I think that there's a difference between people who don't believe in any particular greater powers, and people who believe that there are no greater powers. I'm in the former group, Dawkins is in the latter group. In my mind, the difference in point of view is at least as large as between say, Catholic Christianity and Shia Islam, or Orthodox Christianity and Orthodox Judaism. It might be a smaller gap than the gap between Abrahamic faiths and Hindu/Buddhist faiths, but it's a pretty important gap nonetheless.
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
I think it's a bit more complicated. Atheism isn't an empty set; it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. And it's not hard to see how this position dovetails with a "sheeple" mentality.
I really don't think its as complicated as you're making it out to be.
You're framing of what constitutes atheism is the problem here. Atheism is an empty set. It is very simply the lack of belief in theistic claims and naught more. I find the wording rather disingenuous, especially given it could be applied to any group.
Christianity, it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. Where X = (Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc). Repeat ad nauseam for every other ideology under the sun.
It can be applied to every group. Trying to peddle this sentiment off as if it applies only to atheists and not every group with a differing world view is a disingenuous attempt to atheists as "enlightened know it all types." Granted, some egoists do buy into the line. But I've seen plenty of theists who act like pious, enlightened, know-it-alls as well.
No, it's not. The fundamental definition of what it is to be Christian (insofar as such a definition can even be nailed down) has nothing to do with what other groups believe, only with what the individual Christian believes. As a result, there are plenty of "many-paths-to-God" Christians who believe that other religions are also right about the same important things, and this belief is not fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.
And frankly, I find it ironic that in a single post you argue with Qingu over the finer shades of grey of atheism beliefs (or lack thereof) and at the same time paint not just all Christians but all >6 Billion followers of all religions and ideologies under the sun as sharing a single overly-simplistic black-and-white belief.
I think it's a bit more complicated. Atheism isn't an empty set; it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. And it's not hard to see how this position dovetails with a "sheeple" mentality.
I really don't think its as complicated as you're making it out to be.
You're framing of what constitutes atheism is the problem here. Atheism is an empty set. It is very simply the lack of belief in theistic claims and naught more. I find the wording rather disingenuous, especially given it could be applied to any group.
Christianity, it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. Where X = (Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc). Repeat ad nauseam for every other ideology under the sun.
It can be applied to every group. Trying to peddle this sentiment off as if it applies only to atheists and not every group with a differing world view is a disingenuous attempt to atheists as "enlightened know it all types." Granted, some egoists do buy into the line. But I've seen plenty of theists who act like pious, enlightened, know-it-alls as well.
No, it's not. The fundamental definition of what it is to be Christian (insofar as such a definition can even be nailed down) has nothing to do with what other groups believe, only with what the individual Christian believes. As a result, there are plenty of "many-paths-to-God" Christians who believe that other religions are also right about the same important things, and this belief is not fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.
And frankly, I find it ironic that in a single post you argue with Qingu over the finer shades of grey of atheism beliefs (or lack thereof) and at the same time paint not just all Christians but all >6 Billion followers of all religions and ideologies under the sun as sharing a single overly-simplistic black-and-white belief.
He's right. The majority of Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus, and pretty much no one else does. It's a good thing that a lot of modern religious people aren't super worried about what religion other people are, but what you are doing is the sort of disingenuous "atheists are the odd man out," that is often used as a form of bigotry and attack, and pretends that there aren't radical theological differences between various religions.
I think it's a bit more complicated. Atheism isn't an empty set; it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. And it's not hard to see how this position dovetails with a "sheeple" mentality.
I really don't think its as complicated as you're making it out to be.
You're framing of what constitutes atheism is the problem here. Atheism is an empty set. It is very simply the lack of belief in theistic claims and naught more. I find the wording rather disingenuous, especially given it could be applied to any group.
Christianity, it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. Where X = (Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc). Repeat ad nauseam for every other ideology under the sun.
It can be applied to every group. Trying to peddle this sentiment off as if it applies only to atheists and not every group with a differing world view is a disingenuous attempt to atheists as "enlightened know it all types." Granted, some egoists do buy into the line. But I've seen plenty of theists who act like pious, enlightened, know-it-alls as well.
No, it's not. The fundamental definition of what it is to be Christian (insofar as such a definition can even be nailed down) has nothing to do with what other groups believe, only with what the individual Christian believes. As a result, there are plenty of "many-paths-to-God" Christians who believe that other religions are also right about the same important things, and this belief is not fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.
And frankly, I find it ironic that in a single post you argue with Qingu over the finer shades of grey of atheism beliefs (or lack thereof) and at the same time paint not just all Christians but all >6 Billion followers of all religions and ideologies under the sun as sharing a single overly-simplistic black-and-white belief.
He's right. The majority of Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus, and pretty much no one else does. It's a good thing that a lot of modern religious people aren't super worried about what religion other people are, but what you are doing is the sort of disingenuous "atheists are the odd man out," that is often used as a form of bigotry and attack, and pretends that there aren't radical theological differences between various religions.
Even in the divinity of Jesus doctrine, there are dissenting beliefs. There are several strains of Lutherism, for example, that believe that Jesus was the Son of God only in the extent that all men are the sons of God.
I think it's a bit more complicated. Atheism isn't an empty set; it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. And it's not hard to see how this position dovetails with a "sheeple" mentality.
I really don't think its as complicated as you're making it out to be.
You're framing of what constitutes atheism is the problem here. Atheism is an empty set. It is very simply the lack of belief in theistic claims and naught more. I find the wording rather disingenuous, especially given it could be applied to any group.
Christianity, it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. Where X = (Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc). Repeat ad nauseam for every other ideology under the sun.
It can be applied to every group. Trying to peddle this sentiment off as if it applies only to atheists and not every group with a differing world view is a disingenuous attempt to atheists as "enlightened know it all types." Granted, some egoists do buy into the line. But I've seen plenty of theists who act like pious, enlightened, know-it-alls as well.
No, it's not. The fundamental definition of what it is to be Christian (insofar as such a definition can even be nailed down) has nothing to do with what other groups believe, only with what the individual Christian believes. As a result, there are plenty of "many-paths-to-God" Christians who believe that other religions are also right about the same important things, and this belief is not fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.
And frankly, I find it ironic that in a single post you argue with Qingu over the finer shades of grey of atheism beliefs (or lack thereof) and at the same time paint not just all Christians but all >6 Billion followers of all religions and ideologies under the sun as sharing a single overly-simplistic black-and-white belief.
He's right. The majority of Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus, and pretty much no one else does. It's a good thing that a lot of modern religious people aren't super worried about what religion other people are, but what you are doing is the sort of disingenuous "atheists are the odd man out," that is often used as a form of bigotry and attack, and pretends that there aren't radical theological differences between various religions.
1. "I believe in X" =\= "Everyone who does not believe in X is wrong"
2. "Some other religions are right too" =\= "There are no radical theological differences between all religions"
3. "World religions are a complex thing and not a single black-and-white belief shared by all religious people" =\= "atheists are the odd man out"
I think it's a bit more complicated. Atheism isn't an empty set; it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. And it's not hard to see how this position dovetails with a "sheeple" mentality.
I really don't think its as complicated as you're making it out to be.
You're framing of what constitutes atheism is the problem here. Atheism is an empty set. It is very simply the lack of belief in theistic claims and naught more. I find the wording rather disingenuous, especially given it could be applied to any group.
Christianity, it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. Where X = (Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc). Repeat ad nauseam for every other ideology under the sun.
It can be applied to every group. Trying to peddle this sentiment off as if it applies only to atheists and not every group with a differing world view is a disingenuous attempt to atheists as "enlightened know it all types." Granted, some egoists do buy into the line. But I've seen plenty of theists who act like pious, enlightened, know-it-alls as well.
No, it's not. The fundamental definition of what it is to be Christian (insofar as such a definition can even be nailed down) has nothing to do with what other groups believe, only with what the individual Christian believes. As a result, there are plenty of "many-paths-to-God" Christians who believe that other religions are also right about the same important things, and this belief is not fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.
And frankly, I find it ironic that in a single post you argue with Qingu over the finer shades of grey of atheism beliefs (or lack thereof) and at the same time paint not just all Christians but all >6 Billion followers of all religions and ideologies under the sun as sharing a single overly-simplistic black-and-white belief.
He's right. The majority of Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus, and pretty much no one else does. It's a good thing that a lot of modern religious people aren't super worried about what religion other people are, but what you are doing is the sort of disingenuous "atheists are the odd man out," that is often used as a form of bigotry and attack, and pretends that there aren't radical theological differences between various religions.
Even that said divinity is a matter of debate within the faith - the major schisms in Christianity stem from how the divinity of Christ is formed and understood. At the same time, and I've pointed this out in prior threads, atheism isn't nearly as disorganized as it's made out to be. The New Atheism movement is rather influential within atheism as a whole, and I think that trying to ignore that is trying to avoid some uncomfortable aspects of modern atheism.
I think it's a bit more complicated. Atheism isn't an empty set; it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. And it's not hard to see how this position dovetails with a "sheeple" mentality.
I really don't think its as complicated as you're making it out to be.
You're framing of what constitutes atheism is the problem here. Atheism is an empty set. It is very simply the lack of belief in theistic claims and naught more. I find the wording rather disingenuous, especially given it could be applied to any group.
Christianity, it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. Where X = (Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc). Repeat ad nauseam for every other ideology under the sun.
It can be applied to every group. Trying to peddle this sentiment off as if it applies only to atheists and not every group with a differing world view is a disingenuous attempt to atheists as "enlightened know it all types." Granted, some egoists do buy into the line. But I've seen plenty of theists who act like pious, enlightened, know-it-alls as well.
No, it's not. The fundamental definition of what it is to be Christian (insofar as such a definition can even be nailed down) has nothing to do with what other groups believe, only with what the individual Christian believes. As a result, there are plenty of "many-paths-to-God" Christians who believe that other religions are also right about the same important things, and this belief is not fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.
And frankly, I find it ironic that in a single post you argue with Qingu over the finer shades of grey of atheism beliefs (or lack thereof) and at the same time paint not just all Christians but all >6 Billion followers of all religions and ideologies under the sun as sharing a single overly-simplistic black-and-white belief.
He's right. The majority of Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus, and pretty much no one else does. It's a good thing that a lot of modern religious people aren't super worried about what religion other people are, but what you are doing is the sort of disingenuous "atheists are the odd man out," that is often used as a form of bigotry and attack, and pretends that there aren't radical theological differences between various religions.
1. "I believe in X" =\= "Everyone who does not believe in X is wrong"
2. "Some other religions are right too" =\= "There are no radical theological differences between all religions"
3. "World religions are a complex thing and not a single black-and-white belief shared by all religious people" =\= "atheists are the odd man out"
Questions?
1 is pretty much a contradiction.
If you believe something then you think the people who don't are wrong even if you don't think it matters
I think it's a bit more complicated. Atheism isn't an empty set; it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. And it's not hard to see how this position dovetails with a "sheeple" mentality.
I really don't think its as complicated as you're making it out to be.
You're framing of what constitutes atheism is the problem here. Atheism is an empty set. It is very simply the lack of belief in theistic claims and naught more. I find the wording rather disingenuous, especially given it could be applied to any group.
Christianity, it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. Where X = (Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc). Repeat ad nauseam for every other ideology under the sun.
It can be applied to every group. Trying to peddle this sentiment off as if it applies only to atheists and not every group with a differing world view is a disingenuous attempt to atheists as "enlightened know it all types." Granted, some egoists do buy into the line. But I've seen plenty of theists who act like pious, enlightened, know-it-alls as well.
No, it's not. The fundamental definition of what it is to be Christian (insofar as such a definition can even be nailed down) has nothing to do with what other groups believe, only with what the individual Christian believes. As a result, there are plenty of "many-paths-to-God" Christians who believe that other religions are also right about the same important things, and this belief is not fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.
