Rise in atheistic fundamentalism

[Saracen]

This is exactly my point!

Things we can't explain, which don't fit our laws, can happen all the time. We simply have to look harder. We'll probably never understand everything. But just because we don't understand something, doesn't mean it is supernatural, and that there's no point trying to understand it. ....

So we agree, I think, on that.

....

This is why I'd accept the alien 'gods', as an advanced race beyond our understanding, but not the religious gods, to whom no law (that we can define or not) applies.

But perhaps not entirely on that.

To me, the "alien" explanation, while perhaps more plausible, is as verifiable (at present) as a supernatural 'god'.

Other than irrational belief, I can see no justification for dismissing the existence of a god .... whichever one it happens to be. And it just may be that those tribal peoples that paint strange narcotic substances on their faces, wallow in blue mud and worship a gnarled tree are the ones that have got it right, while those that dress up in fancy vestments (which, personally, would perhaps more my taste than smelly mud) and spend fortunes building fancy edifices, are wrong .... or vice versa. Both sets of rituals strike me, personally, as equally ridiculous.

But however ridiculous they seem to me, it remains obvious to me that they might be right. I have no evidence to disprove it, and the Bible just might be the word of God.

It's all very well us, TeePee, dismissing "supernatural" because it doesn't fit the laws of nature as we perceive them, but we cant know if there are laws we can't perceive. We can't know if our laws of nature are a subset of a much more general set of principles, or that they only apply in our portion of space or that there aren't parallel universes where different laws apply. Maybe "God" is a scientist in a parallel universe, and we're his latest experiment.

Do I believe those parallel universes exist? No, because I've seen nothing to support that belief. But that doesn't mean I believe they don't (or can't) exist, because I have nothing to support that, either. I just don't know.

It is not beyond the bounds of possibility, in my opinion, that something exists, and perhaps exists outside the bounds of our knowledge and perhaps even exists outside the limits of our ability to perceive or understand. Can an amoeba ever understand Windows Vista? Or nuclear fission? Does an amoeba have the senses or the intellectual capacity to understand concepts we take for granted?

So then, why should mankind be arrogant enough to assume he has the senses or intellectual capacity to understand laws which a "supernatural" being may operate by, but which are as perceptible to us as riding a bicycle is to an amoeba? Those laws may or may not be there, but either way, if we can't see them it doesn't mean they don't exist. Nor does it necessarily mean that something genuinely "supernatural" can't exist either. What evidence do we have to support a belief that a supernatural force can't exist? We may have theories, and speculation, and philosophical perspectives, but none of that actually proves anything.

That's my stance. God may or may not exist, and even if he does, we may never be able to 'prove' it. That's not necessarily a weakness either in natural laws or our understanding of them, but perhaps simply our lack of capacity to perceive or understand. It may be that the only way to "know" is to have faith. Maybe that's the way that some superset of natural rules that we have no inkling of works.

[Saracen]

...

Anyone who has worked in science and engineering should be well familiar with the expression "An absence of data/evidence/results is in itself data/evidence/results". As such, atheism is in itself clearly a belief system. Atheists are spiritual, their spirituality is that of science being all there is and the absence of anything more than that. ....

Nope. I entirely agree with JPreston. Atheism, or at least some atheism, is an absence of belief. It's actually a fairly broad, and often disagreed-about term, and there may be some that believe God doesn't exist, but there are certainly others that don't believe God either does or doesn't exist. I certainly don't believe that science is the "all there is". As JPreston and I have both repeatedly said, we simply don't know. That's what I believe ... I believe I don't know. I don't believe a God (such as the Christian one) exists, but I also believe I could be wrong.

Nor is atheism necessarily about trying to convince others of anything, be they religious or not. I feel no need to try to 'convert' religious people away from their faith, and I don't knock on doors or stop strangers in the street.

