The New Atheists; The Cult of Science?

[Michaelangelica]

LOL I am sure the is areal word like apathist but that is just feeling (?). I still find myself drawn back to this silly debate. Religion seems to touch people at a very emotional level. Something that the born again crooks like Popof (sp?) exploit.

Originally Posted by Tormod View Post
Excellent thread!

The base argument as I understand it is that atheists, having no religion to find comfort in, turn to materialism in the form of technology and medicine in order to find relief from the hardships of life.

If so, I think this proposal needs to be proven first
I think it is a holy bucket that does not hold water
There are an amazing number of Christians who are high-powered eminent scientists and doctors.
Perhaps they don't believe that this god, after the big bang and extremely clever design of quantum (A++ well done, see me), then sat down to write the "absolute truth" of the collection of stories, poems & quasi-religious-historical-myths & gobbledegook called 'bible'; but still they would consider themselves Christians.
Perhaps starting with Jesus and the New Testament.

To be religions or scientific in your thinking you only need to start with one assumption. For many, neither need to be in conflict.

Occasionally you do find scientists with minds as closed as fundamentalists. Sometimes their is scientific orthodoxy, that many have built reputations on, and don't want the boat rocked.
Scientists are also a part of their society-in-time too. It took psychotherapists some time to decide homosexuality was not a disease. (Despite the fact that the usual % of them were homosexual too).
I suspect that change is a little easier with scientists once the weight of evidence becomes impossible to deny. Evidence does not move a committed Christian. It can't, because once they have made the fist assumption everything else that follows is almost logical.

It would also be interesting to do a survey among the committed religious (High C of E nuns etc & see who actually believe in god, & in what way). Like Buddhism, Christianity I suspect, is a 'moveable feast' for many . They take from it what they want, and leave the rest.
I was immensely cheered and surprised by the cleaners, after the recent all-night vigil of World Youth Day/week with the Pope in Sydney last year. The cleaners complained about all the masses of used condoms they had to dispose of. My scientific prediction of the power of youth hormones was vindicated. My fear of religious orthodoxy was not.

[InfiniteNow]

This short video really struck a chord with me. I hope you enjoy it, like I did.

YouTube - Militant Atheists

[Southtown]

I feel your pain, and I feel your hope.

[Boerseun]

Good vid, INow. Now if only more people would watch it, and listen...

Right - I'm off to mutilate my son's genitals. Catchya later.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

Good vid, INow. Now if only more people would watch it, and listen...

Right - I'm off to mutilate my son's genitals. Catchya later.

Well, I've certainly seen better vids. I know the title speaks of the irony, but its message is lost before the meaning is transferred (for me anyway). Don't get me wrong, I agree with the points made. Yet, I don't think militant atheism is ever good. I know it's a joke, but letting it (or making it) fit is not the brightest strategy imho. Wouldn't it be better to straight out reject the claims of being a militant atheist? Well, again, I guess this is what has been done, but I question the approach.

[modest]

I'm curious INow,

I don't think atheism can't be militant because it's not a belief system. But, there are atheistic belief systems such as Humanism. I wonder what you would say to someone who claimed that Hitchens (as an example) supported the war in Iraq in order to spread Humanism. In other words: the Iraqi leadership did not hold to the tenets of Humanism as it subjugated and oppressed its own people, so someone like Hitchens wants to force the tenets of Humanism on them militarily. And, that such a thing is militant Humanism.

I really am curious what you would make of this. I have a little conflict going in my own mind and I'm looking for perspective.

~modest

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by modest

I wonder what you would say to someone who claimed that Hitchens (as an example) supported the war in Iraq in order to spread Humanism. In other words: the Iraqi leadership did not hold to the tenets of Humanism as it subjugated and oppressed its own people, so someone like Hitchens wants to force the tenets of Humanism on them militarily. And, that such a thing is militant Humanism.

Well, it's an interesting question, but I must acknowledge that when I read it the answer seems pretty obvious to me. Is not that brand of humanism "militant" because they are advocating war... the "forcing of the tenets of humanism on to others miltarily?"

I mean, if they were just using words... evidence... logic to change the mindsets of these other people, then it would not be militant. That's my perspective, anyway.

This, I think, is the point of the video I shared above. Most atheists simply do not offer unearned respect or deference to the religious-based beliefs of others, and most openly challenge those beliefs just as they would any other idea or assertion... and, for this, they are labeled as loud mouthed or militant. Yet, if someone told you they thought that the tooth fairy made gatorade have electrolytes, you'd probably challenge them and request evidence of a) the tooth fairy, and b) the impact of that entity on the electrolytic quality of the sports drink. That's basically all atheists are doing... for the most part anyway... yet they are labeled as militant and loud mouthed and all manner of other derisive and derogatory names.

Now, if atheists were forcing their rejection of the god concept or dismissal of beliefs grounded in nothing other than religious fairy tales on to others... somehow using the power of the military to do so... or actively oppressing people with differing views (with religious views)... then I'd say the term "militant" would probably be warranted. But that's simply not the case with which we're dealing... far from it, actually (it's one of those "I respect your right to believe what you want, but not the belief itself" issues).

