Alex's view of Atheism

I realized after reading my post I may not have been clear.

I think everyone believes in something. Atheism, theism and agnosticism are all belief systems. They are variants of essentially the same thing. Again, the spectrum thing. Even "non-beliefs" are in fact beliefs. Everyone has a world view and all of their individual beliefs stem from that. And your worldview is a set of philosophies that you agree with. Ideas that you believe to be true.

I never said I take issue with people identifying as atheist. People can identify themselves in which ever way they see fit. You could tell me you identify as a tree, and I wouldn't care. I might think your a bit nutty, but whatever. My point was, atheists are constantly saying atheism is not a belief system. But it is. People are more than welcome to identify as atheist. But they are kidding themselves if they believe that professing to be an atheist is professing to a "non-belief". I tend to recommend avoiding labels for oneself however, as I stated above, since that can have an effect of closing yourself into a more strict set of beliefs that close your mind to beliefs that contradict those of your self proscribed label.

And we have a word for a "non-belief" in God because it is quite literally one of the most fundamental questions of humanity. A belief in Bigfoot, is not. However, feel free to create one. Words are a creation of man, and have no meaning or purpose beyond what we believe (and agree) they do. Words are arbitrary.
 
It depends on what you definition of,

It depends what your definition of,..............................................Is.

This is getting pretty funny. It seems like the most touchy are the ones blathering on about definitions, which has precisely squat to do with the OP. You've probably forgotten already that it was derailed instantly with a post consisting entirely of definitions. By Saiko.

So do you have any thoughts on the three points I raised in the OP? Here they are again:
1. Alex is making sweeping generalizations about atheists, about who they are and what they believe, and his unwillingness to break it down with any kind of nuance looks to me to be general disinterest in having a real discussion about it.

2. Alex said Atheists want to exist in a vacuum and comfort each other like little babies and not engage anyone but other atheists. This is clown-like absurdity on the face of it.

3. Alex said in a recent podcast that atheists often fall on the right side of the fence on social issues "for the wrong reasons". I want to know first, how he thinks this is possible, and second what are the "wrong reasons". I know I'm being hard on Alex in this thread, but this question is as straightforward as it gets.
 
This is getting pretty funny. It seems like the most touchy are the ones blathering on about definitions, which has precisely squat to do with the OP. You've probably forgotten already that it was derailed instantly with a post consisting entirely of definitions. By Saiko.

So do you have any thoughts on the three points I raised in the OP? Here they are again:


1. Alex is making sweeping generalizations about atheists, about who they are and what they believe, and his unwillingness to break it down with any kind of nuance looks to me to be general disinterest in having a real discussion about it.

2. Alex said Atheists want to exist in a vacuum and comfort each other like little babies and not engage anyone but other atheists. This is clown-like absurdity on the face of it.

3. Alex said in a recent podcast that atheists often fall on the right side of the fence on social issues "for the wrong reasons". I want to know first, how he thinks this is possible, and second what are the "wrong reasons". I know I'm being hard on Alex in this thread, but this question is as straightforward as it gets.


1; Easy, It's impossible to say the word atheist, without not referring to a specific type of atheist, Alex is referring to a specific type of atheist he most probably came into contact with and who he genuinely believes fits the description he gave.

2; Again it's impossible to say the word atheist without not referring to a specific type of atheist he came into contact with.


3; I can't answer this you would have to ask Alex.


But

1 and 2

Are simple, people often say if only those theists were not so against homosexuality, those pesky darn theists.

The truth is, you can not tar all theists with the same brush, and furthermore you should actually be more specific, like instead of theists, say those Christians or those Muslims that I encountered, are dead against homosexuals.

The only problem with atheism is, there is no way to categorize them, and most times when you make a statement like Alex did, A lot of atheists can get offended, and rightly so, but it's due to a lack of a better word, of trying to explain the occurrences of the atheists he has encountered, rather than trying to apply it to all atheists.
 
1; Easy, It's impossible to say the word atheist, without not referring to a specific type of atheist, Alex is referring to a specific type of atheist he most probably came into contact with and who he genuinely believes fits the description he gave.

2; Again it's impossible to say the word atheist without not referring to a specific type of atheist he came into contact with.


3; I can't answer this you would have to ask Alex.


But

1 and 2

Are simple, people often say if only those theists were not so against homosexuality, those pesky darn theists.

The truth is, you can not tar all theists with the same brush, and furthermore you should actually be more specific, like instead of theists, say those Christians or those Muslims that I encountered, are dead against homosexuals.