And frankly, I find it ironic that in a single post you argue with Qingu over the finer shades of grey of atheism beliefs (or lack thereof) and at the same time paint not just all Christians but all >6 Billion followers of all religions and ideologies under the sun as sharing a single overly-simplistic black-and-white belief.
He's right. The majority of Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus, and pretty much no one else does. It's a good thing that a lot of modern religious people aren't super worried about what religion other people are, but what you are doing is the sort of disingenuous "atheists are the odd man out," that is often used as a form of bigotry and attack, and pretends that there aren't radical theological differences between various religions.
Even that said divinity is a matter of debate within the faith - the major schisms in Christianity stem from how the divinity of Christ is formed and understood. At the same time, and I've pointed this out in prior threads, atheism isn't nearly as disorganized as it's made out to be. The New Atheism movement is rather influential within atheism as a whole, and I think that trying to ignore that is trying to avoid some uncomfortable aspects of modern atheism.
I think a major point is that New Atheism and "atheism" in general represents a very small subset of people who just don't believe - "no religion" only equals atheist in the strictest dictionary sense of meaning. I didn't stop believing in Christianity because I started subscribing to another belief system. I stopped believing because I grew up in a small Southern town, went to church on occassion, and realized as I got older that I just didn't believe it.
To be a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, etc., you have to have some tangential tie to a doctrine - even if it is just a twice removed relationship through a grandparent who was devout. To an atheist just means that you either don't have those ties or didn't pick them up from your parents/grandparents (in many cases, I think even "reject" is to strong a word). You can quite literally live your life as a non-believer without coming into contact with or even be aware of formalized doctrinal groups of non-believers.
I mean, is the kid whose parents didn't go to church so now he spends his Sunday mornings playing Call of Duty somehow tied to the beliefs of Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris? He just never thought it much, other than he's probably vaguely glad that he got to sleep in and shoot mans instead of having to dress up like some of his coworkers.
1. "I believe in X" =\= "Everyone who does not believe in X is wrong"
1 is pretty much a contradiction.
If you believe something then you think the people who don't are wrong even if you don't think it matters
Not if you allow for the possibility that multiple different beliefs may be correct.
To put a mathematical spin on it, it would be tantamount to saying that a variable V can correctly take values from a set {X, Y, Z}. Just because I pick V = X specifically does not mean that V = Y and V = Z become wrong. Quite the opposite, me saying that V = X and you saying that V = Y are both valid variable assignments.
1. "I believe in X" =\= "Everyone who does not believe in X is wrong"
1 is pretty much a contradiction.
If you believe something then you think the people who don't are wrong even if you don't think it matters
Not if you allow for the possibility that multiple different beliefs may be correct.
To put a mathematical spin on it, it would be tantamount to saying that a variable V can correctly take values from a set {X, Y, Z}. Just because I pick V = X specifically does not mean that V = Y and V = Z become wrong. Quite the opposite, me saying that V = X and you saying that V = Y are both valid variable assignments.
True but a Muslim isn't saying v=y he is saying v=\=x.
Even your universalism is saying that the majority of believers that don't believe like you are incorrect.
I think it's a bit more complicated. Atheism isn't an empty set; it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. And it's not hard to see how this position dovetails with a "sheeple" mentality.
I really don't think its as complicated as you're making it out to be.
You're framing of what constitutes atheism is the problem here. Atheism is an empty set. It is very simply the lack of belief in theistic claims and naught more. I find the wording rather disingenuous, especially given it could be applied to any group.
Christianity, it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. Where X = (Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc). Repeat ad nauseam for every other ideology under the sun.
It can be applied to every group. Trying to peddle this sentiment off as if it applies only to atheists and not every group with a differing world view is a disingenuous attempt to atheists as "enlightened know it all types." Granted, some egoists do buy into the line. But I've seen plenty of theists who act like pious, enlightened, know-it-alls as well.
No, it's not. The fundamental definition of what it is to be Christian (insofar as such a definition can even be nailed down) has nothing to do with what other groups believe, only with what the individual Christian believes. As a result, there are plenty of "many-paths-to-God" Christians who believe that other religions are also right about the same important things, and this belief is not fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.
And frankly, I find it ironic that in a single post you argue with Qingu over the finer shades of grey of atheism beliefs (or lack thereof) and at the same time paint not just all Christians but all >6 Billion followers of all religions and ideologies under the sun as sharing a single overly-simplistic black-and-white belief.
He's right. The majority of Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus, and pretty much no one else does. It's a good thing that a lot of modern religious people aren't super worried about what religion other people are, but what you are doing is the sort of disingenuous "atheists are the odd man out," that is often used as a form of bigotry and attack, and pretends that there aren't radical theological differences between various religions.
Even that said divinity is a matter of debate within the faith - the major schisms in Christianity stem from how the divinity of Christ is formed and understood. At the same time, and I've pointed this out in prior threads, atheism isn't nearly as disorganized as it's made out to be. The New Atheism movement is rather influential within atheism as a whole, and I think that trying to ignore that is trying to avoid some uncomfortable aspects of modern atheism.
I think a major point is that New Atheism and "atheism" in general represents a very small subset of people who just don't believe - "no religion" only equals atheist in the strictest dictionary sense of meaning. I didn't stop believing in Christianity because I started subscribing to another belief system. I stopped believing because I grew up in a small Southern town, went to church on occassion, and realized as I got older that I just didn't believe it.
To be a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, etc., you have to have some tangential tie to a doctrine - even if it is just a twice removed relationship through a grandparent who was devout. To an atheist just means that you either don't have those ties or didn't pick them up from your parents/grandparents (in many cases, I think even "reject" is to strong a word). You can quite literally live your life as a non-believer without coming into contact with or even be aware of formalized doctrinal groups of non-believers.
I mean, is the kid whose parents didn't go to church so now he spends his Sunday mornings playing Call of Duty somehow tied to the beliefs of Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris? He just never thought it much, other than he's probably vaguely glad that he got to sleep in and shoot mans instead of having to dress up like some of his coworkers.
But in this case, we're not discussing someone who was just a non-believer. We're discussing someone who actively incorporated lack of belief into their identity. And in that sort of case, I think that you can't ignore that there are organized atheist communities with their own sets of ideas on religion and how the world works. And some of those ideas can be very problematic - a good example is how the fact that women seem more "drawn" to religion is used by a number of atheists as "proof" that women are "less rational" than men (of course, what gets ignored is the support network that the faith's community provides is a draw to women from a rational standpoint.)
1. "I believe in X" =\= "Everyone who does not believe in X is wrong"
1 is pretty much a contradiction.
If you believe something then you think the people who don't are wrong even if you don't think it matters
Not if you allow for the possibility that multiple different beliefs may be correct.
To put a mathematical spin on it, it would be tantamount to saying that a variable V can correctly take values from a set {X, Y, Z}. Just because I pick V = X specifically does not mean that V = Y and V = Z become wrong. Quite the opposite, me saying that V = X and you saying that V = Y are both valid variable assignments.
True but a Muslim isn't saying v=y he is saying v=\=x.
Even your universalism is saying that the majority of believers that don't believe like you are incorrect.
Yeah, a pretty big tenant of Islam is that everyone else is necessarily wrong. Like, the thing all muslims have to say to affirm their faith boils down to "I recognize there is one God, Allah, all other gods are super fake".
I don't really think that the shooter's atheism is that relevant to why he shot them. The only interesting thing about his atheism is how the media chooses to portray this violence more as a regrettable isolated incidence of poor mental health and not in the way they'd talk about a Muslim shooting other people.
The family believes Islamophobia is a factor in this, and the victims were convinced that he hated them because of their hijabs. For my money, this is the same as if someone killed a Mexican and said it was a hiring dispute. I'm sure that's the reason he was pissed off, but not the reason it escalated to murder of that particular person.
1. "I believe in X" =\= "Everyone who does not believe in X is wrong"
1 is pretty much a contradiction.
If you believe something then you think the people who don't are wrong even if you don't think it matters
Not if you allow for the possibility that multiple different beliefs may be correct.
To put a mathematical spin on it, it would be tantamount to saying that a variable V can correctly take values from a set {X, Y, Z}. Just because I pick V = X specifically does not mean that V = Y and V = Z become wrong. Quite the opposite, me saying that V = X and you saying that V = Y are both valid variable assignments.
True but a Muslim isn't saying v=y he is saying v=\=x.
Even your universalism is saying that the majority of believers that don't believe like you are incorrect.
There are some that say v=y and there are some that say v=\=x. That was one of my original points: there is a large range of theistic beliefs, not a single universal definition that applies to all >6B religious people on Earth. My second point in this argument was that equating "I believe in X" and "I believe that everyone who does not believe in X is wrong" is false, and consequently using that second statement as a universal definition of what "religion" is is mistaken.
I think it's a bit more complicated. Atheism isn't an empty set; it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. And it's not hard to see how this position dovetails with a "sheeple" mentality.
I really don't think its as complicated as you're making it out to be.
You're framing of what constitutes atheism is the problem here. Atheism is an empty set. It is very simply the lack of belief in theistic claims and naught more. I find the wording rather disingenuous, especially given it could be applied to any group.
Christianity, it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. Where X = (Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc). Repeat ad nauseam for every other ideology under the sun.
It can be applied to every group. Trying to peddle this sentiment off as if it applies only to atheists and not every group with a differing world view is a disingenuous attempt to atheists as "enlightened know it all types." Granted, some egoists do buy into the line. But I've seen plenty of theists who act like pious, enlightened, know-it-alls as well.
No, it's not. The fundamental definition of what it is to be Christian (insofar as such a definition can even be nailed down) has nothing to do with what other groups believe, only with what the individual Christian believes. As a result, there are plenty of "many-paths-to-God" Christians who believe that other religions are also right about the same important things, and this belief is not fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.
And frankly, I find it ironic that in a single post you argue with Qingu over the finer shades of grey of atheism beliefs (or lack thereof) and at the same time paint not just all Christians but all >6 Billion followers of all religions and ideologies under the sun as sharing a single overly-simplistic black-and-white belief.
He's right. The majority of Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus, and pretty much no one else does. It's a good thing that a lot of modern religious people aren't super worried about what religion other people are, but what you are doing is the sort of disingenuous "atheists are the odd man out," that is often used as a form of bigotry and attack, and pretends that there aren't radical theological differences between various religions.
Even that said divinity is a matter of debate within the faith - the major schisms in Christianity stem from how the divinity of Christ is formed and understood. At the same time, and I've pointed this out in prior threads, atheism isn't nearly as disorganized as it's made out to be. The New Atheism movement is rather influential within atheism as a whole, and I think that trying to ignore that is trying to avoid some uncomfortable aspects of modern atheism.
I think a major point is that New Atheism and "atheism" in general represents a very small subset of people who just don't believe - "no religion" only equals atheist in the strictest dictionary sense of meaning. I didn't stop believing in Christianity because I started subscribing to another belief system. I stopped believing because I grew up in a small Southern town, went to church on occassion, and realized as I got older that I just didn't believe it.
To be a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, etc., you have to have some tangential tie to a doctrine - even if it is just a twice removed relationship through a grandparent who was devout. To an atheist just means that you either don't have those ties or didn't pick them up from your parents/grandparents (in many cases, I think even "reject" is to strong a word). You can quite literally live your life as a non-believer without coming into contact with or even be aware of formalized doctrinal groups of non-believers.
I mean, is the kid whose parents didn't go to church so now he spends his Sunday mornings playing Call of Duty somehow tied to the beliefs of Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris? He just never thought it much, other than he's probably vaguely glad that he got to sleep in and shoot mans instead of having to dress up like some of his coworkers.
