Rob Knop on Gnu Athiests

[Ghel]

2) Well, we could go with the wiki article on New Atheism, instead. It may not be accurate all the time, but it is a good representation of how the populace at large thinks.

It's interesting to note that of the referenced links that are supposed to support that "New Atheism" is a movement, none quote any atheists applying the term "New Atheism" to themselves. It's always non-atheists applying the term to atheists.

3) I said individuals and I meant individuals in both instances. If I had meant teachers or students, I would have used those words.

Well, who else do you expect religious individuals to hear statements about science from? I'm still trying to understand who it is that you think is making both anti-religious statements and statements about science AND who would be listened to by religious individuals.

[Andara Bledin]

It's interesting to note that of the referenced links that are supposed to support that "New Atheism" is a movement, none quote any atheists applying the term "New Atheism" to themselves. It's always non-atheists applying the term to atheists.

You keep getting hung up on the label. Screw the label. The label is merely a shortcut, the meaning of which has been explained to the point of absurdity already. Whether you or anyone that the label may describe agrees with the label is completely irrelevant. Merely a straw man.

Well, who else do you expect religious individuals to hear statements about science from? I'm still trying to understand who it is that you think is making both anti-religious statements and statements about science AND who would be listened to by religious individuals.

All sorts of people make statements about science. You and I have both made statements about science, as have probably half of the people registered to this forum.

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

Can we skip all the talking about who does and doesn't call themselves a new atheist? The point isn't what they or anyone else call themselves.

If it'll help the point, we can change the name to something else. How about spaceships. Or grapefruits. Or power rings.

The point is that we're trying to talk about the attitudes, not just the term and whether it does or does not apply in any specific case.

[Ghel]

All sorts of people make statements about science. You and I have both made statements about science, as have probably half of the people registered to this forum.

So you mean that if I say something disparaging about religion, such as that most religious claims are false, then I say something about science, such as that evolution is as close to scientific fact as we ever get in science, that a religious person reading both those statements isn't going to believe me about evolution. Well, I don't expect them to. I'm not an authority on anything. (Not that arguments from authority are acceptable in science.) I would hope that any statements I make regarding science would encourage people to do some research themselves. Read about what the current scientific consensus is. Read what experiments and research have been done. But I don't expect anybody to take my word for it.

Now if we were talking about a published scientist (Richard Dawkins, say) and he says something to the effect of: we don't need to posit a God to explain the current state of our existence, evolution by natural selection explains it quite nicely, it is possible that religious folks won't accept his statements regarding evolution because of his statements regarding religion. But I don't see how that is Dawkins' fault. Is he supposed to remain silent regarding his views on religion just because some people disagree with him? Is he supposed to defer to theists just because they're the majority? Is he supposed to say "Go ahead and believe in your Bronze Age myths - they're still relevant in modern society."? Is he supposed to say "There's boatloads of evidence for evolution, and there's not a dollop of evidence for God, but that's ok, let's base our research on the Bible anyway"?

Science and religion don't get along. That's a fact. We're only talking about attitude because that's the last thing that religions can complain about. Any other claim about reality falls under the purview of science.

[Andara Bledin]

Bingo.

Religious people are going to be turned off of science due to the vocal disparagement a number of notable individuals as well as random unknowns they encounter have to say regarding religion, even if those people are the minority.

Precisely in the same manner that science-minded people are going to be turned off of religion based on the quite vocal opposition made by what is, unarguable, a minority of actual religious people.

Too many people can't manage to separate the two fields. Hell, most people in North America can't manage to get past that there's a religion other than the many flavors of Christianity. But attacking their faith is only going to make them more likely to cling to it in defense. It's counterproductive to attack the faith of someone if your ultimate goal is to somehow pry them away from that faith.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

Again, how do you expect atheists to behave, then? Do you expect them to hide their views on religion when every religion in the world is vying for the attention of the masses? Do you expect them to keep silent when religions and religious individuals are doing objectively harmful things in the name of their religion?

