My problem with Evangelical Atheism

[BlaqueKatt]

But remember also, the Hebrew prophets had predicted the coming of a Messiah centuries before, and all of Israel was waiting for His arrival. There were a lot of guys running around at the time claiming to BE the Messiah, such as Simon of Peraea.

Yes and Yeshua was judged by the Pharisees, as in the foremost experts and judges on the torah, to NOT MEET the prophecy to be the messiah. For starters the messiah's NAME was given in the prophecy, and it wasn't Yeshua.


Isaiah 7:14, the prophet says, "Therefore, the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.

note this is not Yeshua, which was the name given to mary and joseph's son.


and quite simply I don't see any groups of Atheists trying to encode their beliefs into law, thus forcing it onto others that may or may not believe the same things they do.

[Gravekeeper]

It's not that surprising. It's a cycle that has been going on for centuries, though sometimes the names of the groups are different, but one group will criticize another group for their wrongdoings then the group that is criticized will respond back "but if you weren't doing (insert wrongs here), then we wouldn't be doing what you criticize us of" or "yeah, well, we aren't the only ones, just look at what wrongs you've done"

I'm impressed you're aware of the cycle yet actively and willfully propagating it at every turn.

A lot of people feel there can be only one Truth (if that weren't the case you'd never see missionaries going door to door, because if there is multiple Truths then it wouldn't be urgent to make sure people knew The Truth), so for us to be right, the other person must also be wrong.

It never ceases to amaze that you guys are more extremist about religion than most religious people are. You backhandedly paint entire groups of people based on subjective statements like "a lot of people feel". That doesn't cut it. Prove it or shut up about it.

You know what? I'm tired of this constant narrow minded hypocrisy. Especially from the side of the argument that's suppose to be the open minded ones that embrace logic and reason. Yet turn around and act just as bigoted as the ones they're complaining about. Its irrational, hypocritical and just as hateful as that which you profess to struggle against. You have become no better than they are. Yet are ironically so blinded by your own perceived correctness you can't see it.

And don't give me another round of "But mommy he hit me first!" bullshit. If you can't rise above it and become a better person than the ones you're arguing against then you have no right to claim the moral high ground over them.

[Rapscallion]

Do they now? Pop quiz! What does Buddhism answer too?

Oooh! Oooh! Do I get a go? Well, I reckon it's a philosophy and not a religion.

And how this turn came about here, as it appears too in every thread, because of the non-believers. -.-

To be fair, most of my posts (if not all) in this thread have been made in response to those of apparent theists. I prefer to think I addressed the points and claims made without going down the route of 'nyah nyah'.

I also expect thread views to go up as people try to prove me wrong

Actually, as a philosophical thought, without theism there can only be atheism, but we just wouldn't know it.

Rapscallion

[Duelist925]

Oooh! Oooh! Do I get a go? Well, I reckon it's a philosophy and not a religion.

*snip*

According to the wikipedia article, it's both. But then, its wikipedia.

Actually, as a philosophical thought, without theism there can only be atheism, but we just wouldn't know it.

Rapscallion

A bit of a simplification, but probably true. I'm....not entirely sure what the point of the statement was tho?

[Rapscallion]

A bit of a simplification, but probably true. I'm....not entirely sure what the point of the statement was tho?

More of an aside - the thought occurred and amused me.

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

Actually, as a philosophical thought, without theism there can only be atheism, but we just wouldn't know it.

Rapscallion

Except that most of the athiests I know, and certainly most of those on this forum, aren't merely atheist, they're areligious.

After all, Gravekeeper is, by definition, an atheist, but he's also religious.

As for the whole "without theism, we'd all be atheist, we just wouldn't say so," that's just philosophical wankery when you're involved in a debate. It's great for something to pass the time, but in a debate, it really has no place.

But even if we didn't have theism, there'd still be that whole US vs THEM tribalist bullshit going on; we'd just have found some other difference as an excuse for which to bludgeon one-another over.

But, to echo Gravekeeper, of the people who are willing to take the time to speak up about their views, the religious among us are overwhelming of the "live and let live, you don't have to follow my path for me to respect you" group while the atheists are almost to a man of the "you're all a bunch of ignorant screws who don't deserve the respect of those of us who know the Truth."

And yet, it's religion that's the cause of the worlds woes?

You could craft a battleship with the irony in these threads.