But in this case, we're not discussing someone who was just a non-believer. We're discussing someone who actively incorporated lack of belief into their identity. And in that sort of case, I think that you can't ignore that there are organized atheist communities with their own sets of ideas on religion and how the world works. And some of those ideas can be very problematic - a good example is how the fact that women seem more "drawn" to religion is used by a number of atheists as "proof" that women are "less rational" than men (of course, what gets ignored is the support network that the faith's community provides is a draw to women from a rational standpoint.)
This seems to me misplaced when religion in general seems to have a much bigger problem with Misogyny.
Not to say that it doesn't exist or is acceptable, mind. But I don't see how you could say it was a larger problem than in religion.
I think it's a bit more complicated. Atheism isn't an empty set; it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. And it's not hard to see how this position dovetails with a "sheeple" mentality.
I really don't think its as complicated as you're making it out to be.
You're framing of what constitutes atheism is the problem here. Atheism is an empty set. It is very simply the lack of belief in theistic claims and naught more. I find the wording rather disingenuous, especially given it could be applied to any group.
Christianity, it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. Where X = (Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc). Repeat ad nauseam for every other ideology under the sun.
It can be applied to every group. Trying to peddle this sentiment off as if it applies only to atheists and not every group with a differing world view is a disingenuous attempt to atheists as "enlightened know it all types." Granted, some egoists do buy into the line. But I've seen plenty of theists who act like pious, enlightened, know-it-alls as well.
No, it's not. The fundamental definition of what it is to be Christian (insofar as such a definition can even be nailed down) has nothing to do with what other groups believe, only with what the individual Christian believes. As a result, there are plenty of "many-paths-to-God" Christians who believe that other religions are also right about the same important things, and this belief is not fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.
And frankly, I find it ironic that in a single post you argue with Qingu over the finer shades of grey of atheism beliefs (or lack thereof) and at the same time paint not just all Christians but all >6 Billion followers of all religions and ideologies under the sun as sharing a single overly-simplistic black-and-white belief.
He's right. The majority of Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus, and pretty much no one else does. It's a good thing that a lot of modern religious people aren't super worried about what religion other people are, but what you are doing is the sort of disingenuous "atheists are the odd man out," that is often used as a form of bigotry and attack, and pretends that there aren't radical theological differences between various religions.
Even that said divinity is a matter of debate within the faith - the major schisms in Christianity stem from how the divinity of Christ is formed and understood. At the same time, and I've pointed this out in prior threads, atheism isn't nearly as disorganized as it's made out to be. The New Atheism movement is rather influential within atheism as a whole, and I think that trying to ignore that is trying to avoid some uncomfortable aspects of modern atheism.
I think a major point is that New Atheism and "atheism" in general represents a very small subset of people who just don't believe - "no religion" only equals atheist in the strictest dictionary sense of meaning. I didn't stop believing in Christianity because I started subscribing to another belief system. I stopped believing because I grew up in a small Southern town, went to church on occassion, and realized as I got older that I just didn't believe it.
To be a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, etc., you have to have some tangential tie to a doctrine - even if it is just a twice removed relationship through a grandparent who was devout. To an atheist just means that you either don't have those ties or didn't pick them up from your parents/grandparents (in many cases, I think even "reject" is to strong a word). You can quite literally live your life as a non-believer without coming into contact with or even be aware of formalized doctrinal groups of non-believers.
I mean, is the kid whose parents didn't go to church so now he spends his Sunday mornings playing Call of Duty somehow tied to the beliefs of Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris? He just never thought it much, other than he's probably vaguely glad that he got to sleep in and shoot mans instead of having to dress up like some of his coworkers.
But in this case, we're not discussing someone who was just a non-believer. We're discussing someone who actively incorporated lack of belief into their identity. And in that sort of case, I think that you can't ignore that there are organized atheist communities with their own sets of ideas on religion and how the world works. And some of those ideas can be very problematic - a good example is how the fact that women seem more "drawn" to religion is used by a number of atheists as "proof" that women are "less rational" than men (of course, what gets ignored is the support network that the faith's community provides is a draw to women from a rational standpoint.)
This seems to me misplaced when religion in general seems to have a much bigger problem with Misogyny.
Not to say that it doesn't exist or is acceptable, mind. But I don't see how you could say it was a larger problem than in religion.
Have you seen some of the things that Dawkins or Harris have written in regards to women? Or, as was pointed out in the OP, that you're seeing growth in the number of self-identified atheists who are also MRAs? Misogyny is a massive problem within modern atheism. More importantly, while religion is regularly held to task with regards to the misogyny there, atheism is kinda in a state of denial about its own problems (read Harris' infamous attempt to dismiss criticisms of his misogynistic views for a good example there.)
I think it's a bit more complicated. Atheism isn't an empty set; it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. And it's not hard to see how this position dovetails with a "sheeple" mentality.
I really don't think its as complicated as you're making it out to be.
You're framing of what constitutes atheism is the problem here. Atheism is an empty set. It is very simply the lack of belief in theistic claims and naught more. I find the wording rather disingenuous, especially given it could be applied to any group.
Christianity, it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. Where X = (Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc). Repeat ad nauseam for every other ideology under the sun.
It can be applied to every group. Trying to peddle this sentiment off as if it applies only to atheists and not every group with a differing world view is a disingenuous attempt to atheists as "enlightened know it all types." Granted, some egoists do buy into the line. But I've seen plenty of theists who act like pious, enlightened, know-it-alls as well.
No, it's not. The fundamental definition of what it is to be Christian (insofar as such a definition can even be nailed down) has nothing to do with what other groups believe, only with what the individual Christian believes. As a result, there are plenty of "many-paths-to-God" Christians who believe that other religions are also right about the same important things, and this belief is not fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.
And frankly, I find it ironic that in a single post you argue with Qingu over the finer shades of grey of atheism beliefs (or lack thereof) and at the same time paint not just all Christians but all >6 Billion followers of all religions and ideologies under the sun as sharing a single overly-simplistic black-and-white belief.
He's right. The majority of Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus, and pretty much no one else does. It's a good thing that a lot of modern religious people aren't super worried about what religion other people are, but what you are doing is the sort of disingenuous "atheists are the odd man out," that is often used as a form of bigotry and attack, and pretends that there aren't radical theological differences between various religions.
Even that said divinity is a matter of debate within the faith - the major schisms in Christianity stem from how the divinity of Christ is formed and understood. At the same time, and I've pointed this out in prior threads, atheism isn't nearly as disorganized as it's made out to be. The New Atheism movement is rather influential within atheism as a whole, and I think that trying to ignore that is trying to avoid some uncomfortable aspects of modern atheism.
I remember I had snarkily dismissed your concerns about New Atheism. Now I concede I wasn't really familiar with some of the more unsavory aspects of the movement.
I don't really think that the minutae of atheists' views about no gods vs. probably no gods matters for this discussion. It's a community. Loose and incoherent it may be, every community has a tendency towards an in-group out-group dynamic. And every such dynamic can, at the extremes, be harmful. I feel like New Atheists, or a subset of them, are exacerbating this dynamic and also may be attracting unsavory MRA-types and hateful bigots into the movement.
I think it's a bit more complicated. Atheism isn't an empty set; it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. And it's not hard to see how this position dovetails with a "sheeple" mentality.
I really don't think its as complicated as you're making it out to be.
You're framing of what constitutes atheism is the problem here. Atheism is an empty set. It is very simply the lack of belief in theistic claims and naught more. I find the wording rather disingenuous, especially given it could be applied to any group.
Christianity, it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. Where X = (Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc). Repeat ad nauseam for every other ideology under the sun.
It can be applied to every group. Trying to peddle this sentiment off as if it applies only to atheists and not every group with a differing world view is a disingenuous attempt to atheists as "enlightened know it all types." Granted, some egoists do buy into the line. But I've seen plenty of theists who act like pious, enlightened, know-it-alls as well.
No, it's not. The fundamental definition of what it is to be Christian (insofar as such a definition can even be nailed down) has nothing to do with what other groups believe, only with what the individual Christian believes. As a result, there are plenty of "many-paths-to-God" Christians who believe that other religions are also right about the same important things, and this belief is not fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.
And frankly, I find it ironic that in a single post you argue with Qingu over the finer shades of grey of atheism beliefs (or lack thereof) and at the same time paint not just all Christians but all >6 Billion followers of all religions and ideologies under the sun as sharing a single overly-simplistic black-and-white belief.
He's right. The majority of Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus, and pretty much no one else does. It's a good thing that a lot of modern religious people aren't super worried about what religion other people are, but what you are doing is the sort of disingenuous "atheists are the odd man out," that is often used as a form of bigotry and attack, and pretends that there aren't radical theological differences between various religions.
Even that said divinity is a matter of debate within the faith - the major schisms in Christianity stem from how the divinity of Christ is formed and understood. At the same time, and I've pointed this out in prior threads, atheism isn't nearly as disorganized as it's made out to be. The New Atheism movement is rather influential within atheism as a whole, and I think that trying to ignore that is trying to avoid some uncomfortable aspects of modern atheism.
I think a major point is that New Atheism and "atheism" in general represents a very small subset of people who just don't believe - "no religion" only equals atheist in the strictest dictionary sense of meaning. I didn't stop believing in Christianity because I started subscribing to another belief system. I stopped believing because I grew up in a small Southern town, went to church on occassion, and realized as I got older that I just didn't believe it.
To be a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, etc., you have to have some tangential tie to a doctrine - even if it is just a twice removed relationship through a grandparent who was devout. To an atheist just means that you either don't have those ties or didn't pick them up from your parents/grandparents (in many cases, I think even "reject" is to strong a word). You can quite literally live your life as a non-believer without coming into contact with or even be aware of formalized doctrinal groups of non-believers.
I mean, is the kid whose parents didn't go to church so now he spends his Sunday mornings playing Call of Duty somehow tied to the beliefs of Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris? He just never thought it much, other than he's probably vaguely glad that he got to sleep in and shoot mans instead of having to dress up like some of his coworkers.
But in this case, we're not discussing someone who was just a non-believer. We're discussing someone who actively incorporated lack of belief into their identity. And in that sort of case, I think that you can't ignore that there are organized atheist communities with their own sets of ideas on religion and how the world works. And some of those ideas can be very problematic - a good example is how the fact that women seem more "drawn" to religion is used by a number of atheists as "proof" that women are "less rational" than men (of course, what gets ignored is the support network that the faith's community provides is a draw to women from a rational standpoint.)
This seems to me misplaced when religion in general seems to have a much bigger problem with Misogyny.
Not to say that it doesn't exist or is acceptable, mind. But I don't see how you could say it was a larger problem than in religion.
Have you seen some of the things that Dawkins or Harris have written in regards to women? Or, as was pointed out in the OP, that you're seeing growth in the number of self-identified atheists who are also MRAs? Misogyny is a massive problem within modern atheism.
As it is with literally every group. Not something special to atheism. Or whatever "modern atheism" is.
I think it's a bit more complicated. Atheism isn't an empty set; it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. And it's not hard to see how this position dovetails with a "sheeple" mentality.
I really don't think its as complicated as you're making it out to be.
You're framing of what constitutes atheism is the problem here. Atheism is an empty set. It is very simply the lack of belief in theistic claims and naught more. I find the wording rather disingenuous, especially given it could be applied to any group.
Christianity, it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. Where X = (Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc). Repeat ad nauseam for every other ideology under the sun.
It can be applied to every group. Trying to peddle this sentiment off as if it applies only to atheists and not every group with a differing world view is a disingenuous attempt to atheists as "enlightened know it all types." Granted, some egoists do buy into the line. But I've seen plenty of theists who act like pious, enlightened, know-it-alls as well.
No, it's not. The fundamental definition of what it is to be Christian (insofar as such a definition can even be nailed down) has nothing to do with what other groups believe, only with what the individual Christian believes. As a result, there are plenty of "many-paths-to-God" Christians who believe that other religions are also right about the same important things, and this belief is not fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.