But .... in an internet discussion, I'm as entitled to express an atheistic viewpoint as a religious person is to express their faith. If we get into a discussion about such matters, I'll express my viewpoint. I won't go out of my way to offend religious people's sensibilities, and to be honest, I rather doubt that the fact that some of us regard much or all of religion as mumbo-jumbo would offend anybody, and more than someone believing in God offends me. But I will express my lack of belief, and lack of certainty.

[Rosaline]

That's what I believe ... I believe I don't know. I don't believe a God (such as the Christian one) exists, but I also believe I could be wrong.

And as such, my point in it's entirety is correct and true. You just said it yourself, it is your belief, your means of understanding existence.

And as a means of belief, it does get promoted and twisted into a semi-religious nature. Misappropriation is a mainstay of religion, and Dawkins and his ilk should really pick a new name for what they promote, to allow those who wish to be "belief skeptics" to use the original term for this - atheism.

But .... in an internet discussion, I'm as entitled to express an atheistic viewpoint as a religious person is to express their faith. If we get into a discussion about such matters, I'll express my viewpoint. I won't go out of my way to offend religious people's sensibilities, and to be honest, I rather doubt that the fact that some of us regard much or all of religion as mumbo-jumbo would offend anybody, and more than someone believing in God offends me. But I will express my lack of belief, and lack of certainty.

You are entitled to express your viewpoint, and I vaguely recall that your posts, as a rule, have been quite reasonable and sound. There'd be a smile here, but that would imply that I've actually checked Add one mentally if you think it's true

There are many people, and there are some here, who and actively ridicule and belittle those who have a different spiritual belief set. When a different belief set is actively resulting in hurt to others, disturbing and interfering with the lives of people aside from it's believers, then yes, this is entirely merited. But we must separate the hurt caused by the organised structure, the religion, and the hurt being caused because it is itself core to the belief. I am friends with several practising muslims and evangelical christians, and they are all very good, kind people. Yet the teachings and Dogma of their churches would prefer that I be stoned, hurt and persecuted.

No-one deserves to be stoned, hurt, or persecuted for something that does not harm, hurt, or interfer with others in any way, shape or form. Be this homosexuality or their spiritual beliefs.

[malfunction]

And as such, my point in it's entirety is correct and true. You just said it yourself, it is your belief, your means of understanding existence.

And as a means of belief, it does get promoted and twisted into a semi-religious nature. Misappropriation is a mainstay of religion, and Dawkins and his ilk should really pick a new name for what they promote, to allow those who wish to be "belief skeptics" to use the original term for this - atheism.

The English language is a wonderful thing. Belief, in the context used here, and believing in something are not the same. God being a fall back theory for everything you don't understand is not the same as admitting you don't understand it and don't feel the need to venture a theory that you have 100% confidence (faith) in. Atheism means you do not believe any god exists. A sceptic on the other hand would be an agnostic. I personally would say I'm an atheist, and would perhaps only sound agnostic when being unintentionally apologetic about the whole thing... Which is to say not trying to offend. To be honest though the more I read this thread and the other one floating around at the moment I just come to the same conclusion... Why bother? I'm not going to convince anyone of my point of view that doesn't already think the same and vice versa for the religious types. I think I'm right of course but then so does everyone else. Back to the original topic I really don't think you can use the word fundamental with the word atheist given it's current implied meaning. I've never heard of any atheist doing anything stronger than argue against religion.

[Rosaline]

hmm, I've just checked, and you're right. An atheist is "Someone who denies the existence of god", whilst an agnostic is "A person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist)".

I concede that literal point, but the meaning still stands.

The fact that you desire to 'convince' others of your atheistic viewpoint is exactly the kind of thing I worry about and have been talking about? I, and many others, am already convinced of right to hold that viewpoint. But the fact that you see a need to spread that viewpoint? To 'convert'?

That's fundamentalism.

It's current meaning does nothing to prevent fundamentalism being applied to it, except for the literal fact that the modern dictionary is judachritianoislamic-centric.