You mentioned newatheist.org. Even though it's clearly a website of personal bookmarks, I wanted to draw attention to the first video on the site. It's a 2007 video called "The Four Horsemen," in which Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens discuss issues that are important to them. They start the discussion complaining about how they're frequently accused of being strident, arrogant, shrill or vitriolic in their advocacy for atheism. Dennett mentions that in his latest book, he went out of his way to be fair and polite towards religion, putting the book through several revisions, and he was still accused of being combative. He notes that religions have made it impossible to disagree with them without being rude.

And that's the point, really. We humans can have heated debates about almost any subject (sports, politics, preferred OS, etc.) and come away from the debate still friends. But once the subject of religion comes up, it's either off-limits or those who are critical of religion are declared rude. There's no good reason that the subject of religion should be immune from criticism. If a particular religion or religious person is doing something that's clearly harmful, it's right to call attention to it. If a particular religious dogma is contrary to reality, it's right to call it out. And despite religious individuals' accusations, it is not rude to do so.

[Andara Bledin]

There's a difference between respectful disagreement and disparagement.

Where that line is, as you've noted, is difficult to determine.

However, I think an atheist would react to being referred to as an "unfeeling, unimaginitive machine" along the same lines as one who was religious being called a "credulous, irrational worshiper of some sky fairy."

You mention Daniel Dennett specifically and about how he "went out of his way to be fair and polite." And yet, in the very opening of his book, he calls religion (among other things) a host-destructive parasite and then goes on to make sweeping generalizations about "good" Christians and Jews. For good measure, he also includes secular humanists who fight for Democracy, Justice, and Truth, too, so nobody can feel picked on, I guess.

From his book, Chapter 1, the opening paragraphs (note: due to the way quotes are italicized, I have tried to replace all italics with bolding):

You watch an ant in a meadow, laboriously climbing up a blade of grass, higher and higher until it falls, then climbs again, and again, like Sisyphus rolling his rock, always striving to reach the top. Why is the ant doing this? What benefit is it seeking for itself in this strenuous and unlikely activity? Wrong question, as it turns out. No biological benefit accrues to the ant. It is not trying to get a better view of the territory or seeking food or showing off to a potential mate, for instance. Its brain has been commandeered by a tiny parasite, a lancet fluke (Dicrocelium dendriticum), that needs to get itself into the stomach of a sheep or a cow in order to compete its reproductive cycle. This little brain work is driving the ant into position to benefit its progeny, not the ant's. This is not an isolated phenomenon. Similarly manipulative parasites infect fish, and mice, among other species. These hitchhikers cause their hosts to behave in unlikely - even suicidal - ways, all for the benefit of the guest, not the host.

Does anything like this ever happen with human beings? Yes indeed. We often find human beings setting aside their personal interests, their health, their chances to have children, and devoting their entire lives to furthering the interests of an idea that has lodged in their brains. The Arabic word islam means "submission," and every good Muslim bears witness, prays five times a day, gives alms, fasts during Ramadan, and tries to make the pilgrimage, or hajj, to Mecca, all on behalf of the idea of Allah, and Muhammad, the messenger of Allah. Christians and Jews do likewise, of course, devoting their lives to spreading the Word, making huge sacrifices, suffering bravely, risking their lives for an idea. So do Sikhs and Hindus and Buddhists. And don't forget the many thousands of secular humanists who have given their lives for Democracy, or Justice, or just plain Truth. There are many ideas to die for.

He then goes on to suppose that his own suggestion might seem "outrageous," but goes on to say that it isn't at all.

