pretty silly and you don't want to come off as silly, but you also think dickhead atheists are dicks and instead of going "you know, some people are just dicks" you are instead trying to do mental gymnastics to mostly agree with them but also free yourself from association because other dicks that believe in religion want to claim all atheists are dicks, not unlike the people that point to the religious dicks and say that's why they're not religious), let alone using that to argue that everyone else are wrong, but hey, you can argue an ever infinitesimally more mundane semantics if you want.

Religions and belief systems though are objectively just mental concepts for man to placate our fucked up minds that have developed enough to be cognizant of the universe, but lacking enough to actually know the great big things that are simply just out our our scope due to our particular time and place. People deal with it in their own ways, and unfortunately almost all of them are pretty nonsensical if you actually apply objective hard logic (which human minds are ill equipped to do). You can accept that or not, but 99% of that discussion is people trying to justify their own specific nonsense to rationalize their own life (most of which had nothing to do with their belief system). Mine included. You guys can keep circle jerking your brains if you want, but that's all this ever is.
I DO believe gods are a man made concept as you say. Now what? You might want to rethink what you think you know of me. Oh and you should also just admit you are an Agnostic Atheist as i said. Not my fault you cant understand a simple chart. But if you think you can prove to all of us with 100% certainty that no gods exist. The world is waiting.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
17,211
4,850
136
Seems to me, the more I study ancient civilizations, the more I can relate to their belief systems. Almost all are untimately tied to the movement of the Sun, the moon, and Venus. These people were tied to their nature as they understood it. Much more relatable to your average human. Don't know where this longing for someone to be the daddy authority figure came from. Implied guilt, seems to be the main theme of Abrahamic religions.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
13,242
2,864
136
But the same holds true for agnosticism - "Because there is no scientific proof, basis, or evidence, I cannot proclaim that one doesn't exist".
You don't have to prove that things don't exist. Things don't exist by default. There are an infinite number of things that don't exist.
Non-existent things don't have any scientific proof, basis, or evidence. Only things that exist have those things. Therefore is something does not have those things it does not exist.
It is not an either/or situation. It is not that something can be in a state of existence or non-existence. non-existence is not a state. It is the same as trying to divide by zero. It does not even make logical sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: soulcougher73

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
18,044
9,514
136
I contend the very subject is a bit of a side show really, built on grievances, straw and smoke. The right wing christian sphere of influence is currently at a bit of a crossroads, one where certain leaders within certain orgs are not acquiescing to that groups political needs, creating an unsavory situation where even they now know calling themselves christians means nothing. The issue of poseurs abandoning principles and tenants of their faith for political gain, also defending/embracing racism, has also been compounded by the widespread sexual abuse of minors.

So what does this widening schism within orgs like the SBC and republican party mean?

Projection time. People like Harris and Kraus are just like the fundies and the foul mouthed nuts who stormed the capital. Just look at how mean they are on twitter. *dusts hands*
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: skyking
Nov 8, 2012
19,725
4,436
136
You don't have to prove that things don't exist. Things don't exist by default. There are an infinite number of things that don't exist.

100 years ago, did dark matter exist? How about black holes? We can go on and on and on with this one....

Sorry, your logic doesn't hold true.


We also aren't saying that it "exists by default", were saying we can't declare that it does or doesn't.
 

skyking

Lifer
Nov 21, 2001
19,558
1,317
136
step up your game, ignored one. sharpen those logic skills.
All those things, and quarks, and mesons, and before that bacteria existed. quit thinking in terms of what man knew.
They don't exist because we found them. They are simply there awaiting discovery, as are many unknown things.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
13,242
2,864
136
100 years ago, did dark matter exist? How about black holes? We can go on and on and on with this one....

Sorry, your logic doesn't hold true.


We also aren't saying that it "exists by default", were saying we can't declare that it does or doesn't.
We didn't know about black holes (and dark matter might not exist, that name is a placeholder for a effect that we can't find a cause for. It could, and probably will, end up being explained by something we already know about but are measuring poorly). We have a theory of gods, and what their properties should be. Since we can't find those properties, or anything that even resembles those properties, or come up with any logical reason why something with those properties could exist, we can dismiss them as non-existent. Comparing that to something we had no idea might even exist is not the same. You are trying to claim invisible incorporeal unicorns and telling me that since I can't prove they don't exist I have to leave the possibility of them existing open.

We start with the assumption that a theory is wrong and try to prove it right. That is the scientific method in a nutshell. It does not work the other way around.
 
  • Like
Reactions: soulcougher73

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,178
3,861
126
I didn't bother reading the article the OP got all hot and bothered for, but I think there's some objective fact that a lot of the so called "objectivist" atheist movement on social media got duped massively and after being called dicks for various dick moves they've done inadverdently ended up aligned with modern non-objectivist racist asshole right wing movements because of their fanaticism about being opposed to censorship (and because of their bruised manbaby egos or them not wanting to accept how fucked up shit like rape culture and other misogynistic shit is). There's plenty of analysis and discourse you could spend on that, but essentially, dickheads were dicks, then when called out for being dicks, their inherent humanistic traits of self preservation kicked in and they thinking they were making an objectivist stand against censorship, ended up falling for a bunch of bullshit that people that objectively are not being objective (take for instance that dickhead former Google guy that wrote what he proclaimed as objectivist manifesto ignoring how the people that did the studies he was citing to support his supposed objectivist argument told him he fundamentally did not understand the study - for instance the "alpha" shit, alpha just meant parent but a bunch of dumbfucks have twisted it into a bunch of nonsensical justification for being "macho" because they feel immasculated by a world that sees that for the bullshit it is - but thus he was not being objective and was instead doing exactly what he claimed he was championing against).