And again, please, remember that religion and spirituality are different things. One is a power system, the other a belief. The fact our culture is heavily influenced by religion is why this is not apparent, and why the bad things of religion are so often bundled with the good effects on people of having faith (*).

(*) Which is something atheists can have too, of course. If it pleases you to believe as such, it is good for you. That's all that maters

[TeePee]

So then, why should mankind be arrogant enough to assume he has the senses or intellectual capacity to understand laws which a "supernatural" being may operate by, but which are as perceptible to us as riding a bicycle is to an amoeba?

The laws a being may operate under may be beyond our understanding, but a being which operates under laws isn't supernatural, by my definition. The supernatural being is the one to which no laws apply.

[JPreston]

The fact that you desire to 'convince' others of your atheistic viewpoint is exactly the kind of thing I worry about and have been talking about? I, and many others, am already convinced of right to hold that viewpoint. But the fact that you see a need to spread that viewpoint? To 'convert'?

That's fundamentalism.

No, as posted time and time and time again 'fundamentalism' means strict adherence to the dogma of a particular religion, i.e. the belief that a particular text represents the infallible and unassailable word of god.

So it's nonsense to apply to atheists, who have no dogma or 'holy' texts. m'kay? M'kay.

Even your incorrect definition of fundamentalism - the 'desire to convert' others - is a dogmatic mandated duty upon all christians and muslims (not just fundamentalists), but interestingly not jews. And not atheists either....because atheists have no scriptures mandating them to do anything......because atheism is not a religion.....do you ever the feeling that you are going round and round in circles?

[malfunction]

hmm, I've just checked, and you're right. An atheist is "Someone who denies the existence of god", whilst an agnostic is "A person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist)".

I concede that literal point, but the meaning still stands.

The fact that you desire to 'convince' others of your atheistic viewpoint is exactly the kind of thing I worry about and have been talking about? I, and many others, am already convinced of right to hold that viewpoint. But the fact that you see a need to spread that viewpoint? To 'convert'?

That's fundamentalism.

It's current meaning does nothing to prevent fundamentalism being applied to it, except for the literal fact that the modern dictionary is judachritianoislamic-centric.

And again, please, remember that religion and spirituality are different things. One is a power system, the other a belief. The fact our culture is heavily influenced by religion is why this is not apparent, and why the bad things of religion are so often bundled with the good effects on people of having faith (*).

(*) Which is something atheists can have too, of course. If it pleases you to believe as such, it is good for you. That's all that maters

Let me try and say it another way.

I am not seeking to 'convert' anyone here or elsewhere - what I was trying to say above is that there's not a lot of point in having this discussion as I don't see anyone's views changing as a result of it. We are simply discussing for the sake of it... Not necessarily a bad thing but when people argue / heartily discuss things it's only natural to want to 'win' the argument...

I still don't see how any atheist - even Dawkins - is a fundamentalist. I've never heard of anyone being stabbed, shot, stoned, bombed, etc by an atheist simply in an attempt to move that person / the populace in general towards atheism (either by converting people towards such viewpoint or by eliminating people that hold opposing views). If you need a particular phrase for it feel free to call me a right wing atheist; I have a difficult time accepting other viewpoints. On the same note you may also call me a right wing believer in the sky being blue. Nothing else makes any logical sense to me.

[Rosaline]

There may not be written scriptures for atheists, but why do so many seem to feel that they need to change the opinions, the beliefs, of others? This is an extremely common trait, and given the fact that conferences have been held about the idea of 'science superseding religion', I'd say that a body of common belief is indeed being built up.

The very fact that you can get so appalled at the suggestion that common factors of religions can apply to atheism, that atheism is somehow special and above that, speaks for itself, really.

This whole subject matter here has became more about the merits of 'ethical hedonism' than anything else - that people should be allowed to do what they want, so long as it does not interfere with the desires of others to do what they want.