^-.-^

[Rapscallion]

Except that most of the athiests I know, and certainly most of those on this forum, aren't merely atheist, they're areligious.

After all, Gravekeeper is, by definition, an atheist, but he's also religious.

"I'm going to define what you are to make me right."

Understood.

As for the whole "without theism, we'd all be atheist, we just wouldn't say so," that's just philosophical wankery when you're involved in a debate. It's great for something to pass the time, but in a debate, it really has no place.

I admitted earlier that it was more a passing thought that amused me. I'm not certain why you thought it an important matter.

But even if we didn't have theism, there'd still be that whole US vs THEM tribalist bullshit going on; we'd just have found some other difference as an excuse for which to bludgeon one-another over.

Agreed wholeheartedly, but without religion there would be one less manner in which insanity can be protected. Come to the atheist side - we have to justify our shit.

But, to echo Gravekeeper, of the people who are willing to take the time to speak up about their views, the religious among us are overwhelming of the "live and let live, you don't have to follow my path for me to respect you" group while the atheists are almost to a man of the "you're all a bunch of ignorant screws who don't deserve the respect of those of us who know the Truth."

Er, thanks, I think. Mightily lacking in the broad brush approach and all that.

And yet, it's religion that's the cause of the worlds woes?

I believe I said it earlier, or in other threads, that good has been done in the name of religion. There's no doubt that it's been used to justify some pretty nasty shit.

However, I have to ask - is it your opinion that atheism has caused some nastiness along the way? Unless I've missed something, the worst an atheist could generally be accused of doing due to not believing in anything is hurting feelings.

I'd more blame it as you did on tribalism, with religion being a tool used to justify and intensify the tribalism involved. Remove the religion and you remove some of the friction.

You could craft a battleship with the irony in these threads.

^-.-^

I'm of the opinion that in a thread complaining about atheists, there's been enough attempts to justify religion using sophistry to ... stack really high, I guess.

What can you really complain about atheists doing?

If you'll excuse me, I've got some really good quality disagreeing to get on with. You know, over there.

Rapscallion

[Panacea]

I wasn't paraphrasing you.

But I did address the argument in that part you skipped over about how apologetics relies on logical loopholes.

That's if I agree that apologetics rely on logical loopholes. I never said that. My point stands.

I find it fascinating how a debate over the apparent wrongs of a group of non-believers has turned into the apparent wrongs of believers.

Rapscallion

Well, lets look at this; someone earlier in the thread stated that atheists get emotional about the subject, but couldn't defend the point by defining which emotion.

I think smug arrogance fits the bill nicely on the part of Ipecac Drano.

Yes and Yeshua was judged by the Pharisees, as in the foremost experts and judges on the torah, to NOT MEET the prophecy to be the messiah. For starters the messiah's NAME was given in the prophecy, and it wasn't Yeshua.

Isaiah 7:14, the prophet says, "Therefore, the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.

note this is not Yeshua, which was the name given to mary and joseph's son.

Yes, quite a problem. Matthew gets around this by incorporating that quote from Isaiah into the Gospel, and simply declaring Jesus was named both Jesus (Yeshua) and Emmanuel. Luke doesn't even address the issue, other than to claim the angel decreed Jesus' name, and Mark and John don't talk about the birth of Jesus.

This is the danger people run into when they try to take the Bible literally, which I do not. I don't think Jesus was ever named Emmanuel, and I do think that his followers did some fancy footwork to make the connection to Isaiah stronger than it ever could be.

I don't care. For me, the point is not for the Bible to be the literal truth. For me the message of love, forgiveness, and redemption is what is most important. My faith is about my personal relationship with God, not literal interpretations of a book we don't even have the original of. I appreciate the Bible for its great stories, its poeticism, its roadmap to personal values, and stress on the importance of a relationship with God that is personal.

and quite simply I don't see any groups of Atheists trying to encode their beliefs into law, thus forcing it onto others that may or may not believe the same things they do.

Some Christians would disagree with you on that issue. I don't think atheists are trying to encode their beliefs into law, but I DO think many are stirring the pot on purpose, with no other agenda than to irritate their neighbors of faith. Dawkins' "The God Delusion" is entered into evidence on this score. Personally, I see no need for Dawkins to proselytize his beliefs in the way he does; he makes no objective examination of what faith really means to those who hold it and he ignores a considerable body of scientific evidence that shows religious people are healthier and cope better with stress.

