My problem with Evangelical Atheism

[Ghel]

This discussion of the similarities and differences between tribalism and religion has got me wanting to comment. The primary thing that's unique to religion is a belief in the supernatural, as was mentioned upthread. And that's the primary thing that "evangelical" atheists are railing against. Since the supernatural is, by definition, unverifiable, any viewpoint can be justified using it. There's no way to perform a reality check when the supernatural is involved.

As for the original topic of "evangelical atheism," I would like to quote part of today's blog post by Greta Christina.

For many atheists, our main goal is persuading the world out of religion.

... Many of us don’t just want a world where believers and atheists get along and let each other practice their religion or lack thereof in peace. Many of us want a world where there’s no religion. We don’t want to see this happen by law or violence or any kind of force, of course. But we think religion isn’t just mistaken. We think it’s harmful. Some of think it’s appallingly harmful. Some of us think it’s inherently harmful: that the very qualities that make religion unique are exactly what make it capable of doing terrible harm. What’s more, we see religion as not just hurting atheists. We see it as hurting billions of believers. So we’re working towards a world where it no longer exists.

[Panacea]

This discussion of the similarities and differences between tribalism and religion has got me wanting to comment. The primary thing that's unique to religion is a belief in the supernatural, as was mentioned upthread. And that's the primary thing that "evangelical" atheists are railing against. Since the supernatural is, by definition, unverifiable, any viewpoint can be justified using it. There's no way to perform a reality check when the supernatural is involved.

As for the original topic of "evangelical atheism," I would like to quote part of today's blog post by Greta Christina.

Unfortunately, Ms. Christina falls into the same logical trap that religionists fall into when they want to convert people who don't want to be converted. She's assuming that deep down, people WANT to be converted to her point of view, that the world will be BETTER once they have done so if they could just be made to "see the light," that WE know better so you must listen to us.

Sound familiar? Does this not sound very much like the paternalistic thinking the world religions are accused of having themselves, of what makes religion so bad in the first place?

I don't think I need to repeat GK's commentary on why this isn't true one way or the other: that tribalistic dickery exists independent of religion or the absence of it. He's already made a compelling case.

What Ms. Christina says in this op ed is exactly why atheism as a movement is having such a hard time gaining ground. The militants among them want to take a confrontational (her word), "in your face" approach (my phrase), then don't understand why people "cling to their religion more tightly (As Mr. Dennett notes).

I'd react in a similar fashion; in fact, I regard it as no less annoying than when the Jehovah's Witnesses bang on my door and question my relationship with God, which is just fine thank you very much.

Really, Ms. Christina's arrogance on the subject is nothing short of flabbergasting.

And unfortunately, she tries to turn science on its head. She assumes that religious people are all nuts because they can't see there's no evidence to support their point of view, that their faith is not provable or reproducable.

I've just finished explaining why science has nothing to do with the supernatural, that science has nothing to offer on the subject one way or the other. For people of faith, proof is really not the point and never has been.

So there is no common ground between atheists and people of faith to even have that conversation. But because many (not all) atheists insist, like Ms. Christina, on converting the masses, they end up resorting to the same tactics used by great religions in the past: peer pressure, legal pressure, mockery, and force.

We've seen what can happen when "true believers" get into power. You have pogroms. They happened under the Muslims when they forced conversions by the sword. They happened in the New World when natives were converted by force (I'm not only thinking about what the Spanish did, but the Native American boarding schools in the US and Canada). They happened under communism.

Live and let live might not satisfy atheists who feel their not getting their legal fair shake. It's fine for them to advocate under the separation of Church and State for their personal rights, and they'll get them eventually. But if they try to create a world in which there is no religion, the push back is likely to get ugly.

[Rapscallion]

Easy? My friend, if it were easy this thread wouldn't exist.

I suggest looking at the others. I'd say that logic deconstructs religion quite easily compared to other of the nastier aspects of life.

Incidentally, I am making a Paladin of Raldoor, Herald of the Eternal Turnip at some point. Thank you gravekeeper.

Heh - reminds me of what I said in another thread. I'd really love to be a D&D cleric.

Exactly like politics in other words? >.>

A comparison I'd be happy to accept, though the reasons for politics owe more to tribalism.

And that's perfectly fine. That's not really the problem. The problem is blaming the entire group for the actions of a few morons, who would be morons regardless. Especially when we're talking about a group that comprises the majority of the world's population. Religion is no better or worse than any other excuse said morons use.