The fact that fundamentalism to Malfunction implies "stabbed, shot, stoned, bombed" is telling. As a member of a minority who regularly suffers problems with certain religious teachings, it is clear to me that it is far more than just acts of major physical violence. Perhaps you'd like to not get served in shops? To have difficulty finding safe housing? To walk down the street with your partner and get heckled. These things still happen in britian today on a regular basis. Being presumably white, middle class and male, you've probably not noticed, however. It gives you a somewhat different perspective on the world. And whilst sometimes, I admit, I get annoyed at the 'breeders', what I see the need for is compassion and acceptance of the beliefs of others that do not harm one's self.

The news article itself on the rise of atheistic fundamentalism is, however, a bit of a joke. The cause of the changes highlighted have nothing to do with atheism, and everything to do with highly befumbled attempts to accept the beliefs of others. Much as young couples often try compromise as meaning one side always gives in, that's what is happening here. In time, people will come to realise that the issues at hand cause very little distress - as no doubt the majority who have made these silly ideas will actually listen to the minorities in question and their thoughts.

[iranu]

hmm, I've just checked, and you're right. An atheist is "Someone who denies the existence of god",

This is is not completely correct so I'll pull you up on it. It is so tiresome for us atheists to continually have to reiterate what atheism means, but I'll do it again because the definition is key.

Atheism means without god - it is a lack of belief in god, a disbelief. That is all no more no less.

Now if we start to look a little deeper and examine the stances of agnosticism and atheism, one finds that these two are NOT mutually exclusive. Infact deism/theism is also not mutually exclusive with agnosticism since agnosticism is literally without knowledge - note the same "a".

You can believe in a god but claim no knowledge of it.

Atheists will generally be of the "weak" kind (agnostic atheists). That is no knowledge of and no belief in god(s). Note the all important word "generally". Now lets look at "strong atheism" which is the positive claim that god does not exist. It is impossible to hold this stance in general simply because one has no knowledge on which to assert, however, one can
take a strong atheist stance with regard to individual religion's god(s) because you can examine the claims and the definition (in scripture). This is all important. I am yet to come across a religious person who can define their god, it causes them untold problems. (and no I won't take god is love nonsense).

I do not know of a single atheist who takes the strong position in general. However, I'm a strong atheist with regard to the christian god because when you examine the many definitions and claims then you quickly see that those are not compatible with free will or are contradictory, eg Epicurus and the question of evil and not logical.

I don't know either of any atheist movement that openly looks to convert. Atheists simply do not work like that. What you are mistaking for "fundamentalism" is simple argument with the possibility of anti-theism (anti-religion - infact you can be an anti-theistic deist if you want!). On the Phrase "Militant Atheist" and Its Variants | Rational Responders

Rational people who are critical thinkers and use logic can't abide the woo-woo when some claim is made. I don't see what is fundamentalist about teaching someone what is the truth as far as we can logically test it. People are free to believe whatever they want and I'm certainly not going to try to stop them, but when they make claims that are false then it is perfectly reasonable for me to refute those claims as long as I back it up with evidence or logic. If that puts peoples backs up then so be it, I can't help that and I always try to do the refuting in a calm, polite and non-condescending manner (Try I said try!). The trouble is that questioning someones beliefs is a taboo and it shouldn't be.

This may interest you. It's a filmed 2 hour discussion of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens all sat around a table in someone's kitchen discussing alot of what is discussed on Hexus. It's enlightening.

The Four Horsemen - Hour 1
The Four Horsemen - Hour 2

or RichardDawkins.net - The Official Richard Dawkins Website for better quality versions.

[Rosaline]

Those were the definitions I found when I checked in my dictionary, and as such the commonly held meanings within society.

Doea a religious person really need be able to define their god? And since you wish to declare part of their faith as nonsense, that doesn't really help.