The only problem with atheism is, there is no way to categorize them, and most times when you make a statement like Alex did, A lot of atheists can get offended, and rightly so, but it's due to a lack of a better word, of trying to explain the occurrences of the atheists he has encountered, rather than trying to apply it to all atheists.

I would have the same problem with anyone making sweeping generalizations about theists. In fact, anyone saying "those pesky theists are against homosexuality" would be nearly impossible to take seriously. Which is EXACTLY the issue I'm having with Alex here. That's almost the exact kind of hyperbolic statement he's making about atheists. I like Alex and I've been listening to skeptiko literally since the beginning. I'm not saying I've caught up, I mean I've been there since the start. And I'm running into serious roadblocks trying to figure out where he's going with this.

Also, on #2 I'm not following your thinking. I mentioned Matt Dillahunty who is the exact kind of atheist Alex is referring to, no doubt. And his insistence that atheists do not want to engage is clearly false. In fact I'd say it's false with most prominent atheists, who must be the people Alex is talking about.
 
Bishop,

I have argued this very point, and I agree - atheism means a lack of belief in God. For that reason, I tend to refer to materialists and I would say that theists can't logically be materialists, but an atheist might or might not be a materialist.

Even so, it is only worth arguing semantics for so long......

I don't quite agree with your second point. I think militant sceptics - such as Patricia Churchland - like to preach to an audience that either agrees with them, or who disagree in rather facile ways. A guy who simply kept on quoting verses from the bible would be an ideal opponent from their point of view. They don't really like it when they are caught in circular reasoning, or when they want to claim a deep understanding of consciousness, and yet know very little about anomalous consciousness - NDE's, OBE's etc.

I do wish Alex wouldn't talk so much about biological robots, and could feature some of the other quotes that sceptics are fond of, and the way they tend to contradict each other, for example:

Alex Tsakiris: Yeah, great. That’s really an interesting place to start, this idea that consciousness is an illusion of a biological robot.

Dr. Patricia Churchland: Oh, I wouldn’t say it’s an illusion. It’s not an illusion at all.

Alex Tsakiris: Well, this is the quote. That’s what Daniel Dennett said, right?

Dr. Patricia Churchland: Yeah, but that’s not what I said.

Alex Tsakiris: Okay, so it’s not an illusion. What is it? Are we biological robots like Richard Dawkins thinks?

Dr. Patricia Churchland: I don’t think Richard thinks that we’re biological robots

I would say hardline sceptics seem to like to talk in riddles. They seem to want to espouse a picture in which the whole universe - including us - operates in a mindless way, but at the same time they are rowing backwards - aware of how stark their views really are. They always want to present themselves as common sense people who don't believe in fairies, ghosts, life after death etc. but they know that when really pushed, their ideas look intensely extreme.

When it comes to social issues, the materialists are usually pragmatic - whatever is for the common good - so they generally live and let live, but I suppose Alex would say that they have the wrong reason, because ultimately they don't have any values at all - they just construct a temporary set to get them by in life!

David
 
Last edited:
I would have the same problem with anyone making sweeping generalizations about theists. In fact, anyone saying "those pesky theists are against homosexuality" would be nearly impossible to take seriously. Which is EXACTLY the issue I'm having with Alex here. That's almost the exact kind of hyperbolic statement he's making about atheists. I like Alex and I've been listening to skeptiko literally since the beginning. I'm not saying I've caught up, I mean I've been there since the start. And I'm running into serious roadblocks trying to figure out where he's going with this.

Also, on #2 I'm not following your thinking. I mentioned Matt Dillahunty who is the exact kind of atheist Alex is referring to, no doubt. And his insistence that atheists do not want to engage is clearly false. In fact I'd say it's false with most prominent atheists, who must be the people Alex is talking about.

In- fact, anyone saying "those pesky theists are against homosexuality, would be nearly impossible to take seriously.

Not really, I am a theist, But I have no issue with homosexuality, so it's a bit offence to be tarred with the same brush. I propose they address them by their specific denomination, like Christian, Muslim, Ect Ect,

My point is atheism, Doesn't have this privilege, many atheists are having to sit under one massive umbrella, and this is where the confusion comes from, There is a lack of a better word when referring to a specific view of an atheist.

I can't say I know much about what you mentioned in the rest of your comment, and my shift time is up now, But I hope you got my point.

Just how do you refer to atheists, as an atheist who is dishonest without referring to atheism as a whole, There is a lack of a better word.
 