And frankly, I find it ironic that in a single post you argue with Qingu over the finer shades of grey of atheism beliefs (or lack thereof) and at the same time paint not just all Christians but all >6 Billion followers of all religions and ideologies under the sun as sharing a single overly-simplistic black-and-white belief.
He's right. The majority of Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus, and pretty much no one else does. It's a good thing that a lot of modern religious people aren't super worried about what religion other people are, but what you are doing is the sort of disingenuous "atheists are the odd man out," that is often used as a form of bigotry and attack, and pretends that there aren't radical theological differences between various religions.
Even that said divinity is a matter of debate within the faith - the major schisms in Christianity stem from how the divinity of Christ is formed and understood. At the same time, and I've pointed this out in prior threads, atheism isn't nearly as disorganized as it's made out to be. The New Atheism movement is rather influential within atheism as a whole, and I think that trying to ignore that is trying to avoid some uncomfortable aspects of modern atheism.
I think a major point is that New Atheism and "atheism" in general represents a very small subset of people who just don't believe - "no religion" only equals atheist in the strictest dictionary sense of meaning. I didn't stop believing in Christianity because I started subscribing to another belief system. I stopped believing because I grew up in a small Southern town, went to church on occassion, and realized as I got older that I just didn't believe it.
To be a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, etc., you have to have some tangential tie to a doctrine - even if it is just a twice removed relationship through a grandparent who was devout. To an atheist just means that you either don't have those ties or didn't pick them up from your parents/grandparents (in many cases, I think even "reject" is to strong a word). You can quite literally live your life as a non-believer without coming into contact with or even be aware of formalized doctrinal groups of non-believers.
I mean, is the kid whose parents didn't go to church so now he spends his Sunday mornings playing Call of Duty somehow tied to the beliefs of Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris? He just never thought it much, other than he's probably vaguely glad that he got to sleep in and shoot mans instead of having to dress up like some of his coworkers.
But in this case, we're not discussing someone who was just a non-believer. We're discussing someone who actively incorporated lack of belief into their identity. And in that sort of case, I think that you can't ignore that there are organized atheist communities with their own sets of ideas on religion and how the world works. And some of those ideas can be very problematic - a good example is how the fact that women seem more "drawn" to religion is used by a number of atheists as "proof" that women are "less rational" than men (of course, what gets ignored is the support network that the faith's community provides is a draw to women from a rational standpoint.)
This seems to me misplaced when religion in general seems to have a much bigger problem with Misogyny.
Not to say that it doesn't exist or is acceptable, mind. But I don't see how you could say it was a larger problem than in religion.
Have you seen some of the things that Dawkins or Harris have written in regards to women? Or, as was pointed out in the OP, that you're seeing growth in the number of self-identified atheists who are also MRAs? Misogyny is a massive problem within modern atheism.
Fair enough.
And how does that stack up to religion or almost any other group?
My point is that it is wrong to say that atheism has a problem without painting religion with the same (or probably bigger) brush.
I think it's a bit more complicated. Atheism isn't an empty set; it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. And it's not hard to see how this position dovetails with a "sheeple" mentality.
I really don't think its as complicated as you're making it out to be.
You're framing of what constitutes atheism is the problem here. Atheism is an empty set. It is very simply the lack of belief in theistic claims and naught more. I find the wording rather disingenuous, especially given it could be applied to any group.
Christianity, it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. Where X = (Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc). Repeat ad nauseam for every other ideology under the sun.
It can be applied to every group. Trying to peddle this sentiment off as if it applies only to atheists and not every group with a differing world view is a disingenuous attempt to atheists as "enlightened know it all types." Granted, some egoists do buy into the line. But I've seen plenty of theists who act like pious, enlightened, know-it-alls as well.
No, it's not. The fundamental definition of what it is to be Christian (insofar as such a definition can even be nailed down) has nothing to do with what other groups believe, only with what the individual Christian believes. As a result, there are plenty of "many-paths-to-God" Christians who believe that other religions are also right about the same important things, and this belief is not fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.
And frankly, I find it ironic that in a single post you argue with Qingu over the finer shades of grey of atheism beliefs (or lack thereof) and at the same time paint not just all Christians but all >6 Billion followers of all religions and ideologies under the sun as sharing a single overly-simplistic black-and-white belief.
He's right. The majority of Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus, and pretty much no one else does. It's a good thing that a lot of modern religious people aren't super worried about what religion other people are, but what you are doing is the sort of disingenuous "atheists are the odd man out," that is often used as a form of bigotry and attack, and pretends that there aren't radical theological differences between various religions.
Even that said divinity is a matter of debate within the faith - the major schisms in Christianity stem from how the divinity of Christ is formed and understood. At the same time, and I've pointed this out in prior threads, atheism isn't nearly as disorganized as it's made out to be. The New Atheism movement is rather influential within atheism as a whole, and I think that trying to ignore that is trying to avoid some uncomfortable aspects of modern atheism.
I think a major point is that New Atheism and "atheism" in general represents a very small subset of people who just don't believe - "no religion" only equals atheist in the strictest dictionary sense of meaning. I didn't stop believing in Christianity because I started subscribing to another belief system. I stopped believing because I grew up in a small Southern town, went to church on occassion, and realized as I got older that I just didn't believe it.
To be a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, etc., you have to have some tangential tie to a doctrine - even if it is just a twice removed relationship through a grandparent who was devout. To an atheist just means that you either don't have those ties or didn't pick them up from your parents/grandparents (in many cases, I think even "reject" is to strong a word). You can quite literally live your life as a non-believer without coming into contact with or even be aware of formalized doctrinal groups of non-believers.
I mean, is the kid whose parents didn't go to church so now he spends his Sunday mornings playing Call of Duty somehow tied to the beliefs of Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris? He just never thought it much, other than he's probably vaguely glad that he got to sleep in and shoot mans instead of having to dress up like some of his coworkers.
But in this case, we're not discussing someone who was just a non-believer. We're discussing someone who actively incorporated lack of belief into their identity. And in that sort of case, I think that you can't ignore that there are organized atheist communities with their own sets of ideas on religion and how the world works. And some of those ideas can be very problematic - a good example is how the fact that women seem more "drawn" to religion is used by a number of atheists as "proof" that women are "less rational" than men (of course, what gets ignored is the support network that the faith's community provides is a draw to women from a rational standpoint.)
This seems to me misplaced when religion in general seems to have a much bigger problem with Misogyny.
Not to say that it doesn't exist or is acceptable, mind. But I don't see how you could say it was a larger problem than in religion.
Have you seen some of the things that Dawkins or Harris have written in regards to women? Or, as was pointed out in the OP, that you're seeing growth in the number of self-identified atheists who are also MRAs? Misogyny is a massive problem within modern atheism.
Fair enough.
And how does that stack up to religion or almost any other group?
My point is that it is wrong to say that atheism has a problem without painting religion with the same (or probably bigger) brush.
I don't think anyone is saying the atheist community's problems are unique. I imagine AngelHedgie chooses to focus on this issue as opposed to the problems with religion because s/he is an atheist, not a religious person—it's not his/her home turf.
I think it's a bit more complicated. Atheism isn't an empty set; it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. And it's not hard to see how this position dovetails with a "sheeple" mentality.
I really don't think its as complicated as you're making it out to be.
You're framing of what constitutes atheism is the problem here. Atheism is an empty set. It is very simply the lack of belief in theistic claims and naught more. I find the wording rather disingenuous, especially given it could be applied to any group.
Christianity, it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. Where X = (Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc). Repeat ad nauseam for every other ideology under the sun.
It can be applied to every group. Trying to peddle this sentiment off as if it applies only to atheists and not every group with a differing world view is a disingenuous attempt to atheists as "enlightened know it all types." Granted, some egoists do buy into the line. But I've seen plenty of theists who act like pious, enlightened, know-it-alls as well.
No, it's not. The fundamental definition of what it is to be Christian (insofar as such a definition can even be nailed down) has nothing to do with what other groups believe, only with what the individual Christian believes. As a result, there are plenty of "many-paths-to-God" Christians who believe that other religions are also right about the same important things, and this belief is not fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.
And frankly, I find it ironic that in a single post you argue with Qingu over the finer shades of grey of atheism beliefs (or lack thereof) and at the same time paint not just all Christians but all >6 Billion followers of all religions and ideologies under the sun as sharing a single overly-simplistic black-and-white belief.
He's right. The majority of Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus, and pretty much no one else does. It's a good thing that a lot of modern religious people aren't super worried about what religion other people are, but what you are doing is the sort of disingenuous "atheists are the odd man out," that is often used as a form of bigotry and attack, and pretends that there aren't radical theological differences between various religions.
Even that said divinity is a matter of debate within the faith - the major schisms in Christianity stem from how the divinity of Christ is formed and understood. At the same time, and I've pointed this out in prior threads, atheism isn't nearly as disorganized as it's made out to be. The New Atheism movement is rather influential within atheism as a whole, and I think that trying to ignore that is trying to avoid some uncomfortable aspects of modern atheism.
I think a major point is that New Atheism and "atheism" in general represents a very small subset of people who just don't believe - "no religion" only equals atheist in the strictest dictionary sense of meaning. I didn't stop believing in Christianity because I started subscribing to another belief system. I stopped believing because I grew up in a small Southern town, went to church on occassion, and realized as I got older that I just didn't believe it.
To be a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, etc., you have to have some tangential tie to a doctrine - even if it is just a twice removed relationship through a grandparent who was devout. To an atheist just means that you either don't have those ties or didn't pick them up from your parents/grandparents (in many cases, I think even "reject" is to strong a word). You can quite literally live your life as a non-believer without coming into contact with or even be aware of formalized doctrinal groups of non-believers.
I mean, is the kid whose parents didn't go to church so now he spends his Sunday mornings playing Call of Duty somehow tied to the beliefs of Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris? He just never thought it much, other than he's probably vaguely glad that he got to sleep in and shoot mans instead of having to dress up like some of his coworkers.
But in this case, we're not discussing someone who was just a non-believer. We're discussing someone who actively incorporated lack of belief into their identity. And in that sort of case, I think that you can't ignore that there are organized atheist communities with their own sets of ideas on religion and how the world works. And some of those ideas can be very problematic - a good example is how the fact that women seem more "drawn" to religion is used by a number of atheists as "proof" that women are "less rational" than men (of course, what gets ignored is the support network that the faith's community provides is a draw to women from a rational standpoint.)
This seems to me misplaced when religion in general seems to have a much bigger problem with Misogyny.
Not to say that it doesn't exist or is acceptable, mind. But I don't see how you could say it was a larger problem than in religion.
Have you seen some of the things that Dawkins or Harris have written in regards to women? Or, as was pointed out in the OP, that you're seeing growth in the number of self-identified atheists who are also MRAs? Misogyny is a massive problem within modern atheism.
Fair enough.
And how does that stack up to religion or almost any other group?
My point is that it is wrong to say that atheism has a problem without painting religion with the same (or probably bigger) brush.
Except that people do routinely hold religious communities to task over misogynistic beliefs. It's not like atheists are getting singled out on this issue whatsoever.
I think it's a bit more complicated. Atheism isn't an empty set; it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. And it's not hard to see how this position dovetails with a "sheeple" mentality.
I really don't think its as complicated as you're making it out to be.
You're framing of what constitutes atheism is the problem here. Atheism is an empty set. It is very simply the lack of belief in theistic claims and naught more. I find the wording rather disingenuous, especially given it could be applied to any group.
Christianity, it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. Where X = (Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc). Repeat ad nauseam for every other ideology under the sun.
It can be applied to every group. Trying to peddle this sentiment off as if it applies only to atheists and not every group with a differing world view is a disingenuous attempt to atheists as "enlightened know it all types." Granted, some egoists do buy into the line. But I've seen plenty of theists who act like pious, enlightened, know-it-alls as well.