The comparison with which I began, between a parasitic worm invading an ant's brain and an idea invading a human brain, probably seems both far-fetched and outrageous. Unlike worms, ideas aren't alive, and don't invade brains; they are created by minds. True on both counts, but these are not as telling objections as they first appear. Ideas aren't alive; they can't see where they're going and have no limbs with which to steer a host brain even if they could see. True, but a lancet fluke isn't exactly a rocket scientist either; it's no more intelligent than a carrot, really; it doesn't even have a brain. What it has is just the good fortune of being endowed with features that affect ant brains in this useful way whenever it comes in contact with them. (These features are like the eye spots on butterfly wings that sometimes fool predatory birds into thinking some big animal is looking at them. The birds are scared away and the butterflies are the beneficiaries, but are none the wiser for it.) An inert idea, if it were designed just right, might have a beneficial effect on a brain without having to know it was doing so! And if it did, it might prosper because it had that design.

This is not the way to inspire anyone who doesn't already share your ideas to be amenable to hearing them out. He could have said the same thing in a manner that doesn't appear to have been written more for the shock value than for the honest sharing of ideas or insights.

I also find it amusing that he likens the dog's relationship to man as similar to man's relationship to God (I will assume he refers to the Judeo-Christian God based on the capitalization, as he makes no distinction) and says, "The dogs of today are the offspring of the dogs our ancestors most loved and admired in the past; without even trying to breed for loyalty, they managed to do so, bringing out the best (by their lights, by our lights) in our companion animals. Did we unconsciously model this devotion to a master on our own devotion to God? Were we shaping dogs in our own image? Perhaps, but then where did we get our devotion to God?" And yet, dogs have been domesticated for 15,000 years, while the Judeo-Christian God has only been a concept for less than 1/5 of that time. This is quite sloppy in someone who is wants to be regarded as some form of authority on the subject. Plus, now he's likening those who follow religion to dogs. A step up from parasite-puppets, but still not particularly respectful.

To be honest. after reading several pages, I don't think his writing style is capable of being inoffensive to any subject he doesn't agree with. But while he's preaching to the choir, if you'll pardon the phrase, it's quite suitable.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

He then goes on to suppose that his own suggestion might seem "outrageous," but goes on to say that it isn't at all.

That's him anticipating an objection and responding to it before it's made.

He could have said the same thing in a manner that doesn't appear to have been written more for the shock value than for the honest sharing of ideas or insights.

It says a lot about your way of thinking that you consider those quotes "shock value".

It is true that it is impossible to tell someone nicely that they've wasted their lives. No amount of tact is going to help when you say "there's no good reason to believe that a god exists." The person is going to feel hurt, but what you're telling them is the truth. And it is almost always better to face the truth than to believe a comfortable delusion.

Plus, now he's likening those who follow religion to dogs. A step up from parasite-puppets, but still not particularly respectful.

A step up? In what way? A life is a life. No living thing is more evolved than another. No living thing is intrinsically better than another. Both creatures must cause harm to other living things in order to survive. And to my way of thinking, it is better to be a wild creature than a domesticated one.

And I would rather be compared to an ant or a dog than a sheep, which is what the Abrahamic religions call their followers.

[Andara Bledin]

That's him anticipating an objection and responding to it before it's made.

That tells me that he knew what he said would be found objectionable.

It is true that it is impossible to tell someone nicely that they've wasted their lives.

This right here is what I'm talking about. You have no proof that anyone has wasted their life, yet you speak as if this is proven fact.

Correlation is not causation. Otherwise ice cream would be a controlled substance.

A step up? In what way? A life is a life. No living thing is more evolved than another. No living thing is intrinsically better than another.

So, you honestly don't see how calling someone a puppet with no control of their self is considered more offensive than calling them a loyal servant? Are you actually serious with this statement?

^-.-^

[Ghel]

That tells me that he knew what he said would be found objectionable.

Not to get into another semantics debate, but you are using an equivocation here. I was using "objection" meaning "a disagreement" and you're using "objectionable" meaning "offending good taste, manners, or etiquette."

You have no proof that anyone has wasted their life, yet you speak as if this is proven fact.

If someone has spent their life worshiping a god that cannot be shown to exist, then yes, they have wasted their life. That is as close to a fact as anything can be.

