But the fire and brimstone types are the most vocal and politically active and the most dangerous at least here in the states. Why wouldn't they be a big fat target for the atheist opposition? I do not know which country you live in but that might have something to do with your perception of the "why" of this atheist reactionary situation.
Not religious, not atheist
- Thread starter Kamarling
- Start date
Kamarling
Member
Thanks for confirming my point, Steve. Easy targets.
Not easy targets. I've never heard of atheists targeting Universalists, The Amish, Mennonites, Rastafarians.... ,they are just as easy targets as any other. But what they do that your so-called "easy targets" do not do is show tolerance towards others that have different faiths or no faith. Atheist wrath is directed at those who would if they could, create a theocracy of their own making and they are for the most part Christian Fundamentalists.
Arouet
Member
I am really tired of being accused of playing games as an excuse to avoid the substance of my arguments. If you think I didn't accurately report your position, then just correct me! It is so frustrating!
Let me know what I've misunderstood here:
You, along with many others on this forum, regularly call the god of the old and new testament/koran a simplistic version of god. That's the god that Dawkins focuses on, right? The tv caricature version is satire, I know you don't really think that's the extent of portrayal by new atheists - who describe a much wider breadth of belie). As you've done here, and as many others including Alex have regularly done on this forum, you paint those believers as low hanging fruit for the new atheists, reproaching them for not focusing on the more nuanced believers such as deists, idealists, and the like. I believe I can find plenty of quotes to back this up.
While each believer has their own take on it, that is the god that vast majority believe in. That is the god that is the subject of the new atheist movement: the followers of which include not just those who commit the huge attrocities, but those who dominate society, who discriminate, vilify those with different beliefs, treat non-believers as evil, or bad, etc. Those who commit the social issues the reaction of which was the new atheist movement.
Please tell me if there is anything there that you believe is inaccurate. I mean, are you really denying that vastly more people believe in that god than in a deistic or idealistic one? The nuanced gods of the nones compared to the judeo-christian god that Dawkins and the new atheists attack?
What you are failing to acknowledge is that the New Atheist movement was a reaction to social and political problems caused by the followers of those gods. I agree they are often rude and overcompensate, similar to how leaders of other discriminated groups have done the same - taking a legitimate complaint but then overcompensating. I agree that they often (not always) do not publicly advance a nuanced view - but as you know, that's not easy to do publicly. I try to advance such a view all the time and am roundly attacked as missing the obvious - and less nuanced - point. Just look at the current podcast thread.
The nuanced believers that you refer to are not the problem, and I think you know that. But for some reason you seem to propose that the new atheists should focus on those benign believers and not on those they perceive as the problem.
Arouet
Member
Rather, the new atheist movement is a reaction to socially conservative christians and those with similar beliefs and - more importantly - behaviour.
Arouet
Member
And you've just confirmed mine Kamarling. It seems I represented you just fine, this is exactly what I meant.
Kamarling
Member
You well know that we have been through this before Arouet and I'm not playing your games again. I've never bought into your Mr. Reasonable front and I am sure that others don't buy it either. If you don't like what I say, put me on ignore. I have only used ignore for your mentor, Linda, but you tempt me sorely.
S
Sciborg_S_Patel
Why isn't this thread in CD?
We shouldn't have to make every thread outside of CD into a Mod+ thread just to avoid the thread being ruined like this one has been.
Also, a thread with essays/articles criticizing the New Atheist movement.
We shouldn't have to make every thread outside of CD into a Mod+ thread just to avoid the thread being ruined like this one has been.
Also, a thread with essays/articles criticizing the New Atheist movement.
gabriel
New
From comments arising elsewhere I want to attempt a personal response to the question of religious belief in a contemporary sensibility. I agree with Bernardo Kastrup that consciousness is the ontological primitive, the indivisible stuff of existence. It seems the most parsimonious conclusion and one I'm most compelled by. However this conclusion does not reflect the way I think about existence in normal life. The intellectual question is what is the most immediate manifestation of consciousness, the lowest common denominator of mind, and the answer is the symbol. Symbols are the way we think from earliest childhood, they haunt our dreams and shape our desires, but they are illusive and subject to proliferation and complexity. This complex form is the myth, the building block of narrative that allows the symbol to take shape. In the myth we recognise the symbol, and it allows us to negotiate it instinctively and intellectually. I haven't read Bernardo's last book, but from a discussion on this forum which he contributed to a few years ago, I wouldn't be surprised if he had come to a similar conclusion - but I digress.
