What I dislike about modern atheism

[Trakar]

I've no problem with those who have no theism beliefs (my understanding of the term a-theist), but (subjectively) most that loudly proclaim their atheism seem to be more anti-theist, or con(against)-theists/theism, rather than truly, and merely, without theistic beliefs. Agnosticism, is merely being uncertain and unsure whether or not there is an objectively compelling case for Theism or the Supernatural. The purported power of Faith, is the acceptance of that unseen, perhaps unseeable, despite the lack of compelling support. It doesn't take faith to believe in that which we can see, measure, and quantify.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

My problem isn't with the 'good' parts, nor even with their lacking exceptions, but with the idea that it somehow excuses the rest of the crap. And the fact is that if you take those on God's authority you also have to take the rest of the crap on the same authority. And if you mix a chocolate bar, even a very good one, with a bushel of steaming horse manure, you ain't exactly getting chocolate mousse, if you catch my drift.

Point in case, I actually have a female relative whose husband slept with her mom. (And strangely enough I wasn't the husband) She had the expectable MAJOR nervous breakdown when finding out about it. In fact, she wasn't doing much except, well, not even as much cry, as literally howl, for the next few months.

According to the OT, she should have been executed for it. And just to make it clear, by "she" I mean the victim.

I also have -- well, had -- a grandma and a great aunt who got a bit of ye olde gang rape in WW2. All that the bible has to say on the topic is basically that the rapists should have also kidnapped them and shaved their head before raping them. I'm not entirely sure how that would make it any better. Any of the women on the forum can please tell me if being ALSO kidnapped at bayonet point and having the guy play dress-up-barbie with you and your hairstyle first would make the rape go down any better.

So, yeah, I hope I can be excused if being told "but it also has good stuff" doesn't impress me much.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

@Trakar
The two are not exclusive categories. Being anti-theist or not doesn't make one any more or less of an atheist. So I'm not sure why one should specify the former every time they mention the latter.

 

[Darat]

While I'm truly sorry for your experience, please do not generalise your experience to the rest of the population, the majority of whom have good relationships with their parents.

It's the commandment that generalises.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

3. I think it's related to the same thing that causes a lot of the "college liberal" jokes and stereotypes. When you first start to learn that society isn't what you thought it was and there's something that is either untrue or unfair that is nonetheless prevalent everywhere around you you kinda flip a bit. It sometimes takes a bit for people to calm down and find a balance between "say nothing and be complicit in the system" and "stop watching a show I love forever just because of one offhand reference to an idiom that they probably didn't even realize has its roots in racism". To some of these guys, they may have just realized god isn't real and are still reeling from looking everywhere and seeing just how thoroughly religious thought is woven through society. Most of them, hopefully, will eventually stop harassing people on Facebook and insisting on calling god "sky-daddy" just to get a rise out of others.

I think this is a much more common phenomenon than people give it credit for. There's probably a psychological term for it, googling didn't turn up anything for me. But any kind of drastic change in one's belief structure is associated with a period of "showiness," in which the person goes a little bit overboard in order to seek acceptance and affirmation of their life choices from their new community.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

It's the commandment that generalises.

Exactly.

 

[Diablo]

Here you go.

Unfortunately, the regressive and conservative sects are far noisier than the progressive ones, which tend therefore to be overlooked. Hence the overall impression - especially amongst outspoken atheists - is that Christianity as a whole is regressive and conservative, when that's not actually true.

Well, it does at least say something about a fair justice system, but I missed the rest... what was funny was the bit in the middle where it listed 13/14 books and said there was nothing good in them!

Your point is the one that I made: outspoken atheists are reacting to the outspoken theists. If they shut up so would the atheists. At least atheists don't preach subjugation of women, demonisation of minorities etc.

 

[pgwenthold]

My problem isn't with the 'good' parts, nor even with their lacking exceptions, but with the idea that it somehow excuses the rest of the crap. And the fact is that if you take those on God's authority you also have to take the rest of the crap on the same authority. And if you mix a chocolate bar, even a very good one, with a bushel of steaming horse manure, you ain't exactly getting chocolate mousse, if you catch my drift.

Point in case, I actually have a female relative whose husband slept with her mom. (And strangely enough I wasn't the husband) She had the expectable MAJOR nervous breakdown when finding out about it. In fact, she wasn't doing much except, well, not even as much cry, as literally howl, for the next few months.