So, you honestly don't see how calling someone a puppet with no control of their self is considered more offensive than calling them a loyal servant? Are you actually serious with this statement?

A loyal servant? To a god? Particularly the Christian God? Who is described in the Bible as a jealous, insecure bully. "You'd better tell me I'm wonderful, or I'm going to beat the crap out of you!" Even Jesus describes unending pain for those who don't believe in him. That sounds like an abusive master, not someone you would be loyal to.

[Andara Bledin]

If someone has spent their life worshiping a god that cannot be shown to exist, then yes, they have wasted their life. That is as close to a fact as anything can be.

Well, then, since you are so all-knowing about this subject, we should put you in charge of other people's lives, to ensure they don't do anything that might waste theirs.

Pardon me while I roll my eyes at the idea that you have any idea as to the value of my life based purely on the fact that I self-identify as Christian.

A loyal servant? To a god?

We were talking about dogs. You know, man's best friend.

Parasite-puppet vs. Dog.

Is this more deflection to escape the fact that the earlier comment was patently ridiculous or is this evidence of some inability to correctly connect abstract concepts to the ideas they represent? Or, possibly, it could be a sign that the response was written in haste without proper consideration for the meaning of the statement to which it responds.

I'll rephrase to make things less easily misconstrued:

So, you honestly don't see how calling someone a puppet with no control of their self slave to a parasite lodged within them is considered more offensive than calling them a loyal servant man's best friend, a beloved pet, a faithful companion? Are you actually serious with this statement?

^-.-^

[Ghel]

Well, then, since you are so all-knowing about this subject, we should put you in charge of other people's lives, to ensure they don't do anything that might waste theirs.

The sarcasm is not helping your position.

Pardon me while I roll my eyes at the idea that you have any idea as to the value of my life based purely on the fact that I self-identify as Christian.

I was not talking about value. I was talking about how the individual views his or her own life. Quite often, when a person realizes that the God that they've been raised to believe in doesn't exist, they feel a sense of loss or grief. They realize they have wasted a huge portion of their lives chasing after phantasms. It would be so much better if we could bring them to that realization earlier, so that they can move on to more productive endeavors.

So, you honestly don't see how calling someone a puppet with no control of their self slave to a parasite lodged within them is considered more offensive than calling them a loyal servant man's best friend, a beloved pet, a faithful companion? Are you actually serious with this statement?

I can see that Dennett's analogy of an idea lodged in the mind to an ant with a parasite is a pretty damn good analogy. It doesn't have to be a religious idea. It can be any idea that causes the creature to do something that they otherwise wouldn't do. They might not know how dangerous their behavior is, but they keep doing it anyway. The parasite, like the idea, isn't consciously aware of what it is causing the creature to do, yet it is the cause of the destructive behavior.

The dog analogy is a bit more convoluted. It is about the human's relationship to God, rather than the idea's relationship to the human. In some ways, I think this is an apt analogy to the Abrahamic religions, since many dogs will still be loyal to their masters even when their masters are abusive. This analogy also could be used to describe childhood indoctrination. After all, it is easiest to train a dog when he is still a puppy.

I would still rather be either ant or dog than a sheep - a creature that is raised for fleece and for food, that has been bred to be docile and can no longer survive on its own. I refuse to give up my critical thinking skills in favor of herd mentality.

[Talon]

This right here is what I'm talking about. You have no proof that anyone has wasted their life, yet you speak as if this is proven fact.

There is proof.

Over at Richard Dawkins' website, there's an ironically named section called Convert's Corner. Within, there's over 30 pages of testimonials from ex-theists. Being the insufferable nerd that I am, I've read almost all of them. Granted, this was several months ago, going off of memory here.

I observed some common themes. Some people were on the fence, some were in the closet, and some were even hardcore theists who were turned around by reading Dawkins' work. And yes, some people felt angry and disillusioned that they had squandered their lives on superstition.