The problem is that Dawkins and others are not simply arguing "against religion". One does not publish books entitled "The God delusion" without even considering that the title alone will be offensive and seen as an attack on beliefs. And that is what is often attacked - they lump together the bad aspects of religion (killing, power-grabbing, money-collecting) together with that which gives people comfort without harm to others. To many people, the idea of us being nothing more than chemical reactions is a bleak and unappealing prospect.

There is a difference between refuting claims directed at you, and attempting to get someone to alter their own beliefs. When those beliefs have given that person comfort and in doing so never hurt others, why should they be stripped away?

I would approve of a true anti-religion movement. Such an affair can be conducted without any of these philosophical problems that have been raised here, as a person's own harmless beliefs can be left intact. It is not hard to show and prove how religious groups have perverted their own texts for personal gain. So why does what you call the 'anti-religious' movement take the least productive and most offensive route through all this?

[malfunction]

There may not be written scriptures for atheists, but why do so many seem to feel that they need to change the opinions, the beliefs, of others? This is an extremely common trait, and given the fact that conferences have been held about the idea of 'science superseding religion', I'd say that a body of common belief is indeed being built up.

Not a common trait I've observed or am aware of. Most people keep quiet about religion (or lack of) and politics outside of online forums as most people don't like to spend all day every day arguing with everyone they meet.

The very fact that you can get so appalled at the suggestion that common factors of religions can apply to atheism, that atheism is somehow special and above that, speaks for itself, really.

As far as I'm aware the only common factor is a lack of belief in any god as after all that is the definition of atheism.

This whole subject matter here has became more about the merits of 'ethical hedonism' than anything else - that people should be allowed to do what they want, so long as it does not interfere with the desires of others to do what they want.

What's hedonistic in saying that people can do whatever they want to do as long as it causes no harm to anyone else?

The fact that fundamentalism to Malfunction implies "stabbed, shot, stoned, bombed" is telling.

Looking at what's happening in the world and the way the press is using the term then these are examples, albeit extreme, of what fundamentalism is taken to mean in the British press these days.

As a member of a minority who regularly suffers problems with certain religious teachings, it is clear to me that it is far more than just acts of major physical violence. Perhaps you'd like to not get served in shops? To have difficulty finding safe housing? To walk down the street with your partner and get heckled. These things still happen in britian today on a regular basis. Being presumably white, middle class and male, you've probably not noticed, however. It gives you a somewhat different perspective on the world. And whilst sometimes, I admit, I get annoyed at the 'breeders', what I see the need for is compassion and acceptance of the beliefs of others that do not harm one's self.

The idea that white, middle class males - or any other group - are ignorant to the troubles of the world is rather odd and is in itself a prejudiced view. Regardless I am not sure what your or my cultural and ethnic background has to do with this thread (and you're wrong, on one count at least, for what it's worth). Racism and prejudice of any kind could easily be taken as fundamentalist behaviour but they aren't what we are talking about here... I'll admit that my knowledge of religion is somewhat sparse but outside of religion damning homosexuality I do not know of any case in which religion itself - rather than those practising it - damns or demonises anyone because of ethnicity or anything else.

[JPreston]

There may not be written scriptures for atheists, but why do so many seem to feel that they need to change the opinions, the beliefs, of others? This is an extremely common trait...

IS IT?!? Listen, why don't you find a single incidence of any atheist posting on this thread that tries to convert anyone? I think at one point or another every single atheist here has explicitly said that they are not interested in converting anyone. Are you even reading any of these posts?

The very fact that you can get so appalled at the suggestion that common factors of religions can apply to atheism, that atheism is somehow special and above that, speaks for itself, really.

This is getting ridiculous. I don't know how many times you need this to be spelled out for you.

- I don't have a religion.

- I don't support a football team.

- I don't collect stamps. This does not mean I list 'not collecting stamps' among my hobbies.

- When Big Brother is on, I don't have any preference as to who wins because I don't watch it. I think people who watch Big Brother are generally very stupid, but I do not feel it is my duty to make them any less stupid or to convince to stop watching Big Brother. I am perfectly happy to live in a world where many people watch Big Brother, but when they drone on to me endlessly about how Big Brother should form the basis of my life as it does for them then I will grapple them to the ground and suffocate them with a carrier bag that I carry around for exactly this purpose.