According to the OT, she should have been executed for it. And just to make it clear, by "she" I mean the victim.

I also have -- well, had -- a grandma and a great aunt who got a bit of ye olde gang rape in WW2. All that the bible has to say on the topic is basically that the rapists should have also kidnapped them and shaved their head before raping them. I'm not entirely sure how that would make it any better. Any of the women on the forum can please tell me if being ALSO kidnapped at bayonet point and having the guy play dress-up-barbie with you and your hairstyle first would make the rape go down any better.

So, yeah, I hope I can be excused if being told "but it also has good stuff" doesn't impress me much.

Here are some kids who don't honor their mother

https://933flz.iheart.com/content/2...s-bitter-obituary-for-mom-who-wont-be-missed/

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

By the sound of it, they make a very good case against that biblical commandment.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Well, it does at least say something about a fair justice system, but I missed the rest... what was funny was the bit in the middle where it listed 13/14 books and said there was nothing good in them!

It's pretty accurate too.

Although I would still point out that for the rest a good line among a few hundred lines of crap, still isn't much of a saving grace. Especially when the crap is not even in the same book, but on the same flipping page.

E.g., taking a random example from there, the same page of Exodus that says (in the list's own words) "Be kind to strangers, widows, and fatherless children." (Exodus 22:21-22) Also commands killing them if they worship any other god (22:20) or if you think they're witches (22:18). Which do you think took precedence? Plus such other stuff as forbidding speaking against your ruler (without extra qualifiers, such as, dunno, 'unless he's a genocidal tyrant) in 22: 28. So, you know, if you happened to live in Germany in 1942 and found yourself packed in a freight wagon to some *ahem* vacation camp, you'd be forbidden by God himself from cursing *ahem* the leader. Anyway, also on the same page as endorsing slavery. (22:3)

Also on the same frikken page as subverting the whole idea of a fair trial that was mentioned as good in another book of it. Because as per 22:2, you're perfectly allowed to "smite him that he die" on the spot if you catch a thief. It doesn't even need to be self-defense or anything, nor have any witnesses that he was in fact stealing anything, as opposed to, dunno, being just a trespasser.

So essentially even the "good parts" are in the middle of the crap parts. It's a pretty literal turd sandwich. And not even the kind with the turd in the middle. It's a very thin slice of some good stuff, packed between two solid slabs of turd.

 

[arthwollipot]

It's the commandment that generalises.

And it's an entirely reasonable generalisation for a bronze-age desert civilisation where family ties and inheritance were of critical social importance. I was reacting to dann's apparent sentiment that since he has no respect for his parents, other people also shouldn't. If I misinterpreted that then I apologise.

 

[MikeG]

And it's an entirely reasonable generalisation for a bronze-age desert civilisation where family ties and inheritance were of critical social importance. I was reacting to dann's apparent sentiment that since he has no respect for his parents, other people also shouldn't. If I misinterpreted that then I apologise.

Yeah, I always used to say this. Turns out it was the iron age.

 

[dann]

And it's an entirely reasonable generalisation for a bronze-age desert civilisation where family ties and inheritance were of critical social importance. I was reacting to dann's apparent sentiment that since he has no respect for his parents, other people also shouldn't. If I misinterpreted that then I apologise.

Do you find it reasonable for Isaak to honor his father, Abraham?
How about something along these lines? Thou shalt honor everybody who deserves to be honored.

 

[dann]

Here are some kids who don't honor their mother

https://933flz.iheart.com/content/2...s-bitter-obituary-for-mom-who-wont-be-missed/

I guess the kids have now condemned themselves to burn in hell for disobeying one of the ten commandments.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

And it's an entirely reasonable generalisation for a bronze-age desert civilisation where family ties and inheritance were of critical social importance. I was reacting to dann's apparent sentiment that since he has no respect for his parents, other people also shouldn't. If I misinterpreted that then I apologise.

Sure... but the thing is that a lot of people think that these commandments should still be applied to our 21st century civilisations, because they were, you know... handed down by the omnipotent creator of the Universe, rather than just an ad hoc thingamabob to increase social cohesion among illiterate shepherds.

 

[SOdhner]

But any kind of drastic change in one's belief structure is associated with a period of "showiness," in which the person goes a little bit overboard in order to seek acceptance and affirmation of their life choices from their new community.

I'm certainly not saying that isn't part of it, but I think that most of it is less about seeking acceptance and more about reeling from seeing so many examples of (insert thing here) so rapidly.

Like, if you're not aware of this kind of thing and then you hear about Cosby being on trial and find out that, no, it's totally legit:
Step one: "Holy crap, Bill Cosby is a rapist?"
Step two: "Wait, hang on, people knew about this for HOW LONG?"
Step three: "______ too? And _____? And... man, how many of them are there? We knew about all of these guys?"
Step four: "What do you mean rape kits just get thrown in a closet and never actually tested?"
(etc., etc.,)
Step _____: "Okay so society as a whole, this entire time, has just been totally fine with kinda looking the other way and not taking this seriously?"

So now at this point you see someone putting on The Hangover and you yell "YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM HOW COULD YOU WATCH THAT?" which makes them think you're an irrational screeching thing and puts them on the defensive, rather than calmly saying "Hey can we watch something else? Something about a movie where an actual convicted rapist is in it AND the plot involves giving roofies to your friends just... seems classless, you know?" which explains your issues with the film in a way that doesn't accuse your friend of being a monster since they probably had honestly never even considered any of that.

For atheism, I think it's the same thing. If you come to it kinda abruptly (I didn't, I had a nice slow walk through deism on my way there) you come to this realization and it seems so obvious and while you're trying to deal with the feeling that you've been lied to you're also seeing all these references to religion that have been there the whole time but which you've never thought about until now. It's on our MONEY? Wait, they went and ADDED it to the pledge of allegiance? Wait, hang on, look at all these religiously-motivated laws! And churches aren't taxed, which means... holy crap, I... I just said holy. It's all through our language!

And as you get hit over and over with just how much religion is everywhere you're also dealing with the idea that the non-existence of god probably feels really obvious now that you've thought about it and WHY CAN'T YOU SHEEPLE SEE THE TRUTH AND... oh whoops you're yelling. Hmm.

And like I said, some people don't grow out of it. But I think for most it's just a natural part of feeling like you're seeing... not quite a conspiracy theory, but something similar... for the first time and feeling like everyone else is just going along with it. While I didn't have much of that feeling with atheism specifically I've felt it with other issues and I've seen people express that feeling about atheism in other discussions. So I don't think most of it is about fitting in.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

@Tommy
I don't really see the analogy working. Unless someone is railing against a movie that just happens to show someone carrying a bible around. Like, dunno, a vampire movie.

In the case of us anti-theists, what we attack is the source of that screwed up morality, not something as "by association" as a movie that also happened to involve a certain actor.

A more exact analogy is if someone wanted to pass laws based on Cosby's opinions on the matter, or wanted to have a list of top 10 Cosby quotes in front of a courthouse, or such. Then, uh, yeah, no, I'll take my legal inspiration from a less, shall we say, controversial source.


And, since this is invariably going to come up, duly noted, one can proclaim themselves a follower of the bible while also actually being a good person and not following the evil parts. Sure. But that's like being a good samaritan while declaring oneself a follower of Mein Kampf. The credit goes to the individual person, not to the book.

 

[Armitage72]

Feel free to call yourself "Scientific Atheist" or "Critical Thinking Atheist" if you want to make a distinction, or be like the late and much-lamented Douglas Adams, who called himself a "Radical Atheist" for exactly the reasons you mention.

Wasn't there an episode of South Park in which different factions of atheists in the future were fighting over disagreements about the proper way to not believe in God? Though I believe the point of that was that, even without religion, people would find excuses to hate each other.

 

[Thor 2]

What is "modern atheism"? Can I buy a book on the subject?

As far was I am concerned "atheism" just means "not theism", how has that changed in modern times?

 

[arthwollipot]

Yeah, I always used to say this. Turns out it was the iron age.

It's kind of in the transition zone, depending on when you consider them to have been originally written.

Sure... but the thing is that a lot of people think that these commandments should still be applied to our 21st century civilisations, because they were, you know... handed down by the omnipotent creator of the Universe, rather than just an ad hoc thingamabob to increase social cohesion among illiterate shepherds.

Not arguing with that.