[Andara Bledin]

I'd more blame it as you did on tribalism, with religion being a tool used to justify and intensify the tribalism involved. Remove the religion and you remove some of the friction.

Except that tribalist assholes will still be tribalist assholes even were religion to not exist. The only thing that would change is the excuse.

As for the "broad brush," I'm speaking specifically of people on this forum. I could create a chart, but you're as capable as the rest of us at keeping score. Except for a few on each side, the majority of those who participate are either religious and accepting and usually on the defensive, and those who are anti-religious and generally act like assholes and take every opportunity to attack the religious as soon as a topic gives them any opportunity, usually calling them ignorant, illogical, and the source of all the world's ills despite a plethora of evidence given to the contrary.

^-.-^

[Rapscallion]

Except that tribalist assholes will still be tribalist assholes even were religion to not exist. The only thing that would change is the excuse.

To repeat myself, come to the atheist side - we have to justify our shit. Remove the justification for the shit and you're one step closer to getting rid of the shit.

As for the "broad brush," I'm speaking specifically of people on this forum. I could create a chart, but you're as capable as the rest of us at keeping score. Except for a few on each side, the majority of those who participate are either religious and accepting and usually on the defensive, and those who are anti-religious and generally act like assholes and take every opportunity to attack the religious as soon as a topic gives them any opportunity, usually calling them ignorant, illogical,

You define people in your terms, making you right once more. Understood.

and the source of all the world's ills despite a plethora of evidence given to the contrary.

^-.-^

Heh, I think you'll find far more ills of the world perpetrated in the name of religion because people believe in something, than you will find perpetrated because someone doesn't believe in something.

Still, it's not a pissing contest. We've got enough of those already. Tell me, what has an atheist done in the cause of their lack of belief that wasn't simply hurting your feelings or disagreeing with your beliefs?

Rapscallion

[Gravekeeper]

After all, Gravekeeper is, by definition, an atheist, but he's also religious.

I am many things and am somewhat squirrelly to pin down. You could define me as either agnostic or atheist depending on how you defined either term. However, I do not believe in the Christian God, nor any such god of that type ( all powerful supreme architect of the universe sort of thing ). You could think of me as a sort of pandeist. I do not believe there is a creator god out there, but rather the universe itself is in fact a creative engine and its immutable natural laws are essentially god themselves. As long as the natural laws of the universe exist, they will eventually create life. All that is truly needed is time, matter and gravity after all.

While I do believe there are other forms of existence beyond ours, I think there's quite a few more steps in the evolutionary chain between us and anything one could consider a god in the traditional western definition of such.

Agreed wholeheartedly, but without religion there would be one less manner in which insanity can be protected. Come to the atheist side - we have to justify our shit.

Everyone justifies their shit though and people will protect or justify their stupidity regardless. If you take away one option, they'll just go to another. The excuses aren't the problem, its the people. If someone hates gays because they think God said so, do you think they'd stop if given proof they he doesn't? Of course not. Because they haven't yet.

They'll just go to another excuse and you can see those excuses everywhere in the fundie sphere. They constantly invent non-religious excuses when religion fails. Look at Intelligent Design. "Because God said so" failed, so they turned to science and tried to come up with some new bullshit excuse that justifies it "scientifically". Same shit happens in politics too.

The fact of the matter is: We're dickheads. Tribalistic dickheads. We didn't evolve arguing to find the truth. We quite literally evolved it to control other people. Logic and reason are newcomers to the evolution party. That's why we have shit like confirmation bias. Losing an argument in the tribe meant losing control to another.

We did not evolve to find the truth through arguing, we evolved to prove the other side wrong so we could maintain control. This is why you have dickheads who, when their position is defeated, merely find another position that supports the belief they already had to begin with. Rare is the person that actually concedes to the truth over his best interests, because its something we have to learn to do. Hence political zealots and fundies tend to go to go hand and hand with a lack of knowledge and education.

I believe I said it earlier, or in other threads, that good has been done in the name of religion. There's no doubt that it's been used to justify some pretty nasty shit.

But what hasn't been used to justify nasty shit? Some people justify nasty shit because their sports fans for fuck sakes. >.>

Religion, from a historical perspective, is really low on the list of shit justification. Religious wars barely even register on the scale of human misery. Politics on the other hand has hurt and killed more people than anything else in the history of humanity.