No, it's not. The fundamental definition of what it is to be Christian (insofar as such a definition can even be nailed down) has nothing to do with what other groups believe, only with what the individual Christian believes. As a result, there are plenty of "many-paths-to-God" Christians who believe that other religions are also right about the same important things, and this belief is not fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.
And frankly, I find it ironic that in a single post you argue with Qingu over the finer shades of grey of atheism beliefs (or lack thereof) and at the same time paint not just all Christians but all >6 Billion followers of all religions and ideologies under the sun as sharing a single overly-simplistic black-and-white belief.
He's right. The majority of Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus, and pretty much no one else does. It's a good thing that a lot of modern religious people aren't super worried about what religion other people are, but what you are doing is the sort of disingenuous "atheists are the odd man out," that is often used as a form of bigotry and attack, and pretends that there aren't radical theological differences between various religions.
Even that said divinity is a matter of debate within the faith - the major schisms in Christianity stem from how the divinity of Christ is formed and understood. At the same time, and I've pointed this out in prior threads, atheism isn't nearly as disorganized as it's made out to be. The New Atheism movement is rather influential within atheism as a whole, and I think that trying to ignore that is trying to avoid some uncomfortable aspects of modern atheism.
I think a major point is that New Atheism and "atheism" in general represents a very small subset of people who just don't believe - "no religion" only equals atheist in the strictest dictionary sense of meaning. I didn't stop believing in Christianity because I started subscribing to another belief system. I stopped believing because I grew up in a small Southern town, went to church on occassion, and realized as I got older that I just didn't believe it.
To be a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, etc., you have to have some tangential tie to a doctrine - even if it is just a twice removed relationship through a grandparent who was devout. To an atheist just means that you either don't have those ties or didn't pick them up from your parents/grandparents (in many cases, I think even "reject" is to strong a word). You can quite literally live your life as a non-believer without coming into contact with or even be aware of formalized doctrinal groups of non-believers.
I mean, is the kid whose parents didn't go to church so now he spends his Sunday mornings playing Call of Duty somehow tied to the beliefs of Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris? He just never thought it much, other than he's probably vaguely glad that he got to sleep in and shoot mans instead of having to dress up like some of his coworkers.
But in this case, we're not discussing someone who was just a non-believer. We're discussing someone who actively incorporated lack of belief into their identity. And in that sort of case, I think that you can't ignore that there are organized atheist communities with their own sets of ideas on religion and how the world works. And some of those ideas can be very problematic - a good example is how the fact that women seem more "drawn" to religion is used by a number of atheists as "proof" that women are "less rational" than men (of course, what gets ignored is the support network that the faith's community provides is a draw to women from a rational standpoint.)
This seems to me misplaced when religion in general seems to have a much bigger problem with Misogyny.
Not to say that it doesn't exist or is acceptable, mind. But I don't see how you could say it was a larger problem than in religion.
Have you seen some of the things that Dawkins or Harris have written in regards to women? Or, as was pointed out in the OP, that you're seeing growth in the number of self-identified atheists who are also MRAs? Misogyny is a massive problem within modern atheism.
Fair enough.
And how does that stack up to religion or almost any other group?
My point is that it is wrong to say that atheism has a problem without painting religion with the same (or probably bigger) brush.
Except that people do routinely hold religious communities to task over misogynistic beliefs. It's not like atheists are getting singled out on this issue whatsoever.
You don't think "atheism has a problem with misogyny" and "Islam has a problem with misogyny" garners a different reaction in people?
I think it's a bit more complicated. Atheism isn't an empty set; it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. And it's not hard to see how this position dovetails with a "sheeple" mentality.
I really don't think its as complicated as you're making it out to be.
You're framing of what constitutes atheism is the problem here. Atheism is an empty set. It is very simply the lack of belief in theistic claims and naught more. I find the wording rather disingenuous, especially given it could be applied to any group.
Christianity, it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. Where X = (Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc). Repeat ad nauseam for every other ideology under the sun.
It can be applied to every group. Trying to peddle this sentiment off as if it applies only to atheists and not every group with a differing world view is a disingenuous attempt to atheists as "enlightened know it all types." Granted, some egoists do buy into the line. But I've seen plenty of theists who act like pious, enlightened, know-it-alls as well.
No, it's not. The fundamental definition of what it is to be Christian (insofar as such a definition can even be nailed down) has nothing to do with what other groups believe, only with what the individual Christian believes. As a result, there are plenty of "many-paths-to-God" Christians who believe that other religions are also right about the same important things, and this belief is not fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.
And frankly, I find it ironic that in a single post you argue with Qingu over the finer shades of grey of atheism beliefs (or lack thereof) and at the same time paint not just all Christians but all >6 Billion followers of all religions and ideologies under the sun as sharing a single overly-simplistic black-and-white belief.
He's right. The majority of Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus, and pretty much no one else does. It's a good thing that a lot of modern religious people aren't super worried about what religion other people are, but what you are doing is the sort of disingenuous "atheists are the odd man out," that is often used as a form of bigotry and attack, and pretends that there aren't radical theological differences between various religions.
Even that said divinity is a matter of debate within the faith - the major schisms in Christianity stem from how the divinity of Christ is formed and understood. At the same time, and I've pointed this out in prior threads, atheism isn't nearly as disorganized as it's made out to be. The New Atheism movement is rather influential within atheism as a whole, and I think that trying to ignore that is trying to avoid some uncomfortable aspects of modern atheism.
I think a major point is that New Atheism and "atheism" in general represents a very small subset of people who just don't believe - "no religion" only equals atheist in the strictest dictionary sense of meaning. I didn't stop believing in Christianity because I started subscribing to another belief system. I stopped believing because I grew up in a small Southern town, went to church on occassion, and realized as I got older that I just didn't believe it.
To be a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, etc., you have to have some tangential tie to a doctrine - even if it is just a twice removed relationship through a grandparent who was devout. To an atheist just means that you either don't have those ties or didn't pick them up from your parents/grandparents (in many cases, I think even "reject" is to strong a word). You can quite literally live your life as a non-believer without coming into contact with or even be aware of formalized doctrinal groups of non-believers.
I mean, is the kid whose parents didn't go to church so now he spends his Sunday mornings playing Call of Duty somehow tied to the beliefs of Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris? He just never thought it much, other than he's probably vaguely glad that he got to sleep in and shoot mans instead of having to dress up like some of his coworkers.
But in this case, we're not discussing someone who was just a non-believer. We're discussing someone who actively incorporated lack of belief into their identity. And in that sort of case, I think that you can't ignore that there are organized atheist communities with their own sets of ideas on religion and how the world works. And some of those ideas can be very problematic - a good example is how the fact that women seem more "drawn" to religion is used by a number of atheists as "proof" that women are "less rational" than men (of course, what gets ignored is the support network that the faith's community provides is a draw to women from a rational standpoint.)
This seems to me misplaced when religion in general seems to have a much bigger problem with Misogyny.
Not to say that it doesn't exist or is acceptable, mind. But I don't see how you could say it was a larger problem than in religion.
Have you seen some of the things that Dawkins or Harris have written in regards to women? Or, as was pointed out in the OP, that you're seeing growth in the number of self-identified atheists who are also MRAs? Misogyny is a massive problem within modern atheism.
Fair enough.
And how does that stack up to religion or almost any other group?
My point is that it is wrong to say that atheism has a problem without painting religion with the same (or probably bigger) brush.
Except that people do routinely hold religious communities to task over misogynistic beliefs. It's not like atheists are getting singled out on this issue whatsoever.
You don't think "atheism has a problem with misogyny" and "Islam has a problem with misogyny" garners a different reaction in people?
It does, for a mixture of legitimate and illegitimate reasons.
I'd really like to avoid discussing the problems of Islam in this thread.
I wonder how much of the overlap between MRAs and atheism covers people who would also vote libertarian. Intuitively, the idea that "I am master of my own destiny" works well with "no higher power granted me anything" and "I pulled myself up by my own bootstraps and am superior to all others."
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
I think it's a bit more complicated. Atheism isn't an empty set; it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. And it's not hard to see how this position dovetails with a "sheeple" mentality.
I really don't think its as complicated as you're making it out to be.
You're framing of what constitutes atheism is the problem here. Atheism is an empty set. It is very simply the lack of belief in theistic claims and naught more. I find the wording rather disingenuous, especially given it could be applied to any group.
Christianity, it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. Where X = (Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc). Repeat ad nauseam for every other ideology under the sun.
It can be applied to every group. Trying to peddle this sentiment off as if it applies only to atheists and not every group with a differing world view is a disingenuous attempt to atheists as "enlightened know it all types." Granted, some egoists do buy into the line. But I've seen plenty of theists who act like pious, enlightened, know-it-alls as well.
No, it's not. The fundamental definition of what it is to be Christian (insofar as such a definition can even be nailed down) has nothing to do with what other groups believe, only with what the individual Christian believes. As a result, there are plenty of "many-paths-to-God" Christians who believe that other religions are also right about the same important things, and this belief is not fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.
And frankly, I find it ironic that in a single post you argue with Qingu over the finer shades of grey of atheism beliefs (or lack thereof) and at the same time paint not just all Christians but all >6 Billion followers of all religions and ideologies under the sun as sharing a single overly-simplistic black-and-white belief.
He's right. The majority of Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus, and pretty much no one else does. It's a good thing that a lot of modern religious people aren't super worried about what religion other people are, but what you are doing is the sort of disingenuous "atheists are the odd man out," that is often used as a form of bigotry and attack, and pretends that there aren't radical theological differences between various religions.
Even that said divinity is a matter of debate within the faith - the major schisms in Christianity stem from how the divinity of Christ is formed and understood. At the same time, and I've pointed this out in prior threads, atheism isn't nearly as disorganized as it's made out to be. The New Atheism movement is rather influential within atheism as a whole, and I think that trying to ignore that is trying to avoid some uncomfortable aspects of modern atheism.
I remember I had snarkily dismissed your concerns about New Atheism. Now I concede I wasn't really familiar with some of the more unsavory aspects of the movement.
I don't really think that the minutae of atheists' views about no gods vs. probably no gods matters for this discussion. It's a community. Loose and incoherent it may be, every community has a tendency towards an in-group out-group dynamic. And every such dynamic can, at the extremes, be harmful. I feel like New Atheists, or a subset of them, are exacerbating this dynamic and also may be attracting unsavory MRA-types and hateful bigots into the movement.
I think there's a bit of a desire among atheists to view themselves as not being in any sort of an organized movement, as part of separating themselves from organized religion. But once you introduce any sort of structured thought into something, it tends to bring some form of organization into the fold, even if it's just through agreement.
And I think that the issue is that people will look for justification for their own prejudices, regardless of what community they are in. In that sense, atheists are no different from any other people. The problem is (and this holds true for any community) actually being able to be introspective about said prejudices. When you're accustomed to being the one holding feet to the fire, it's a weird sensation to feel a burning sensation on your own soles.
I think it's a bit more complicated. Atheism isn't an empty set; it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. And it's not hard to see how this position dovetails with a "sheeple" mentality.
I really don't think its as complicated as you're making it out to be.
You're framing of what constitutes atheism is the problem here. Atheism is an empty set. It is very simply the lack of belief in theistic claims and naught more. I find the wording rather disingenuous, especially given it could be applied to any group.
Christianity, it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. Where X = (Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc). Repeat ad nauseam for every other ideology under the sun.
It can be applied to every group. Trying to peddle this sentiment off as if it applies only to atheists and not every group with a differing world view is a disingenuous attempt to atheists as "enlightened know it all types." Granted, some egoists do buy into the line. But I've seen plenty of theists who act like pious, enlightened, know-it-alls as well.
No, it's not. The fundamental definition of what it is to be Christian (insofar as such a definition can even be nailed down) has nothing to do with what other groups believe, only with what the individual Christian believes. As a result, there are plenty of "many-paths-to-God" Christians who believe that other religions are also right about the same important things, and this belief is not fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.