It really shouldn't surprise anyone that people that actively were focused on defining cultural identities got caught up when society started scrutinizing cultural identities. There's lots of overlaps in beliefs and movements. Essentially what it boils down to is that there is no "good" identity that is above reproach, and human beings are struggling mightily with grasping that humans are messy and everyone is just a mix of factors, most of which they can't control (and can't undo even if they can change). So yes, athiests can be racist dicks just like religious racist dicks, even if they're self proclaimed "objectivist". Not even the worst most despicable humans that ever existance were devoid of all compassion or humanity, but on the flipside there's no perfect human. But that's rough to deal with. To learn that people you consider friends, family, etc, might have some awful beliefs or behaviors is rough. Social media has made it all but impossible to ignore. But humans are wanting to deal with bad behavior. And some are taking an instinctual "fuck you, I won't do what you tell me" response, so we're seeing people that normally wouldn't be such dicks, be such dicks as a reflexive answer to culturalism that doesn't always get things right. But humans inherently want things simplified and easy "wrong or right" so they can justify our limited and often broken brain chemistry that dictates emotions.

Cliffs:
As society became highly polarized, some "objectivists" fell into it as well. This apparently surprised some people, or they saw it as an avenue to take them to task for dick moves.
You crack me up. The thoughts or critique you expressed here I pretty much agree with and a good description of the points of view I brought to the table prompting the post. I guess you are hot and bothered too but maybe that’s only because you put me in the need to insult box. I prefer to think the reason I posted is because you are quite insightful but of course I would, since here where I think we agree.
 

MtnMan

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2004
5,945
4,179
136
I was sent to a parochial school K thru 6. Parents sent me there because it was a much better school than the public schools.
Every day religion was taught. Catholics went off to their indoctrination, Jews went off to a different indoctrination, and those of us that fit neither had just basic bible story BS class.

Very early on during these years I pretty much had decided that made no fucking sense. All the animal species in the world on a boat. Turn to salt for looking at something... yea right... Of course I never heard such bullshit at home, as I suspect most of the other kids had.

Gotta remember that most "christian" parents begin religious training long before potty training begins.

No wonder priests have so little problem sodomizing little boys.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,178
3,861
126
You don't have to prove that things don't exist. Things don't exist by default. There are an infinite number of things that don't exist.
Non-existent things don't have any scientific proof, basis, or evidence. Only things that exist have those things. Therefore is something does not have those things it does not exist.
It is not an either/or situation. It is not that something can be in a state of existence or non-existence. non-existence is not a state. It is the same as trying to divide by zero. It does not even make logical sense.
Don’t you refer to a state as one that is physical? What about states of mind or states of consciousness. How do you prove the existence of a mental phenomenon you have experienced to somebody who has not experienced it.
 

Stokely

Senior member
Jun 5, 2017
894
792
136
Most atheists I know (I'm personally agnostic but leaning atheist as I grow older) have no desire to foist their (non) beliefs on other people. I don't give a flying shit what sky fairy you believe in, as long as you don't use those beliefs to harm others. It's the harming others I object to, I'd have the same objection if atheists were harming people.

I grew up in an Evangelist family and their creed is to spread the word, so right there I have issues. Missionaries should be rounded up and deported, whatever good they do is outdone by the harm they cause.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MtnMan

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
8,196
3,194
136
Since when did not believing in wackadoo tribalistic mystical religious bullshit rules and regulations make someone unreasonable? If I was agnostic during the salem witch trials and thought these religous wackadoos were being insane by thinking witches would not sink or what not otherwise they should be burned, was I being unreasonable by thinking their rules were insane? I mean they sure had faith when they were dunking those women. Fuck them.
But that's not "agnosticism". Agnosticism in that case would be saying "maybe they are right about the witch stuff, I don't know, who's to say? To be sure they aren't witches is a faith-position"


But yet I am perfectly capable of believing in some sort of spirituality just way outside of the current man-made structures.
That's not agnosticism. What you've got there is Deism or Pantheism or spirtualism or somesuch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JD50 and hal2kilo

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
8,196
3,194
136
Missionaries should be rounded up and deported, whatever good they do is outdone by the harm they cause.
That's an interesting topic. It does seem as if historically, missionary work has caused nothing but harm. One thing it repeatedly has done is create stigmatised national minorities that are later persecuted. It usually seems to have gone hand-in-hand with colonialism.

But I wonder how far you can take that? What about 'missionary work' that isn't religious, i.e. converting people in a distant community to communism or capitalism or liberalism? You could probably make the same argument about all attempts to spread ideologies.
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
10,105
6,202
136
But that's not "agnosticism". Agnosticism in that case would be saying "maybe they are right about the witch stuff, I don't know, who's to say? To be sure they aren't witches is a faith-position"




That's not agnosticism. What you've got there is Deism or Pantheism or spirtualism or somesuch.
For the witch trials, of course it is. Being agnostic doesn't mean you can't call out the insanity of man-made religions, it just means you are not sure if there is or is not some sort of supernatural power involved in the universe. By no means does that mean an agnostic has to give credibility to all the insane shit man made religions do. You do not know what agnosticism is.

For part two, I worded it wrong. I meant to say it may be possible there is some sort of spirituality/spiritual force out there. That is exactly what agnosticism is.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY