What I dislike about modern atheism

[David Mo]

I think I suggested no such thing. What I have said is that we need to focus on why we believe this atheism is following a bad practice. In other words, why this practice is bad, regardless of whether an atheist or a believer follows it.



In Spain the crime of blasphemy is included in the legal code. Courts generally dismiss cases. But the crime exists and is a menace against freedom of expression. Actor Willy Toledo made a public statement in which he said, "I ***** on God and I still have plenty of ***** to ***** on the dogma of the Virgin Mary's virginity". He then stated that he did not recognize the right of a court to bring charges against him for these words and that he declared himself insubordinate. When the court called him to testify, he didn't come. Toledo, unlike other people who were accused of the same crime, who simply stated that they did not want to offend anyone, wanted to draw attention to the illegitimacy of such a crime and questioned the law itself, which the other defendants had not done in accepting the trial and trusting in their innocence.

Maybe he's right.

NOTE: "*****" is referred to the daily task of ejecting the organic waste from the body. I omit the word to avoid the censure of this forum, but in Spain is an habitual exclamation, very popular in some regions. Toledo's attack transcedend the circumstancial situation to aim to the state of right.

Edited by jsfisher: 

Edited to (1) fully mask the naughty words as required by the Membership Agreement, and (2) fixed the damaged quote-tags.

I thought I have "masked" "naughty" words. Not enough apparently.

Willy Toledo is erased in an sceptical forum! ¡Ay caramba!
This is sobering.

 

[arthwollipot]

I thought I have "masked" "naughty" words. Not enough apparently.

Willy Toledo is erased in an sceptical forum! ¡Ay caramba!
This is sobering.

Just type the words you wish to use out in full. The "naughty" ones will be automatically masked for you. It couldn't possibly be any easier.

 

[dann]

In Spain the crime of blasphemy is included in the legal code.

We had a similar law in Denmark until last year. Not used very often.

 

[IanS]

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.

I don't know how many people say they are atheists without being critical of religions in some way or other. I expect it's far more common that most atheists do find reasons to criticise various aspects of all religions.

Do you think Christianity (just for example) is above criticism? Even if the criticism is only one of education to say that (for example) it's a serious problem when Christians today (and Muslims) raise their children, and preach to adults, saying that evolution is untrue and that there is better evidence for divine creation. That is surely a serious and quite dangerous thing for those theists to do ... because they are teaching people to reject science and to reject an unarguable mountain of honest objective evidence that explains the origin of Man. That's teaching children/others to reject or doubt science, and that's seriously anti-educational.

There are of course numerous other reasons why anyone ought to criticise religious beliefs about such things as praying for sick children/relatives whilst refusing to call the medical services … or encouraging people to believe in the need for exorcisms (apparently supported by supposedly “moderate” priests and vicars all around the world) … or frightening young children with ideas about being sent to Hell if they misbehave (which apparently, in the USA, is something that many lapsed Christians say was terrifying to them in their early years (say, 6 to 12 years old).

And then we have the issues around tax concessions and various favourable grants being given to churches and religious schools etc. Which of course all goes to maintaining and expanding the religion.

So there are numerous reasons why anyone (not just atheists) really should be critical of many things that are allowed to continue under the banner of Religion.

 

[Thor 2]

I don't know how many people say they are atheists without being critical of religions in some way or other. I expect it's far more common that most atheists do find reasons to criticise various aspects of all religions.

Do you think Christianity (just for example) is above criticism? Even if the criticism is only one of education to say that (for example) it's a serious problem when Christians today (and Muslims) raise their children, and preach to adults, saying that evolution is untrue and that there is better evidence for divine creation. That is surely a serious and quite dangerous thing for those theists to do ... because they are teaching people to reject science and to reject an unarguable mountain of honest objective evidence that explains the origin of Man. That's teaching children/others to reject or doubt science, and that's seriously anti-educational.

There are of course numerous other reasons why anyone ought to criticise religious beliefs about such things as praying for sick children/relatives whilst refusing to call the medical services … or encouraging people to believe in the need for exorcisms (apparently supported by supposedly “moderate” priests and vicars all around the world) … or frightening young children with ideas about being sent to Hell if they misbehave (which apparently, in the USA, is something that many lapsed Christians say was terrifying to them in their early years (say, 6 to 12 years old).

And then we have the issues around tax concessions and various favourable grants being given to churches and religious schools etc. Which of course all goes to maintaining and expanding the religion.

So there are numerous reasons why anyone (not just atheists) really should be critical of many things that are allowed to continue under the banner of Religion.

+ 1

A source of wonder to me, are those who show no concern about other peoples religion, impacting their own lives. The impact may be subtle in some cases and although in others quite significant, the ignorance of those effected, stops them from feeling the outrage, they should feel.

Regrettably it is understandable I suppose, because so many just look at how they are directly effected. The plight of women wanting abortions, LGBT folk wanting equal rights, and so on, are just minority groups, and need not concern the bulk of us.