And frankly, I find it ironic that in a single post you argue with Qingu over the finer shades of grey of atheism beliefs (or lack thereof) and at the same time paint not just all Christians but all >6 Billion followers of all religions and ideologies under the sun as sharing a single overly-simplistic black-and-white belief.
He's right. The majority of Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus, and pretty much no one else does. It's a good thing that a lot of modern religious people aren't super worried about what religion other people are, but what you are doing is the sort of disingenuous "atheists are the odd man out," that is often used as a form of bigotry and attack, and pretends that there aren't radical theological differences between various religions.
Even that said divinity is a matter of debate within the faith - the major schisms in Christianity stem from how the divinity of Christ is formed and understood. At the same time, and I've pointed this out in prior threads, atheism isn't nearly as disorganized as it's made out to be. The New Atheism movement is rather influential within atheism as a whole, and I think that trying to ignore that is trying to avoid some uncomfortable aspects of modern atheism.
I remember I had snarkily dismissed your concerns about New Atheism. Now I concede I wasn't really familiar with some of the more unsavory aspects of the movement.
I don't really think that the minutae of atheists' views about no gods vs. probably no gods matters for this discussion. It's a community. Loose and incoherent it may be, every community has a tendency towards an in-group out-group dynamic. And every such dynamic can, at the extremes, be harmful. I feel like New Atheists, or a subset of them, are exacerbating this dynamic and also may be attracting unsavory MRA-types and hateful bigots into the movement.
I think there's a bit of a desire among atheists to view themselves as not being in any sort of an organized movement, as part of separating themselves from organized religion. But once you introduce any sort of structured thought into something, it tends to bring some form of organization into the fold, even if it's just through agreement.
And I think that the issue is that people will look for justification for their own prejudices, regardless of what community they are in. In that sense, atheists are no different from any other people. The problem is (and this holds true for any community) actually being able to be introspective about said prejudices. When you're accustomed to being the one holding feet to the fire, it's a weird sensation to feel a burning sensation on your own soles.
There is that desire, but it's because it is true. There's a reason there is a word for church, but there's no word for "that place atheists go to do atheist stuff with atheists on their holiness-is-a-mistaken-concept-day" And unlike many other religions, atheism has no foundational revelation. Hell, like I said in the last thread, you don't really need to be an atheist to be an "atheist." Any agnostic can sneak under the umbrella.
People need to stop thinking about atheism like it is a religion, because it's not.
I think it's a bit more complicated. Atheism isn't an empty set; it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. And it's not hard to see how this position dovetails with a "sheeple" mentality.
I really don't think its as complicated as you're making it out to be.
You're framing of what constitutes atheism is the problem here. Atheism is an empty set. It is very simply the lack of belief in theistic claims and naught more. I find the wording rather disingenuous, especially given it could be applied to any group.
Christianity, it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. Where X = (Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc). Repeat ad nauseam for every other ideology under the sun.
It can be applied to every group. Trying to peddle this sentiment off as if it applies only to atheists and not every group with a differing world view is a disingenuous attempt to atheists as "enlightened know it all types." Granted, some egoists do buy into the line. But I've seen plenty of theists who act like pious, enlightened, know-it-alls as well.
No, it's not. The fundamental definition of what it is to be Christian (insofar as such a definition can even be nailed down) has nothing to do with what other groups believe, only with what the individual Christian believes. As a result, there are plenty of "many-paths-to-God" Christians who believe that other religions are also right about the same important things, and this belief is not fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.
And frankly, I find it ironic that in a single post you argue with Qingu over the finer shades of grey of atheism beliefs (or lack thereof) and at the same time paint not just all Christians but all >6 Billion followers of all religions and ideologies under the sun as sharing a single overly-simplistic black-and-white belief.
He's right. The majority of Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus, and pretty much no one else does. It's a good thing that a lot of modern religious people aren't super worried about what religion other people are, but what you are doing is the sort of disingenuous "atheists are the odd man out," that is often used as a form of bigotry and attack, and pretends that there aren't radical theological differences between various religions.
Even that said divinity is a matter of debate within the faith - the major schisms in Christianity stem from how the divinity of Christ is formed and understood. At the same time, and I've pointed this out in prior threads, atheism isn't nearly as disorganized as it's made out to be. The New Atheism movement is rather influential within atheism as a whole, and I think that trying to ignore that is trying to avoid some uncomfortable aspects of modern atheism.
I remember I had snarkily dismissed your concerns about New Atheism. Now I concede I wasn't really familiar with some of the more unsavory aspects of the movement.
I don't really think that the minutae of atheists' views about no gods vs. probably no gods matters for this discussion. It's a community. Loose and incoherent it may be, every community has a tendency towards an in-group out-group dynamic. And every such dynamic can, at the extremes, be harmful. I feel like New Atheists, or a subset of them, are exacerbating this dynamic and also may be attracting unsavory MRA-types and hateful bigots into the movement.
I think there's a bit of a desire among atheists to view themselves as not being in any sort of an organized movement, as part of separating themselves from organized religion. But once you introduce any sort of structured thought into something, it tends to bring some form of organization into the fold, even if it's just through agreement.
And I think that the issue is that people will look for justification for their own prejudices, regardless of what community they are in. In that sense, atheists are no different from any other people. The problem is (and this holds true for any community) actually being able to be introspective about said prejudices. When you're accustomed to being the one holding feet to the fire, it's a weird sensation to feel a burning sensation on your own soles.
So is it always right or always wrong to generalize the problems of a community?
rockrnger on
0
Options
WarcryI'm getting my shit pushed in here!AustraliaRegistered Userregular
The fact that this thread wasn't named 'Three Muslim Students Murdered In North Carolina" makes a little suspicious of an agenda.
The thing is, saying atheism has a problem with x doesn't really work, because atheism has no real tenants/scriptures/rituals/etc. beyond the view that one doesn't believe in gods.
Of course, this isn't to say that atheists can't have a problems, mind you. But there aren't any atheist sacred books that talk about killing gays, for instance.
I think it's a bit more complicated. Atheism isn't an empty set; it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. And it's not hard to see how this position dovetails with a "sheeple" mentality.
I really don't think its as complicated as you're making it out to be.
You're framing of what constitutes atheism is the problem here. Atheism is an empty set. It is very simply the lack of belief in theistic claims and naught more. I find the wording rather disingenuous, especially given it could be applied to any group.
Christianity, it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. Where X = (Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc). Repeat ad nauseam for every other ideology under the sun.
It can be applied to every group. Trying to peddle this sentiment off as if it applies only to atheists and not every group with a differing world view is a disingenuous attempt to atheists as "enlightened know it all types." Granted, some egoists do buy into the line. But I've seen plenty of theists who act like pious, enlightened, know-it-alls as well.
No, it's not. The fundamental definition of what it is to be Christian (insofar as such a definition can even be nailed down) has nothing to do with what other groups believe, only with what the individual Christian believes. As a result, there are plenty of "many-paths-to-God" Christians who believe that other religions are also right about the same important things, and this belief is not fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.
And frankly, I find it ironic that in a single post you argue with Qingu over the finer shades of grey of atheism beliefs (or lack thereof) and at the same time paint not just all Christians but all >6 Billion followers of all religions and ideologies under the sun as sharing a single overly-simplistic black-and-white belief.
He's right. The majority of Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus, and pretty much no one else does. It's a good thing that a lot of modern religious people aren't super worried about what religion other people are, but what you are doing is the sort of disingenuous "atheists are the odd man out," that is often used as a form of bigotry and attack, and pretends that there aren't radical theological differences between various religions.
Even that said divinity is a matter of debate within the faith - the major schisms in Christianity stem from how the divinity of Christ is formed and understood. At the same time, and I've pointed this out in prior threads, atheism isn't nearly as disorganized as it's made out to be. The New Atheism movement is rather influential within atheism as a whole, and I think that trying to ignore that is trying to avoid some uncomfortable aspects of modern atheism.
I remember I had snarkily dismissed your concerns about New Atheism. Now I concede I wasn't really familiar with some of the more unsavory aspects of the movement.
I don't really think that the minutae of atheists' views about no gods vs. probably no gods matters for this discussion. It's a community. Loose and incoherent it may be, every community has a tendency towards an in-group out-group dynamic. And every such dynamic can, at the extremes, be harmful. I feel like New Atheists, or a subset of them, are exacerbating this dynamic and also may be attracting unsavory MRA-types and hateful bigots into the movement.
I think there's a bit of a desire among atheists to view themselves as not being in any sort of an organized movement, as part of separating themselves from organized religion. But once you introduce any sort of structured thought into something, it tends to bring some form of organization into the fold, even if it's just through agreement.
And I think that the issue is that people will look for justification for their own prejudices, regardless of what community they are in. In that sense, atheists are no different from any other people. The problem is (and this holds true for any community) actually being able to be introspective about said prejudices. When you're accustomed to being the one holding feet to the fire, it's a weird sensation to feel a burning sensation on your own soles.
There is that desire, but it's because it is true. There's a reason there is a word for church, but there's no word for "that place atheists go to do atheist stuff with atheists on their holiness-is-a-mistaken-concept-day" And unlike many other religions, atheism has no foundational revelation. Hell, like I said in the last thread, you don't really need to be an atheist to be an "atheist." Any agnostic can sneak under the umbrella.
People need to stop thinking about atheism like it is a religion, because it's not.
Sorry, but when I regularly see atheists state New Atheism positions and routinely refer to Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, etc., its hard for me to accept that there is no organizational aspect at work. And this is not "thinking about atheism like a religion", it's pointing out that like any sort of structured thought, that structure forms a sort of organization, like how philosophy has many different "schools" of thought because people gravitate to the frameworks that others have laid out.
Again, I'm not saying that atheism is structured just like religion - that's an absurd idea. What I am saying is that there exist frameworks for people to consider the lack of belief around, and as such, this does generate a degree of organization and community.
I think it's a bit more complicated. Atheism isn't an empty set; it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. And it's not hard to see how this position dovetails with a "sheeple" mentality.
I really don't think its as complicated as you're making it out to be.
You're framing of what constitutes atheism is the problem here. Atheism is an empty set. It is very simply the lack of belief in theistic claims and naught more. I find the wording rather disingenuous, especially given it could be applied to any group.
Christianity, it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. Where X = (Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc). Repeat ad nauseam for every other ideology under the sun.
It can be applied to every group. Trying to peddle this sentiment off as if it applies only to atheists and not every group with a differing world view is a disingenuous attempt to atheists as "enlightened know it all types." Granted, some egoists do buy into the line. But I've seen plenty of theists who act like pious, enlightened, know-it-alls as well.
No, it's not. The fundamental definition of what it is to be Christian (insofar as such a definition can even be nailed down) has nothing to do with what other groups believe, only with what the individual Christian believes. As a result, there are plenty of "many-paths-to-God" Christians who believe that other religions are also right about the same important things, and this belief is not fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.
And frankly, I find it ironic that in a single post you argue with Qingu over the finer shades of grey of atheism beliefs (or lack thereof) and at the same time paint not just all Christians but all >6 Billion followers of all religions and ideologies under the sun as sharing a single overly-simplistic black-and-white belief.
He's right. The majority of Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus, and pretty much no one else does. It's a good thing that a lot of modern religious people aren't super worried about what religion other people are, but what you are doing is the sort of disingenuous "atheists are the odd man out," that is often used as a form of bigotry and attack, and pretends that there aren't radical theological differences between various religions.
Even that said divinity is a matter of debate within the faith - the major schisms in Christianity stem from how the divinity of Christ is formed and understood. At the same time, and I've pointed this out in prior threads, atheism isn't nearly as disorganized as it's made out to be. The New Atheism movement is rather influential within atheism as a whole, and I think that trying to ignore that is trying to avoid some uncomfortable aspects of modern atheism.