Oh and the term "recovering theist" that you find so offensive? It's not without merit either. Some people found it difficult to let go of the artificial fear and guilt imposed by their particular former religion, in spite of how liberating it was. Speaking of liberating, those testimonials also belie this idea you have that atheism is some kind of empty bleak void of existence.

1 person's word doesn't count, but you can't ignore 30+ pages of testimonials. But don't take my word, feel free to read them yourself. Oh and for the record, I've never read any of Dawkins' work. I've only been exposed to him on Youtube.

[Andara Bledin]

The sarcasm is not helping your position.

And your smug superiority isn't helping yours.

I was not talking about value. I was talking about how the individual views his or her own life.

If there is no value, then there would be nothing to "waste." I 'wasted' a lot of opportunities when I was young; that's part of what growing up and gaining experience is about; learning to discern what is worth pursuing and what isn't.

You claim that being religious is "wasting my life" but were you to examine my life, you would come up empty of any evidence of any such waste. You're basing your entire argument on assumptions about why people do what they do, and the answer is, quite simply, because they chose to do so. Regardless of the justification or the abdication of responsibility, they are the architects of their own situations, and if they squandered opportunities, it was they, not the religion, that caused this to happen.

I can see that Dennett's analogy of an idea lodged in the mind to an ant with a parasite is a pretty damn good analogy.

Only if we are as unintelligent and bound to instinct as an insect. At that point, it breaks down completely and irrevocably.

The dog analogy is a bit more convoluted. It is about the human's relationship to God, rather than the idea's relationship to the human.

He tried to claim that we molded our dogs' devotion to humanity on humanity's devotion to God, which is easily proven to be false. No more, no less. Anything else you might read into it is projection.

I would still rather be either ant or dog than a sheep - a creature that is raised for fleece and for food, that has been bred to be docile and can no longer survive on its own.

That's nice.

And completely irrelevant.

We're humans. We have the ability for higher thought and the ability to choose whether or not to engage in critical thinking. You don't like following the flock. That's fine. But there are others who are quite happy being just another sheep and abdicating personal responsibility. Are you going to live everybody's lives for them, or are you going to let everybody discover which mode of life makes them happiest, just like you did?

There is proof.

Allow me to re-iterate: Correlation does not equal causation.

These people are angry at themselves for not having realized sooner that religion was not for them. They're abdicating their own responsibility for their decisions to something outside their own control as a way of shifting blame. Of course it's not their own faults that they made the wrong decisions for themselves and didn't realize earlier that it was wrong.

1 person's word doesn't count, but you can't ignore 30+ pages of testimonials.

30+ pages of testimonials is not proof of anything; it's a bushel of anecdotes. The plural of anecdote is not data.

^-.-^

[Cata]

There is proof.

Over at Richard Dawkins' website, there's an ironically named section called Convert's Corner. Within, there's over 30 pages of testimonials from ex-theists. Being the insufferable nerd that I am, I've read almost all of them. Granted, this was several months ago, going off of memory here.

I observed some common themes. Some people were on the fence, some were in the closet, and some were even hardcore theists who were turned around by reading Dawkins' work. And yes, some people felt angry and disillusioned that they had squandered their lives on superstition.

Oh and the term "recovering theist" that you find so offensive? It's not without merit either. Some people found it difficult to let go of the artificial fear and guilt imposed by their particular former religion, in spite of how liberating it was. Speaking of liberating, those testimonials also belie this idea you have that atheism is some kind of empty bleak void of existence.

1 person's word doesn't count, but you can't ignore 30+ pages of testimonials. But don't take my word, feel free to read them yourself. Oh and for the record, I've never read any of Dawkins' work. I've only been exposed to him on Youtube.

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

Edit: Beaten. That's what I get for loading the page, and then not reading it for a half-hour.

Further edit: To make my point clear, think about this: attempting to use testimonials on an Atheist page about how they recanted their religions to prove anything about whether people have "wasted" their lives to religion is about the same as going to www.paypalsucks.com and using the testimonials there to determine how satisfied people are with PayPal. It's an immensely biased comparison.