 

[acbytesla]

I think this is too strong of a criterion for believing in something. Many of the things we all believe have no proof. As a matter of fact hardly anything can be proven outside of logic and mathematics! Perhaps it would be better to say that you try not to believe in anything for which there is no evidence, or for which there is no good reason, or something similar. But there are a couple of wiggle words there, too.

I'd agree that there is a new breed of outspoken sort of atheist-activist that can get annoying. They often seem overeager to let others know they identify strongly as atheists, and they're always wanting to debate about the topic. But upon further thought, maybe they're not such a new breed since that sounds like me about ten years ago. :0

No offense but your post has little merit I can prove the book I am reading exists, that my parents exists, that the car I am driving exists, that there is DNA in our cells, that electricity exists and can be controlled. I can prove gravity over and over and over again. I can point my telescope at the night sky and see that the Big Dipper exists. Please tell me the many things we all believe in that have no proof. I doubt you will come up with any but sky daddies.

I find it interesting that people are annoyed at atheists.

You know what I am annoyed with?

People that want to share the "good news" of their fairy tale god.
Preachers on tv and mormons knocking on my front door.
I'm sick of reading about people killing others for their god.
Or them saying we should teach their creation story in our science class.
Or using their faith as an excuse to tell others how to live.
Or demanding laws that allow them to discriminate
Parents disowning their children for not believing.
Tax breaks for churches.

I'm an outspoken atheist because beliefs have consequences and so many of them are horrible. .

 

[ArchSas]

That is surely a serious and quite dangerous thing for those theists to do ... because they are teaching people to reject science and to reject an unarguable mountain of honest objective evidence that explains the origin of Man. That's teaching children/others to reject or doubt science, and that's seriously anti-educational.

As a person who went to K-12 in a school district that mandated intelligent design be discussed and that an "official" position couldn't be taken on whether or not it was more "right" than evolution, this is huge to me. Science is science, it shouldn't matter what parents want to tell their kids, at least not outside of church. It still bothers me that I was taught intelligent design as a valid alternative in an honors biology class in high school; most of my classmates are still probably die-hard believers that evolution is just an opinion. And why shouldn't they, if that's how school is presenting it? That kind of thing really shouldn't be happening in any modern society. It's dangerous. Critical thinking skills should be stressed, and parental beliefs shouldn't dictate how facts are taught. When it gets to a point where science is an opinion and a high school principle has to say that he can't teach the holocaust as a historical fact, the system is seriously broken.

What really worries me is that I didn't even grow up in an especially religious area. This was in an suburban part of the stereotypically liberal Puget Sound region. Granted, there were a fair share of Mormons and evangelicals around, but things weren't nearly as religious as I've experience in other regions in the US; other kids mut have it way worse than I did.

or frightening young children with ideas about being sent to Hell if they misbehave (which apparently, in the USA, is something that many lapsed Christians say was terrifying to them in their early years (say, 6 to 12 years old).

It's not just lapsed Christians. I grew up in a household that was pretty strictly nonreligious, but because I lived in a poor neighborhood, a lot of community activities were structured around things organized by local churches. I have vivid memories of one of these gatherings (I think it was supposed to be some kind of neighborhood kids activities) that ended up being the first time I had ever heard about hell. I was 5 or 6, and it absolutely terrified me, especially because a friend of mine had just moved while I was still borrowing one of his toys. The way hell was presented to me, I was convinced that even though I had accidentally "stolen" the toy, I was now condemned to hell no matter what. Luckily my parents were able to help by telling me hell wasn't real, but it still took me a while to get over. That's the kind of thing I think of sometimes when I get really cynical about the idea of churches providing community services; yeah, they can do a lot of good, but at what cost? I'm sure going to some activity organized by the local parks and rec would have been much less traumatizing than something that was trying to scare kids about eternal damnation.

 

[David Mo]

No offense but your post has little merit I can prove the book I am reading exists, that my parents exists, that the car I am driving exists, that there is DNA in our cells, that electricity exists and can be controlled. I can prove gravity over and over and over again. I can point my telescope at the night sky and see that the Big Dipper exists. Please tell me the many things we all believe in that have no proof. I doubt you will come up with any but sky daddies.

I find it interesting that people are annoyed at atheists.

You know what I am annoyed with?

People that want to share the "good news" of their fairy tale god.
Preachers on tv and mormons knocking on my front door.
I'm sick of reading about people killing others for their god.
Or them saying we should teach their creation story in our science class.
Or using their faith as an excuse to tell others how to live.
Or demanding laws that allow them to discriminate
Parents disowning their children for not believing.
Tax breaks for churches.

I'm an outspoken atheist because beliefs have consequences and so many of them are horrible. .

I don't care about the beliefs of Christians. Let them believe what they want. I worry a lot when they try to impose their beliefs as binding rules. And that's hard for them not to do. The churches specially. That's the problem.

 

[Robin]

Just type the words you wish to use out in full. The "naughty" ones will be automatically masked for you. It couldn't possibly be any easier.