This is getting pretty funny. It seems like the most touchy are the ones blathering on about definitions, which has precisely squat to do with the OP. You've probably forgotten already that it was derailed instantly with a post consisting entirely of definitions. By Saiko.

So do you have any thoughts on the three points I raised in the OP? Here they are again:
1. Alex is making sweeping generalizations about atheists, about who they are and what they believe, and his unwillingness to break it down with any kind of nuance looks to me to be general disinterest in having a real discussion about it.

2. Alex said Atheists want to exist in a vacuum and comfort each other like little babies and not engage anyone but other atheists. This is clown-like absurdity on the face of it.

3. Alex said in a recent podcast that atheists often fall on the right side of the fence on social issues "for the wrong reasons". I want to know first, how he thinks this is possible, and second what are the "wrong reasons". I know I'm being hard on Alex in this thread, but this question is as straightforward as it gets.
Honestly, all three questions pertain to Alex's opinions. One mans opinions. If you are unclear or want an answer as to why he says what he says, why don't you email him and ask him.
 
Saiko, the accepted definitions of atheism and agnosticsm have evolved over time. If you look these words up in various dictionaries you will see versions of both definitions present..
I don't see that in any respectable dictionary. As for the "(d)evolved over time" I'd say "reworked to fit the duplicitous agenda of some people." I'm aware of that happening and it's not uncommon The same has been done with "skeptic" - it is used primarily to refer to those who hew to materialism - not at all what it "really" means. And with both terms it's hilarious as the organized movements of both make the original (IMO correct) usage seem mild.

An accurate meaning based what is obvious from the behaviors of those in the "atheism movement" would be - atheism: a fanatical religion devoted to one's own rationality and logic as the sole existent deities.
 
Honestly, all three questions pertain to Alex's opinions. One mans opinions. If you are unclear or want an answer as to why he says what he says, why don't you email him and ask him.
Well he's making these points publicly on a podcast. I don't think he's shy about his position, and clearly his goals are tied closely to his beliefs and opinions. On every podcast he invites people to come to the forum here and discuss it, both skeptics and proponents. So I just thought I'd go for it. But yes, I can email him also.
 
Well he's making these points publicly on a podcast. I don't think he's shy about his position, and clearly his goals are tied closely to his beliefs and opinions. On every podcast he invites people to come to the forum here and discuss it, both skeptics and proponents. So I just thought I'd go for it. But yes, I can email him also.
I see, fair enough. But curious why it seems you keep coming back to your questions, like you feel people aren't answering them the way you want them to.
 
I see, fair enough. But curious why it seems you keep coming back to your questions, like you feel people aren't answering them the way you want them to.

It's not that I want a specific kind of answer. It's that I want a discussion that addresses the specifics. For example there is absolutely nothing in this thread about how it's possible that atheists can so often fall on the right side of social issues for "wrong reasons". There is no discussion about the assertion that atheists hide from everyone but other atheists. Alex proclaims these things to fuel the dialog with his guests. Is what follows on the heels of these proclamations worth it?
 
Well he's making these points publicly on a podcast. I don't think he's shy about his position, and clearly his goals are tied closely to his beliefs and opinions. On every podcast he invites people to come to the forum here and discuss it, both skeptics and proponents. So I just thought I'd go for it. But yes, I can email him also.

I am pretty sure when a famous athiest makes negative statements accusing a theists world view of realty being fallicious, they could say something like, those theists don't believe in evolution, or those theists are the cause of wars, or those theists are indifferent to gay marriage.


it can apply to some theists but not all,

Maybe you are in the camp of being an atheist where nothing applys to you, but there are something's you could generalise about common perception of athiests. Such as, those atheists are so materialistic, or those athiests like any theory that makes Gods existence less likely ( Naturalism ) and dislike any theory that makes his existence more likely. ( Teleological Argument )


The confusion comes when you are an atheist or theist and someone makes an accusation which doesn't include you in the common held perceptions of either opposing parties.
 
Last edited:
In regards to your first question, I think it's quite clear what "kind of atheist" Alex is speaking to. In a round about way, I was sort of agreeing with Alex. Atheism is a "non-belief" in God. But it is still a belief system. A belief system which includes "I do not believe a god exists". That is a belief, encompassed within a belief system. Granted, Alex seems to be making suppositions about what he thinks atheists believe individually, but working from the notion of "atheists do not believe in God" he would be correct in that they would not entertain any beliefs outside of this. They have an already formed belief which says "I do not believe in God" therefore any evidence presented to the contrary will likely be dismissed. However, if you are an atheist that says "I see no evidence for God" then that is implying that you would entertain the idea of the existence of God if presented with appropriate evidence. That is, imo, agnosticism. And that changes the argument. Because you are no longer talking about atheism, you are talking about agnosticism. Again, beliefs exist on a spectrum.