The issue is how to combine the symbolic and the mythical with normal life, in a way that enhances rather than reduces it, so it isn't left as a redundant idea of no practical value. Here I agree with Rupert Sheldrake, that it is practice that tests the viability of beliefs. If the belief allows the symbolic to emerge intact, its practices will let them manifest in a form that answers to a truth we recognise. This will be in personal growth, through intellectually challenging narratives and personal contentment and creativity, and societal advancement in the care of its citizens.
It's clear to me that in devaluing the myth into a falsehood, rather than the thing that allows us to recognise our true selves - a process that has been underscored by the so-called Age of Reason - we have lost out as individuals and a society. Without a myth to bind it the symbol has had nowhere to go but the pursuit of novelty, and what is progress but the pursuit of novel ideas? Material science has engaged us in a Faustian pact, it promises comfort, novelty and freedom from mental and physical pain, in exchange for our true selves. It asks us to forget about death, the only certainty, and gaze into the kaleidoscope of ideas in the hope that when the trap springs we'll barely notice it, and will notice nothing ever again. This is a poor exchange for the conscious self. Science should be put to the service of better narratives, not become their master with its permanently open and empty promises of the shiny and new.
The issue is how to combine the symbolic and the mythical with normal life, in a way that enhances rather than reduces it, so it isn't left as a redundant idea of no practical value. Here I agree with Rupert Sheldrake, that it is practice that tests the viability of beliefs. If the belief allows the symbolic to emerge intact, its practices will let them manifest in a form that answers to a truth we recognise. This will be in personal growth, through intellectually challenging narratives and personal contentment and creativity, and societal advancement in the care of its citizens.
It's clear to me that in devaluing the myth into a falsehood, rather than the thing that allows us to recognise our true selves - a process that has been underscored by the so-called Age of Reason - we have lost out as individuals and a society. Without a myth to bind it the symbol has had nowhere to go but the pursuit of novelty, and what is progress but the pursuit of novel ideas? Material science has engaged us in a Faustian pact, it promises comfort, novelty and freedom from mental and physical pain, in exchange for our true selves. It asks us to forget about death, the only certainty, and gaze into the kaleidoscope of ideas in the hope that when the trap springs we'll barely notice it, and will notice nothing ever again. This is a poor exchange for the conscious self. Science should be put to the service of better narratives, not become their master with its permanently open and empty promises of the shiny and new.
Bucky
Member
Here's a curiosity I have, which is slightly related to this thread: I've never been in a court of law in the U.S. but in many american movies you can see a massive "In god we trust" motto towering behind the judge's bench.
Now, that's the national motto, right? But what the heck does it have to do with justice? Over here we don't have a national motto (that I know of) but in all tribunals you find one that says "La legge è uguale per tutti", law is equal for all. Seems more appropriate than giving for granted that every one trusts in god (which one, btw? :D)
cheers
Now, that's the national motto, right? But what the heck does it have to do with justice? Over here we don't have a national motto (that I know of) but in all tribunals you find one that says "La legge è uguale per tutti", law is equal for all. Seems more appropriate than giving for granted that every one trusts in god (which one, btw? :D)
cheers
Last edited:
Its for the same reason that people are still asked to swear on the bible to tell the truth in the more conservative states. Tradition, more than anything else.
gabriel
New
It's also a recognition that morality has a prime source, and isn't a relativist abstraction. If moral truth was left to an individual, their own moral compass would be as viable as the next, and no one could prove differently. The recognition of a scriptural source allows for an underlying truth, even if the manifestation of that truth is often flawed in legal practice.