I remember I had snarkily dismissed your concerns about New Atheism. Now I concede I wasn't really familiar with some of the more unsavory aspects of the movement.
I don't really think that the minutae of atheists' views about no gods vs. probably no gods matters for this discussion. It's a community. Loose and incoherent it may be, every community has a tendency towards an in-group out-group dynamic. And every such dynamic can, at the extremes, be harmful. I feel like New Atheists, or a subset of them, are exacerbating this dynamic and also may be attracting unsavory MRA-types and hateful bigots into the movement.
I think there's a bit of a desire among atheists to view themselves as not being in any sort of an organized movement, as part of separating themselves from organized religion. But once you introduce any sort of structured thought into something, it tends to bring some form of organization into the fold, even if it's just through agreement.
And I think that the issue is that people will look for justification for their own prejudices, regardless of what community they are in. In that sense, atheists are no different from any other people. The problem is (and this holds true for any community) actually being able to be introspective about said prejudices. When you're accustomed to being the one holding feet to the fire, it's a weird sensation to feel a burning sensation on your own soles.
So is it always right or always wrong to generalize the problems of a community?
I think it's a bit more complicated. Atheism isn't an empty set; it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. And it's not hard to see how this position dovetails with a "sheeple" mentality.
I really don't think its as complicated as you're making it out to be.
You're framing of what constitutes atheism is the problem here. Atheism is an empty set. It is very simply the lack of belief in theistic claims and naught more. I find the wording rather disingenuous, especially given it could be applied to any group.
Christianity, it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. Where X = (Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc). Repeat ad nauseam for every other ideology under the sun.
It can be applied to every group. Trying to peddle this sentiment off as if it applies only to atheists and not every group with a differing world view is a disingenuous attempt to atheists as "enlightened know it all types." Granted, some egoists do buy into the line. But I've seen plenty of theists who act like pious, enlightened, know-it-alls as well.
No, it's not. The fundamental definition of what it is to be Christian (insofar as such a definition can even be nailed down) has nothing to do with what other groups believe, only with what the individual Christian believes. As a result, there are plenty of "many-paths-to-God" Christians who believe that other religions are also right about the same important things, and this belief is not fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.
And frankly, I find it ironic that in a single post you argue with Qingu over the finer shades of grey of atheism beliefs (or lack thereof) and at the same time paint not just all Christians but all >6 Billion followers of all religions and ideologies under the sun as sharing a single overly-simplistic black-and-white belief.
He's right. The majority of Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus, and pretty much no one else does. It's a good thing that a lot of modern religious people aren't super worried about what religion other people are, but what you are doing is the sort of disingenuous "atheists are the odd man out," that is often used as a form of bigotry and attack, and pretends that there aren't radical theological differences between various religions.
Even that said divinity is a matter of debate within the faith - the major schisms in Christianity stem from how the divinity of Christ is formed and understood. At the same time, and I've pointed this out in prior threads, atheism isn't nearly as disorganized as it's made out to be. The New Atheism movement is rather influential within atheism as a whole, and I think that trying to ignore that is trying to avoid some uncomfortable aspects of modern atheism.
I remember I had snarkily dismissed your concerns about New Atheism. Now I concede I wasn't really familiar with some of the more unsavory aspects of the movement.
I don't really think that the minutae of atheists' views about no gods vs. probably no gods matters for this discussion. It's a community. Loose and incoherent it may be, every community has a tendency towards an in-group out-group dynamic. And every such dynamic can, at the extremes, be harmful. I feel like New Atheists, or a subset of them, are exacerbating this dynamic and also may be attracting unsavory MRA-types and hateful bigots into the movement.
I think there's a bit of a desire among atheists to view themselves as not being in any sort of an organized movement, as part of separating themselves from organized religion. But once you introduce any sort of structured thought into something, it tends to bring some form of organization into the fold, even if it's just through agreement.
And I think that the issue is that people will look for justification for their own prejudices, regardless of what community they are in. In that sense, atheists are no different from any other people. The problem is (and this holds true for any community) actually being able to be introspective about said prejudices. When you're accustomed to being the one holding feet to the fire, it's a weird sensation to feel a burning sensation on your own soles.
So is it always right or always wrong to generalize the problems of a community?
I think it's a bit more complicated. Atheism isn't an empty set; it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. And it's not hard to see how this position dovetails with a "sheeple" mentality.
I really don't think its as complicated as you're making it out to be.
You're framing of what constitutes atheism is the problem here. Atheism is an empty set. It is very simply the lack of belief in theistic claims and naught more. I find the wording rather disingenuous, especially given it could be applied to any group.
Christianity, it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. Where X = (Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc). Repeat ad nauseam for every other ideology under the sun.
It can be applied to every group. Trying to peddle this sentiment off as if it applies only to atheists and not every group with a differing world view is a disingenuous attempt to atheists as "enlightened know it all types." Granted, some egoists do buy into the line. But I've seen plenty of theists who act like pious, enlightened, know-it-alls as well.
No, it's not. The fundamental definition of what it is to be Christian (insofar as such a definition can even be nailed down) has nothing to do with what other groups believe, only with what the individual Christian believes. As a result, there are plenty of "many-paths-to-God" Christians who believe that other religions are also right about the same important things, and this belief is not fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.
And frankly, I find it ironic that in a single post you argue with Qingu over the finer shades of grey of atheism beliefs (or lack thereof) and at the same time paint not just all Christians but all >6 Billion followers of all religions and ideologies under the sun as sharing a single overly-simplistic black-and-white belief.
He's right. The majority of Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus, and pretty much no one else does. It's a good thing that a lot of modern religious people aren't super worried about what religion other people are, but what you are doing is the sort of disingenuous "atheists are the odd man out," that is often used as a form of bigotry and attack, and pretends that there aren't radical theological differences between various religions.
Even that said divinity is a matter of debate within the faith - the major schisms in Christianity stem from how the divinity of Christ is formed and understood. At the same time, and I've pointed this out in prior threads, atheism isn't nearly as disorganized as it's made out to be. The New Atheism movement is rather influential within atheism as a whole, and I think that trying to ignore that is trying to avoid some uncomfortable aspects of modern atheism.
I remember I had snarkily dismissed your concerns about New Atheism. Now I concede I wasn't really familiar with some of the more unsavory aspects of the movement.
I don't really think that the minutae of atheists' views about no gods vs. probably no gods matters for this discussion. It's a community. Loose and incoherent it may be, every community has a tendency towards an in-group out-group dynamic. And every such dynamic can, at the extremes, be harmful. I feel like New Atheists, or a subset of them, are exacerbating this dynamic and also may be attracting unsavory MRA-types and hateful bigots into the movement.
I think there's a bit of a desire among atheists to view themselves as not being in any sort of an organized movement, as part of separating themselves from organized religion. But once you introduce any sort of structured thought into something, it tends to bring some form of organization into the fold, even if it's just through agreement.
And I think that the issue is that people will look for justification for their own prejudices, regardless of what community they are in. In that sense, atheists are no different from any other people. The problem is (and this holds true for any community) actually being able to be introspective about said prejudices. When you're accustomed to being the one holding feet to the fire, it's a weird sensation to feel a burning sensation on your own soles.
So is it always right or always wrong to generalize the problems of a community?
Neither.
Could you elaborate?
It is neither always right nor always wrong to generalize the problems in a community. Whether or not an issue can be generalized is always going to be situational, based on a number of factors.
I think it's a bit more complicated. Atheism isn't an empty set; it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. And it's not hard to see how this position dovetails with a "sheeple" mentality.
I really don't think its as complicated as you're making it out to be.
You're framing of what constitutes atheism is the problem here. Atheism is an empty set. It is very simply the lack of belief in theistic claims and naught more. I find the wording rather disingenuous, especially given it could be applied to any group.
Christianity, it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. Where X = (Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc). Repeat ad nauseam for every other ideology under the sun.
It can be applied to every group. Trying to peddle this sentiment off as if it applies only to atheists and not every group with a differing world view is a disingenuous attempt to atheists as "enlightened know it all types." Granted, some egoists do buy into the line. But I've seen plenty of theists who act like pious, enlightened, know-it-alls as well.
No, it's not. The fundamental definition of what it is to be Christian (insofar as such a definition can even be nailed down) has nothing to do with what other groups believe, only with what the individual Christian believes. As a result, there are plenty of "many-paths-to-God" Christians who believe that other religions are also right about the same important things, and this belief is not fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.
And frankly, I find it ironic that in a single post you argue with Qingu over the finer shades of grey of atheism beliefs (or lack thereof) and at the same time paint not just all Christians but all >6 Billion followers of all religions and ideologies under the sun as sharing a single overly-simplistic black-and-white belief.
He's right. The majority of Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus, and pretty much no one else does. It's a good thing that a lot of modern religious people aren't super worried about what religion other people are, but what you are doing is the sort of disingenuous "atheists are the odd man out," that is often used as a form of bigotry and attack, and pretends that there aren't radical theological differences between various religions.
Even that said divinity is a matter of debate within the faith - the major schisms in Christianity stem from how the divinity of Christ is formed and understood. At the same time, and I've pointed this out in prior threads, atheism isn't nearly as disorganized as it's made out to be. The New Atheism movement is rather influential within atheism as a whole, and I think that trying to ignore that is trying to avoid some uncomfortable aspects of modern atheism.
I remember I had snarkily dismissed your concerns about New Atheism. Now I concede I wasn't really familiar with some of the more unsavory aspects of the movement.
I don't really think that the minutae of atheists' views about no gods vs. probably no gods matters for this discussion. It's a community. Loose and incoherent it may be, every community has a tendency towards an in-group out-group dynamic. And every such dynamic can, at the extremes, be harmful. I feel like New Atheists, or a subset of them, are exacerbating this dynamic and also may be attracting unsavory MRA-types and hateful bigots into the movement.
I think there's a bit of a desire among atheists to view themselves as not being in any sort of an organized movement, as part of separating themselves from organized religion. But once you introduce any sort of structured thought into something, it tends to bring some form of organization into the fold, even if it's just through agreement.
And I think that the issue is that people will look for justification for their own prejudices, regardless of what community they are in. In that sense, atheists are no different from any other people. The problem is (and this holds true for any community) actually being able to be introspective about said prejudices. When you're accustomed to being the one holding feet to the fire, it's a weird sensation to feel a burning sensation on your own soles.
So is it always right or always wrong to generalize the problems of a community?
Neither.
Could you elaborate?
It is neither always right nor always wrong to generalize the problems in a community. Whether or not an issue can be generalized is always going to be situational, based on a number of factors.
Groups like the followers of Jainism and certain types of Buddhism are also atheist. Atheism is theoretically as broad as Theism, and the "New Atheism" name has the same value as the faith of the angry chicken goddess Pollopollo calling itself New Theism.
Unfortunately, most people assume that atheist means materialist/naturalist, and Dawkins et al are capitalizing on a variety of assumptions to try and attach Pollopollo to the Buddha.
Incenjucar on
0
Options
wiltingI had fun once and it was awfulRegistered Userregular
edited February 2015
Atheism correlates strongly with lower levels of criminality, divorce, unwanted pregnancy, abortion, you name it. Atheists are generally pretty much model citizens. The only social evil associated with atheism is suicide, and perhaps a lower level of charitable giving (although I would consider this more a plus of religious believers, and its a subjective one as more charitable can correlate with hostility to taxation/spending on public services). I wouldn't say these things are because of atheism though: it's because of higher education/wealth associated with atheism.
Considering the level of hatred towards levelled towards atheists in the US, I'm not sure "atheists have a problem with x" is a good road to go down. I would be highly sceptical about a significant correlation between atheism and misogyny or libertarianism. That's pretty much the opposite of what I would expect given the strong correlation between education and atheism.