So, in your example above, if the humanist is simply consistent and biting with their critiques, using logic and evidence to show the flaws implicit in the views of those whom they oppose, then they are not being militant. They are, as a general rule, being nothing more than rational, reasonable, and logical... Basically, holding all beliefs and assertions to a consistent standard. However, if (as in your example above) they seek to support war or armed tactics with weapons and tanks and the like to convince others of their position (or, to simply oppress differing mindsets/positions)... then they would be, by definition, being militant.

Like I said above. To me, the answer to your question is pretty obvious. If they use force or military power to spread their views, then they are militaristic. If instead they use words and rhetoric and logic, I should like to think that they are not militaristic whatsoever. I suppose it's subjective, and folks may disagree on what is and what is not militaristic, but find that the weight of the debate is heavily skewed toward one side, and that the definition of "militaristic" doesn't really fit (is hardly appropriate) in the vast majority of circumstances where it's being used to describe atheists.




Now, for another on-point video. Enjoy.

YouTube - ATHEIST!!!!!!!

[enorbet2]

While the part of me that recoils in horror at statistics such as "in the USA 62% of people believe in The Devil, while only 42% of people in the USA believe the tenets of The Theory of Evolution" and possibly even abject fear after seeing the PBS documentary on the Dover, Pennsylvania fight over school textbooks and how much cynical wealth and power are out to win minds even with lies they know are lies, and what's more to change laws that affect all of us, applauds the "Militant Atheist" video, however I soon return to reason.

Ultimately I can see very little good that can come from arguing theology with theists in general. Why argue? What can be gained, especially by being "loudmouthed and aggressive" and "looking for a fight" in a fight one cannot win? Frankly if the goal one has in mind is to work for the day when there are no more religions, picking fights and adopting an aggressive stance generally at some point will lead to real militancy. There is no definition of "pogrom" or "cleansing" that rules out theism by atheists should the power table turn.

It is much smarter and more humane, IMHO, to win by example, both personally and through Science itself with the only action remotely related to militancy being actively seeking level application of Law so that takeovers and indoctrinations are halted when they cross the line of the Law. I see no good reason, no good result that can come from being confrontational with theists. That, IMHO, is fighting their battle, with their rules, and on their turf. Sun Tzu would not approve and neither do I.

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by enorbet2

While the part of me that recoils in horror at statistics such as "in the USA 62% of people believe in The Devil, while only 42% of people in the USA believe the tenets of The Theory of Evolution" . . .

Ultimately I can see very little good that can come from arguing theology with theists in general. Why argue? What can be gained, . . .
" in a fight one cannot win?


It is much smarter and more humane, IMHO, to win by example, both personally and through Science itself with the only action remotely related to militancy being actively seeking level application of Law so that takeovers and indoctrinations are halted when they cross the line of the Law. .

Yes well said
Belief is just that-"-belief". Apart from a few glitches, after making the assumption that there is a god, gods or God then everything becomes passably logical after that.
Although I am not sure why USA creationist believe that She could not have invented Natural Selection.
Some of my best friends are Christians. I respect their faith and try not to offend with my atheism. Some Christians do great Public Service others are evil (like the Pope).
It must give one a wonderful comfort being a Christian-- although I personally cannot think of anything worse than living forever. One of the reasons I have not embraced Buddhism which I find an attractive philosophy.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
AND

AND
My add blocker is not working but this was the Hypo add at the top of the page

[modest]

I first apologize,

Originally Posted by modest

I don't think atheism can't be militant because it's not a belief system.

This double negative should have been a single negative, and I hope you got that, INow.

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Well, it's an interesting question, but I must acknowledge that when I read it the answer seems pretty obvious to me. Is not that brand of humanism "militant" because they are advocating war... the "forcing of the tenets of humanism on to others miltarily?"...

Like I said above. To me, the answer to your question is pretty obvious. If they use force or military power to spread their views, then they are militaristic. If instead they use words and rhetoric and logic, I should like to think that they are not militaristic whatsoever.

I can't accept this. Actually, I don't see a distinction. To advocate an action is to participate in its execution. If you help someone kill then you're a killer—it's unambiguous to me. If the soldiers sent to war are militant then so much more are those who sent them. Otherwise, I believe, to borrow a phrase, you exculpate the murderer.

So why then is not Hitchens (I keep with this example) militant? He has literally advocated the killing of Iraqis and Afghans for the advancement of his belief system. A few years before he said regarding Afghanistan's invasion "a triumph of humanism has occurred", the Taliban basically said the same regarding their takeover—'a triumph of Islam has occurred'. If the second is "militant" then so is the first. Right?

And, I'm not saying Humanism is the moral equivalent of sharia Islam. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that either belief system can be approached militantly—by the point of a gun. This worries me because I supported the overthrow in Afghanistan (and Iraq, I embarrassingly admit) for the same exact reasons that Hitchens did, and I'm afraid that might technically make me a militant Humanist. Unless someone can show me the error in my thinking then I'm afraid I might be stuck with that.

An open question for the forum, I guess. Am I, is Hitchens, a militant Humanist?

~modest