Theist---a--g--n--o--s--t--i--c--Atheist
"God 100 % exists" "God 100% does
not exist"

So maybe you are right, I'm getting caught up in definitions, but is it possible to discuss your questions without at least making the distinction?

So, if Alex were arguing, for instance, that Atheists do not believe in God so they would not be willing to entertain any evidence of a god existing. If they were willing to, then that is them admitting that they are willing to agree that God may in fact exist, if the evidence proves as much. Would this not then make them an agnostic? So in effect Alex would be correct in this statement about atheists? Would Richard Dawkins in all seriousness really ever entertain the idea that God does exist? Really? Publicly? Me thinks not...

2. Perhaps Alex misspoke when he stated atheists aren't willing to engage in discussion. Perhaps he meant that they are willing to, but the discussion never goes beyond this notion that they are there as a service to educate the audience about how wrong theism and "woo" is. At least, that's my take on it.

3. No clue, since I have no idea what Alex means here by right side, wrong reasons.
 
In regards to your first question, I think it's quite clear what "kind of atheist" Alex is speaking to. In a round about way, I was sort of agreeing with Alex. Atheism is a "non-belief" in God. But it is still a belief system. A belief system which includes "I do not believe a god exists". That is a belief, encompassed within a belief system. Granted, Alex seems to be making suppositions about what he thinks atheists believe individually, but working from the notion of "atheists do not believe in God" he would be correct in that they would not entertain any beliefs outside of this. They have an already formed belief which says "I do not believe in God" therefore any evidence presented to the contrary will likely be dismissed. However, if you are an atheist that says "I see no evidence for God" then that is implying that you would entertain the idea of the existence of God if presented with appropriate evidence. That is, imo, agnosticism. And that changes the argument. Because you are no longer talking about atheism, you are talking about agnosticism. Again, beliefs exist on a spectrum.

Theist---a--g--n--o--s--t--i--c--Atheist
"God 100 % exists" "God 100% does
not exist"

So maybe you are right, I'm getting caught up in definitions, but is it possible to discuss your questions without at least making the distinction?

So, if Alex were arguing, for instance, that Atheists do not believe in God so they would not be willing to entertain any evidence of a god existing. If they were willing to, then that is them admitting that they are willing to agree that God may in fact exist, if the evidence proves as much. Would this not then make them an agnostic? So in effect Alex would be correct in this statement about atheists? Would Richard Dawkins in all seriousness really ever entertain the idea that God does exist? Really? Publicly? Me thinks not...

2. Perhaps Alex misspoke when he stated atheists aren't willing to engage in discussion. Perhaps he meant that they are willing to, but the discussion never goes beyond this notion that they are there as a service to educate the audience about how wrong theism and "woo" is. At least, that's my take on it.

3. No clue, since I have no idea what Alex means here by right side, wrong reasons.

Thanks for your full response here. I appreciate it. I'd like to say more but I have to run for now.

For whatever it's worth Dawkins (whom I really don't care for) has publicly talked about it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...awkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html
 
This whole hard versus soft thing is pointless. Obviously, except when it comes to logic, math, and pure opinion, any belief I hold could be wrong. I just say I don't believe in god. I don't have to bother qualifying it with "but I could be wrong."

~~ Paul
 
I suppose Alex needs to address the atheists he made the statements about.

But to even call out even another member and create a thread of accusing them of having twisted and confused views is tacky and more so should derserve a temp ban, for being insensitive towards another person and trying to air dirty laundry in public.

Being the actual moderator you called out might make it less offensive, but even so I don't think it's right. Sorry to say it but your whole approach to the issue is wrong.
Dirty laundry in public? I mean, he did say these things on his public podcast (with gusto!). I take your point though about the title of the thread. Sometimes my wording is way too harsh. It's a work in progress.
 
Well, blow me down!!! I'm truly surprised. Why such vile then when he usually addresses the issue I wonder?
I think it's because Dawkins suffers badly from foot in mouth. Sometimes I really appreciate what he has to say, and other times I'm just waiting for the bomb to drop.
 
Dirty laundry in public? I mean, he did say these things on his public podcast (with gusto!). I take your point though about the title of the thread. Sometimes my wording is way too harsh. It's a work in progress.

Great, thanks. :)
 
Back
Top