You wouldn't remove the friction at all by removing religion. Another excuse would just be found. You need to remove stupidity. But we know how much of an uphill battle that's been. -.-

As for your other question. Atheism has been used as that excuse before too. An excuse will always be found.

Heh, I think you'll find far more ills of the world perpetrated in the name of religion because people believe in something, than you will find perpetrated because someone doesn't believe in something.

No you won't, actually. Most of the woes of the modern world that extend beyond hurt feelings over this century and the last are political, ideological, racial or straight up power grubbing in general. Go back further than that and the death toll of religion pales in comparison to the death toll of politics, ideology, nationality and race.

If fact it's rather amazing that people can harp on religion when so much shit goes down day to day in the world in conflicts that we in west don't even acknowledge or only occasionally muster ourselves to do a 5 minute blurb on in the news once every 6 months.

[Duelist925]

To repeat myself, come to the atheist side - we have to justify our shit. Remove the justification for the shit and you're one step closer to getting rid of the shit.

Dear lord I am tired of this arguement.

Ok, First off: There will always be a justification. Some people can twist literally anything to their viewpoints. If they didn't have religion, they'd use nationalism. Or race. Or gender. Or sexual preference. Or political beliefs. Or freaking dietary habits. The problem isnt religion, its ASSHOLES who use it to further their agenda.

Removing religion will not remove the justification. It will just change it to some other bs reason to do what the asshole wants, regardless of what is morally right.

Heh, I think you'll find far more ills of the world perpetrated in the name of religion because people believe in something, than you will find perpetrated because someone doesn't believe in something.

Still, it's not a pissing contest. We've got enough of those already. Tell me, what has an atheist done in the cause of their lack of belief that wasn't simply hurting your feelings or disagreeing with your beliefs?

Rapscallion

In the cause of the lack of their belief? Ok, I'll give you that. I cannot think of anything done in the name of the allmighty Atheism that's more than being a bit of a prick.

But, really now. Are we going to bring up that again? "So much evil has been done in the name of religion!"....most of which can easily be attributed to either politics or cultural issues of the time, or just plain old bigotry, using religion as a convenient excuse.

Again. An excuse that could have just as easily been replace with a dozen others. with just changing a few freaking key words.

[Andara Bledin]

Why do the claims of "atrocities never committed in the name of atheism" keep coming up when it's been shown, with undisputed facts, that thousands of people were murdered in the name of atheism in Russia?

The Spanish Inquisition put to death fewer than 200 people over it's length. Meanwhile, Stalin's Russia put to death over 8,000 people in the span of just one year.

That's an awfully big skeleton to keep stuffing in the closet.

^-.-^

[Rageaholic]

One thing I see constantly from both sides is trying to paint the other in a broad brush based on the vocal extremests. While I see it much more from theists (particularly the fundamentalists), I also see it from atheists. Even though the person they are arguing with may not believe that gays are going to hell, they still debate them as if they do and thus the debate goes nowhere. Since there are so many different sects of Christianity, it's best to understand who you're arguing with first. Otherwise we end up with the "our side vs your side" crap which gets old fast.

[Sleepwalker]

I won't argue it's a good lie, because it's not a lie at all. But it's hard to explain a spiritual moment to someone who's never had one, or hasn't recognized it or acknowledged it. All I can say is this: I've felt God's presence and felt His love and affection for me . . . and His disappointment when I haven't done the right thing.

So you have a feeling this is true. That is a fairly good reason for you to believe, assuming that belief does not impair you from interacting with the world too much, but it is no reason at all for me to believe, and I continue to oppose a culture based on people enshrining their personal feelings into material 'facts'.

If so, my point still stands. The ideas may have been expressed previously, but they were not commonly held until the spread of Christianity.

Argumentum ad popularum. Christianity is now true not because of a new idea, but because it was the most popular of the religions espousing this idea. Everyone became christian, therefore it must be true.

You should try reading Hammurabi's code sometime, by the way. The preamble and afterward are especially interesting, and cast some light on how religion was invoked back then. He did not invoke the gods to legitimize his actions, he invoked them to legitimize his kingship. His rule was given by the gods, his greatness came from his own actions as champion of the people. Interesting stuff.