Religion is not an essential and unavoidable element of the human psyche, any more than supporting a football team, collecting stamps, or watching Big Brother is.

[JPreston]

This may interest you. It's a filmed 2 hour discussion of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens all sat around a table in someone's kitchen discussing alot of what is discussed on Hexus. It's enlightening.

The Four Horsemen - Hour 1
The Four Horsemen - Hour 2

Good post I'm sure, I'll try to find time to watch it myself - Dawkins and Dennett are of course both equally fantastic, Hitchens is one-half a neoconservative idiot but I've never heard him put a foot wrong on religion, Harris I'm not actually convinced of (having read The End of Faith, he strikes me as being the E4 version of the others minus any acheivements outside of anti-religious polemic) but I suppose he is tailor made for an american audience.

Yeah Rosaline just watch that video eh, you'll learn a lot.

[TeePee]

- I don't have a religion.

- I don't support a football team.

- I don't collect stamps. This does not mean I list 'not collecting stamps' among my hobbies.

- When Big Brother is on, I don't have any preference as to who wins because I don't watch it. I think people who watch Big Brother are generally very stupid, but I do not feel it is my duty to make them any less stupid or to convince to stop watching Big Brother. I am perfectly happy to live in a world where many people watch Big Brother, but when they drone on to me endlessly about how Big Brother should form the basis of my life as it does for them then I will grapple them to the ground and suffocate them with a carrier bag that I carry around for exactly this purpose.

Religion is not an essential and unavoidable element of the human psyche, any more than supporting a football team, collecting stamps, or watching Big Brother is.

This is possibly one of the best analogies I've ever read.

[Rosaline]

Looking back on the thread, I see now that Nazis (although not Hilter himself) were mentioned on the first page... that should have been a sign to all, really

Here's two quotes from the thread, admittedly taken out of context:

Once you start to reject bits of the bible as being false - which obviously is the correct thing to do

If they did indeed apply rationality to it, they would throw it all out. To [take their faith rationally] defeats the whole object of their lame religion in the first place, look it up!

Now, as I see it, either these are examples of attempts to discredit someone's beliefs (and hence temporarily making them without belief and on the route to atheism), or it's just plain being cruel. Alternative wordings would have made the statements a lot kinder on the ears of others, but that was not what was used.

In my opinion, the discrediting idea is a more optimistic and kind interpretation. I'd hate to have to consider someone as just being nasty to others. But you're free to take that title if you wish.

My main point however isn't regarding what is or is not a religion, it is that we all should be tolerant towards that which harms no-one but the person who holds that belief or performs that act. I refer to it as ethical hedonism, but that is not a name of my own invention, simply one well known to PC CRPG players. That doesn't make the concept less valid, however.

It's worth noting that there seems to be good evolutionary psychology evidence for the importance of spiritual beliefs, however.

Malfunction, reviewing your post history I've found you stating you come from a white household, that you work as an IT consultant or developer, own a substantial amount of your own house, eat well, agree with the majority of a description of a male, and have not openly expressed any bi leanings (although are supportive of LGB matters). I'm curious, which part of the white, middle class, straight male are you not?

The importance of this whole idea is that those who have experienced persecution, those who are a minority, tend to know well the importance of being tolerant towards others. And those who have had a fairly simple life tend not to need the warming crutches of religious belief - they can in fact afford to not have them at all. The white, middle class and straight demographic tends to believe as a rule that it can define when persecution is and is not occuring. They are typically blind to the feelings of others and how their actions affect them. There is plenty of evidence for this. In many respects, the promotion of the idea of directly challenging the non-harmfull beliefs of others is a clear sign of this. They are comfortable enough to feel free to do this, and as their own selves are not harmed in doing this, they don't see the harm this causes in others.