What a ******* stupid **** I am for not realising that earlier.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I've said it before, I'll say it again: complaints about "modern atheists", "new atheists", or whatever, just boil down to "wouldn't it be nice if atheists shut the hell up, never gave any reasons, so we could all pretend they're non existent or just a small group of weirdoes."

Actually, let me be even more explicit for a change: like most such complaints about some group saying too much, it boils down to entitlement. It used to be that some groups could do all the talking, say any offensive idiocy, and never had to listen to a counter-argument. Be it religion, or race, or xenophobia, or misoginy, or whatever. Only the ones on the privileged side got to do all the talking. And now they want that privilege back.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I've said it before, I'll say it again: complaints about "modern atheists", "new atheists", or whatever, just boil down to "wouldn't it be nice if atheists shut the hell up, never gave any reasons, so we could all pretend they're non existent or just a small group of weirdoes."

It's even worse then that.

It's that plus that insidious form of faux-acceptance where you ever so graciously allow the other group the courtesy, nay the privilege of being permitted to exist... as long as they do it the "right" way.

We're not expected to not exist, we're expected to grovel.

 

[acbytesla]

I've said it before, I'll say it again: complaints about "modern atheists", "new atheists", or whatever, just boil down to "wouldn't it be nice if atheists shut the hell up, never gave any reasons, so we could all pretend they're non existent or just a small group of weirdoes."

Actually, let me be even more explicit for a change: like most such complaints about some group saying too much, it boils down to entitlement. It used to be that some groups could do all the talking, say any offensive idiocy, and never had to listen to a counter-argument. Be it religion, or race, or xenophobia, or misoginy, or whatever. Only the ones on the privileged side got to do all the talking. And now they want that privilege back.

Yep. That's it in a nutshell. The world has worked fine...for us. It's the same complaint the rich have used against the poor. See capitalism works,....for us. You're complaining about your wages and not being able to pay your rent? . Boo hoo. Well, my new jet needs a new engine. We like the rules just as they have been.

Somehow religion has always enjoyed an unspoken special privilege in society and that is being beyond criticism. Whatever religion one might have, don't dare criticize it. I say "screw that". You have every right to believe in whatever imaginary skydaddy you like. I have no desire to take away that right. And I also have every right to criticize it.

 

[acbytesla]

I don't care about the beliefs of Christians. Let them believe what they want. I worry a lot when they try to impose their beliefs as binding rules. And that's hard for them not to do. The churches specially. That's the problem.

Beliefs have consequences. There simply is no way around it.

 

[David Mo]

Beliefs have consequences. There simply is no way around it .

I said it was very difficult although not impossible. There are Christians that live their beliefs without trying to impose it to others. I know some so. They are usually part of bases communities. Scarcely among priests and almost never in the hierarchy.

The problem is why religion fosters violent intolerance.

 

[Robin]

I have been noticing a breed of New New Atheists on Twitter who enthuse about the importance of religion to the strength and resilience of society, they tend to have heros like Jordan Petersen and Jacob Rees-Mogg.

To which I say "come back Richard Dawkins, all is forgiven".

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

It's not really something new, though. It's the faith in faith argument all over again.

 

[acbytesla]

I have been noticing a breed of New New Atheists on Twitter who enthuse about the importance of religion to the strength and resilience of society, they tend to have heros like Jordan Petersen and Jacob Rees-Mogg.

To which I say "come back Richard Dawkins, all is forgiven".

Really? I think Jordan Petersen is a tool. Most atheists I know mock that guy.

 

[acbytesla]

I said it was very difficult although not impossible. There are Christians that live their beliefs without trying to impose it to others. I know some so. They are usually part of bases communities. Scarcely among priests and almost never in the hierarchy.

The problem is why religion fosters violent intolerance.

I think it is impossible. There are certainly Christians that are less offensive than others. But beliefs do not exist in a vacuum. They inform our actions and affect not only those people around us but people we do not even know.

 

[David Mo]

I think it is impossible. There are certainly Christians that are less offensive than others. But beliefs do not exist in a vacuum. They inform our actions and affect not only those people around us but people we do not even know.

Of course, but I think this influence is not what we can blame Christians for. Each acts on the other just because they exist in the world. What is reprehensible is trying to impose a particular belief on others. This is the rule of tolerance. Or to become a nuisance in trying to convince everyone. This is the rule of courtesy.

But I don't think we can blame anyone for wearing a necklace with a cross or a headscarf. Whether I like it or not this is something else.

 

[acbytesla]

Of course, but I think this influence is not what we can blame Christians for. Each acts on the other just because they exist in the world. What is reprehensible is trying to impose a particular belief on others. This is the rule of tolerance. Or to become a nuisance in trying to convince everyone. This is the rule of courtesy.

But I don't think we can blame anyone for wearing a necklace with a cross or a headscarf. Whether I like it or not this is something else.

In one sense I cannot blame anyone for their beliefs as belief is not a choice. I can however blame individuals for engaging in special pleading and wilfull cognitive dissonance and abandoning sound epistemological practices.