S
Sciborg_S_Patel
Hmmm I'd say Euthyphro's Dilemma shows morality can't be rooted in any being.The Good exists as a constant beyond any deities....though AFIACTell this applies even to the Ground of Being I'd accept possibly be wrong about that.
But I do agree this idea that morality is not a set of universal norms, and is instead cultural or evolutionary comes across as a rather silly/desperate move as both options fall into rather obvious fallacies (Populist Fallacy & Naturalistic Fallacy respectively).
If the concept of Good action is to have any meaning it has to be "Platonic" in the sense that these are universal, eternal norms. Martin Luther King Jr's long arc of justice basically.
Silence
Member
Hopefully I am not breaking any implicit community rules by resurrecting this thread. (If so, please let me know!)
While the dialogue was a bit frothy, I enjoyed the conversation. Its a strong area of interest for me.
I do see the so called "new atheism" movement's narrative as the opposite weight of the barbell from religious fundamentalism. From that perspective, I suppose it may serve a purpose; perhaps a valuable one. I don't think the world becomes a better place through certain groups imposing of its spiritual beliefs on all other groups. Any group in a free society trying to do this should be aggressively challenged. So, for example, fighting to ensure the biblical account of creation is not taught as science in our schools is a great thing.
However, for someone like myself who does not identify as a member of a particular religious tradition this juxtaposition has proven entirely unhelpful. Both sides come off as rigid and disingenuous. Watching Dawkins/Krauss/etc. debate a religious fundamentalist or even a religious apologist just doesn't advance the cause for me. This was disappointing as I waded through one debate/article after another. I supposed I've come to realize the limitation on what I can learn there.
I do, however, think there may be a much larger population of folks like myself and dare I say folks like most of those here: people not subscribing to a particular religion. Notably, I would include "strict materialism" as a religion here. (i.e., many of the atheist forums I've perused seem just as rigid and dogmatic as their religious counterparts) Stated another way, I have met a fair number of people who aren't religious but have some sense that existence is more than biological robotics.
As someone of that "group" or description, its been very difficult to find content. Again, that's why I'm here and reading/listening.
While the dialogue was a bit frothy, I enjoyed the conversation. Its a strong area of interest for me.
I do see the so called "new atheism" movement's narrative as the opposite weight of the barbell from religious fundamentalism. From that perspective, I suppose it may serve a purpose; perhaps a valuable one. I don't think the world becomes a better place through certain groups imposing of its spiritual beliefs on all other groups. Any group in a free society trying to do this should be aggressively challenged. So, for example, fighting to ensure the biblical account of creation is not taught as science in our schools is a great thing.
However, for someone like myself who does not identify as a member of a particular religious tradition this juxtaposition has proven entirely unhelpful. Both sides come off as rigid and disingenuous. Watching Dawkins/Krauss/etc. debate a religious fundamentalist or even a religious apologist just doesn't advance the cause for me. This was disappointing as I waded through one debate/article after another. I supposed I've come to realize the limitation on what I can learn there.
I do, however, think there may be a much larger population of folks like myself and dare I say folks like most of those here: people not subscribing to a particular religion. Notably, I would include "strict materialism" as a religion here. (i.e., many of the atheist forums I've perused seem just as rigid and dogmatic as their religious counterparts) Stated another way, I have met a fair number of people who aren't religious but have some sense that existence is more than biological robotics.
As someone of that "group" or description, its been very difficult to find content. Again, that's why I'm here and reading/listening.
David Bailey
Member
Obiwan
Member
Perhaps it's the difference between those who are convinced they have found "the truth" and want to persuade the world and those who are still looking?
Typoz
Member
Maybe I might appear in that category. Though for me what is important is that I switched viewpoints - moving from a scientific/technological worldview to something more mystical. It represents, from a personal perspective, some kind of progress. It isn't moving from "wrong" to "right", but it is moving along a path. The movement itself is valuable.
Obiwan
Member
I'm not sure which category you mean, but you don't come across to me as someone trying to convert others to a fixed viewpoint that you're convinced is the only correct angle.