The thing is, saying atheism has a problem with x doesn't really work, because atheism has no real tenants/scriptures/rituals/etc. beyond the view that one doesn't believe in gods.
This doesn't follow.
"The thing is, saying brony culture has a problem with x doesn't really work, because bronies have no real tenants/scriptures/rituals/etc. beyond the view that My Little Pony is a good show."
"The thing is, saying tech startups have a problem with x doesn't really work, because Silicon Valley has no real tenants/scriptures/rituals/etc. beyond the view that technology companies are rad."
"The thing is, saying Gamergate has a problem with x doesn't really work, because Gamergate has no real tenants/scriptures/rituals/etc. beyond the view that ethics in game journalism".
You absolutely can criticize the culture of a group without needing to criticize the thing the group is about. Atheism doesn't cause misogyny, but New Atheist culture has a serious problem with misogyny.
Atheism correlates strongly with lower levels of criminality, divorce, unwanted pregnancy, abortion, you name it. Atheists are generally pretty much model citizens. The only social evil associated with atheism is suicide, and perhaps a lower level of charitable giving (although I would consider this more a plus of religious believers, and its a subjective one as more charitable can correlate with hostility to taxation/spending on public services). I wouldn't say these things are because of atheism though: it's because of higher education/wealth associated with atheism.
Considering the level of hatred towards levelled towards atheists in the US, I'm not sure "atheists have a problem with x" is a good road to go down. I would be highly sceptical about a significant correlation between atheism and misogyny or libertarianism. That's pretty much the opposite of what I would expect given the strong correlation between education and atheism.
I'd argue that those correlations have more to do with socioeconomic status than with atheism - I would point out that it's harder to be an atheist and forgo the social support network that organized belief provides when you are in the underclass.
Atheism correlates strongly with lower levels of criminality, divorce, unwanted pregnancy, abortion, you name it. Atheists are generally pretty much model citizens. The only social evil associated with atheism is suicide, and perhaps a lower level of charitable giving (although I would consider this more a plus of religious believers, and its a subjective one as more charitable can correlate with hostility to taxation/spending on public services). I wouldn't say these things are because of atheism though: it's because of higher education/wealth associated with atheism.
Considering the level of hatred towards levelled towards atheists in the US, I'm not sure "atheists have a problem with x" is a good road to go down. I would be highly sceptical about a significant correlation between atheism and misogyny or libertarianism. That's pretty much the opposite of what I would expect given the strong correlation between education and atheism.
A confounding factor is that religion is the default state of common society, so all those who do not get educated on the greater spectrum stick with what they were born with. A good study would control for people who switched their beliefs in their life.
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Posts
No, it's not. The fundamental definition of what it is to be Christian (insofar as such a definition can even be nailed down) has nothing to do with what other groups believe, only with what the individual Christian believes. As a result, there are plenty of "many-paths-to-God" Christians who believe that other religions are also right about the same important things, and this belief is not fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.
And frankly, I find it ironic that in a single post you argue with Qingu over the finer shades of grey of atheism beliefs (or lack thereof) and at the same time paint not just all Christians but all >6 Billion followers of all religions and ideologies under the sun as sharing a single overly-simplistic black-and-white belief.
He's right. The majority of Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus, and pretty much no one else does. It's a good thing that a lot of modern religious people aren't super worried about what religion other people are, but what you are doing is the sort of disingenuous "atheists are the odd man out," that is often used as a form of bigotry and attack, and pretends that there aren't radical theological differences between various religions.
Even in the divinity of Jesus doctrine, there are dissenting beliefs. There are several strains of Lutherism, for example, that believe that Jesus was the Son of God only in the extent that all men are the sons of God.
1. "I believe in X" =\= "Everyone who does not believe in X is wrong"
2. "Some other religions are right too" =\= "There are no radical theological differences between all religions"
3. "World religions are a complex thing and not a single black-and-white belief shared by all religious people" =\= "atheists are the odd man out"
Questions?
Even that said divinity is a matter of debate within the faith - the major schisms in Christianity stem from how the divinity of Christ is formed and understood. At the same time, and I've pointed this out in prior threads, atheism isn't nearly as disorganized as it's made out to be. The New Atheism movement is rather influential within atheism as a whole, and I think that trying to ignore that is trying to avoid some uncomfortable aspects of modern atheism.
1 is pretty much a contradiction.
If you believe something then you think the people who don't are wrong even if you don't think it matters
I think a major point is that New Atheism and "atheism" in general represents a very small subset of people who just don't believe - "no religion" only equals atheist in the strictest dictionary sense of meaning. I didn't stop believing in Christianity because I started subscribing to another belief system. I stopped believing because I grew up in a small Southern town, went to church on occassion, and realized as I got older that I just didn't believe it.
To be a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, etc., you have to have some tangential tie to a doctrine - even if it is just a twice removed relationship through a grandparent who was devout. To an atheist just means that you either don't have those ties or didn't pick them up from your parents/grandparents (in many cases, I think even "reject" is to strong a word). You can quite literally live your life as a non-believer without coming into contact with or even be aware of formalized doctrinal groups of non-believers.
I mean, is the kid whose parents didn't go to church so now he spends his Sunday mornings playing Call of Duty somehow tied to the beliefs of Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris? He just never thought it much, other than he's probably vaguely glad that he got to sleep in and shoot mans instead of having to dress up like some of his coworkers.
To put a mathematical spin on it, it would be tantamount to saying that a variable V can correctly take values from a set {X, Y, Z}. Just because I pick V = X specifically does not mean that V = Y and V = Z become wrong. Quite the opposite, me saying that V = X and you saying that V = Y are both valid variable assignments.
True but a Muslim isn't saying v=y he is saying v=\=x.
Even your universalism is saying that the majority of believers that don't believe like you are incorrect.
But in this case, we're not discussing someone who was just a non-believer. We're discussing someone who actively incorporated lack of belief into their identity. And in that sort of case, I think that you can't ignore that there are organized atheist communities with their own sets of ideas on religion and how the world works. And some of those ideas can be very problematic - a good example is how the fact that women seem more "drawn" to religion is used by a number of atheists as "proof" that women are "less rational" than men (of course, what gets ignored is the support network that the faith's community provides is a draw to women from a rational standpoint.)
Yeah, a pretty big tenant of Islam is that everyone else is necessarily wrong. Like, the thing all muslims have to say to affirm their faith boils down to "I recognize there is one God, Allah, all other gods are super fake".
I don't really think that the shooter's atheism is that relevant to why he shot them. The only interesting thing about his atheism is how the media chooses to portray this violence more as a regrettable isolated incidence of poor mental health and not in the way they'd talk about a Muslim shooting other people.
The family believes Islamophobia is a factor in this, and the victims were convinced that he hated them because of their hijabs. For my money, this is the same as if someone killed a Mexican and said it was a hiring dispute. I'm sure that's the reason he was pissed off, but not the reason it escalated to murder of that particular person.
There are some that say v=y and there are some that say v=\=x. That was one of my original points: there is a large range of theistic beliefs, not a single universal definition that applies to all >6B religious people on Earth. My second point in this argument was that equating "I believe in X" and "I believe that everyone who does not believe in X is wrong" is false, and consequently using that second statement as a universal definition of what "religion" is is mistaken.
This seems to me misplaced when religion in general seems to have a much bigger problem with Misogyny.
Not to say that it doesn't exist or is acceptable, mind. But I don't see how you could say it was a larger problem than in religion.
Have you seen some of the things that Dawkins or Harris have written in regards to women? Or, as was pointed out in the OP, that you're seeing growth in the number of self-identified atheists who are also MRAs? Misogyny is a massive problem within modern atheism. More importantly, while religion is regularly held to task with regards to the misogyny there, atheism is kinda in a state of denial about its own problems (read Harris' infamous attempt to dismiss criticisms of his misogynistic views for a good example there.)
I don't really think that the minutae of atheists' views about no gods vs. probably no gods matters for this discussion. It's a community. Loose and incoherent it may be, every community has a tendency towards an in-group out-group dynamic. And every such dynamic can, at the extremes, be harmful. I feel like New Atheists, or a subset of them, are exacerbating this dynamic and also may be attracting unsavory MRA-types and hateful bigots into the movement.
As it is with literally every group. Not something special to atheism. Or whatever "modern atheism" is.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
Fair enough.
And how does that stack up to religion or almost any other group?
My point is that it is wrong to say that atheism has a problem without painting religion with the same (or probably bigger) brush.
Except that people do routinely hold religious communities to task over misogynistic beliefs. It's not like atheists are getting singled out on this issue whatsoever.
You don't think "atheism has a problem with misogyny" and "Islam has a problem with misogyny" garners a different reaction in people?
I'd really like to avoid discussing the problems of Islam in this thread.
I think there's a bit of a desire among atheists to view themselves as not being in any sort of an organized movement, as part of separating themselves from organized religion. But once you introduce any sort of structured thought into something, it tends to bring some form of organization into the fold, even if it's just through agreement.
And I think that the issue is that people will look for justification for their own prejudices, regardless of what community they are in. In that sense, atheists are no different from any other people. The problem is (and this holds true for any community) actually being able to be introspective about said prejudices. When you're accustomed to being the one holding feet to the fire, it's a weird sensation to feel a burning sensation on your own soles.
There is that desire, but it's because it is true. There's a reason there is a word for church, but there's no word for "that place atheists go to do atheist stuff with atheists on their holiness-is-a-mistaken-concept-day" And unlike many other religions, atheism has no foundational revelation. Hell, like I said in the last thread, you don't really need to be an atheist to be an "atheist." Any agnostic can sneak under the umbrella.
People need to stop thinking about atheism like it is a religion, because it's not.
So is it always right or always wrong to generalize the problems of a community?
Let's just wait for the police report, hmm?
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
Sorry, but when I regularly see atheists state New Atheism positions and routinely refer to Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, etc., its hard for me to accept that there is no organizational aspect at work. And this is not "thinking about atheism like a religion", it's pointing out that like any sort of structured thought, that structure forms a sort of organization, like how philosophy has many different "schools" of thought because people gravitate to the frameworks that others have laid out.
Again, I'm not saying that atheism is structured just like religion - that's an absurd idea. What I am saying is that there exist frameworks for people to consider the lack of belief around, and as such, this does generate a degree of organization and community.
Neither.
Could you elaborate?
It is neither always right nor always wrong to generalize the problems in a community. Whether or not an issue can be generalized is always going to be situational, based on a number of factors.
Unfortunately, most people assume that atheist means materialist/naturalist, and Dawkins et al are capitalizing on a variety of assumptions to try and attach Pollopollo to the Buddha.
Considering the level of hatred towards levelled towards atheists in the US, I'm not sure "atheists have a problem with x" is a good road to go down. I would be highly sceptical about a significant correlation between atheism and misogyny or libertarianism. That's pretty much the opposite of what I would expect given the strong correlation between education and atheism.
This doesn't follow.
"The thing is, saying brony culture has a problem with x doesn't really work, because bronies have no real tenants/scriptures/rituals/etc. beyond the view that My Little Pony is a good show."
"The thing is, saying tech startups have a problem with x doesn't really work, because Silicon Valley has no real tenants/scriptures/rituals/etc. beyond the view that technology companies are rad."
"The thing is, saying Gamergate has a problem with x doesn't really work, because Gamergate has no real tenants/scriptures/rituals/etc. beyond the view that ethics in game journalism".
You absolutely can criticize the culture of a group without needing to criticize the thing the group is about. Atheism doesn't cause misogyny, but New Atheist culture has a serious problem with misogyny.
I'd argue that those correlations have more to do with socioeconomic status than with atheism - I would point out that it's harder to be an atheist and forgo the social support network that organized belief provides when you are in the underclass.
A confounding factor is that religion is the default state of common society, so all those who do not get educated on the greater spectrum stick with what they were born with. A good study would control for people who switched their beliefs in their life.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.