Hmm, I find religion to be self-perpetuating and worse.

For example, slavery and casual racism used to be the norm in the US, as did homophobia. There are laws to deter racists and homophobes (varying in intensity from state to state), but as Smiley can attest there are still deeply entrenched attitudes against gays.

I would say that the attitudes aren't just justified by messages in the bible, but perpetuated by it. We've got prominent presidential candidates affirming their hostility to gay rights even now. They're users of the text. The ones who follow are the ones used by it.

Being in a fairly accepting country barring some of the more minor areas, I have to admit my experience of the US is fairly limited in this regard, but that's the way it seems to me.

As to the broad brush part, I think I grew out of that a long while back. I only reacted to one post initially and feel as if I'm doing most of the batting for 'my team' at the moment, but I don't think I slammed an entire religion for the sins of a few and certainly tried to be specific about it being certain members of the grouping.

I don't agree with the Christian view of the cosmos either. But I understand why one would voluntarily follow it. Because it offers them something that enriches their lives. Whether it turns out to be true or not is, in my view at least, actually a secondary concern. If its done them good in their lives and they've done good by it, I don't care if they worship Raldoor, Herald of the Eternal Turnip.

Radishes are more holy.

Just saying.

Rapscallion

[AdminAssistant]

We've got prominent presidential candidates affirming their hostility to gay rights even now. They're users of the text. The ones who follow are the ones used by it.

Heh, right now Romney and Santorum are practically falling over each other to prove who is against gay marriage more, but, of course, neither believe in discrimination.

[Ghel]

Panacea, did you read the same article I did? Christina even said, "We don’t want to see this happen by law or violence or any kind of force, of course." Which I quoted.

All your talk of "arrogance" and "dickery" is exactly what Christina was addressing in her post. I agree with her that a "live and let live" attitude isn't going to get us very far.

[Gravekeeper]

For many atheists, our main goal is persuading the world out of religion.

... Many of us don’t just want a world where believers and atheists get along and let each other practice their religion or lack thereof in peace. Many of us want a world where there’s no religion. We don’t want to see this happen by law or violence or any kind of force, of course. But we think religion isn’t just mistaken. We think it’s harmful.

Wow, seriously? Holy raging hypocrisy, Batman. "We don't want you or your freedom to exist and would prefer a world were you don't exist at all. Oh, but we don't want to hurt anyone or anything!". Never mind that there's evidence religion may have biological roots. So how precisely do you propose getting rid of it? Genetic culling? Selective breeding? Atheism is the vast minority here and she proposes that its the rest of the world that should be changed because 2.3% of its population thinks they're right?

That is the very height of arrogance.

Panacea, did you read the same article I did? Christina even said, "We don’t want to see this happen by law or violence or any kind of force, of course." Which I quoted.

Her little disclaimer doesn't excuse her statement at all, frankly. Replace religion with a political stance, race, gender or sexuality and see how it reads.

I agree with her that a "live and let live" attitude isn't going to get us very far.

It seems to have gotten us pretty damn far actually and I see absolutely no reason not to encourage it further. Because morally speaking, its the right thing to do. Which should be a universal goal between theists and atheists.

Are you not suppose to be good for goodness sake? Or are you really going to concede the moral high ground to the theists once and for all? -.-

Hmm, I find religion to be self-perpetuating and worse.

Everything is self-perpetuating. Its the entire objective of life as a whole ;p heh.

Again though, perpetuating/missionary work/etc is something exclusive to some sects of Christianity. Its not actually a common feature of religion. In fact its strictly forbidden by some of the other biggies.

I would say that the attitudes aren't just justified by messages in the bible, but perpetuated by it. We've got prominent presidential candidates affirming their hostility to gay rights even now. They're users of the text. The ones who follow are the ones used by it.

That's how the game is played in the US. Politicians, especially the right wing, will say whatever they have to in order to court or rile up the base. It will continue until the election, then it'll be forgotten about until the next cycle comes around. You think they believe half the shit they say? They don't. Its about the power and the money, not Jeebus or the lack therefore. Its about saying whatever your audience wants to hear. None of this shit ever actually gets done, they need only propose stupid shit in congress then after it gets soundly defeated they can point and go "Oh noez, the liberalz are stopping JESUS!" and rile up the base even more. It's a win/win and all they have to do is generate noise now and then.

Romney is a great example because he changes positions constantly to try and mold himself into the package he thinks his current audience wants.

Thing is though, these attitudes are cultural, not religious, and they're dying out as every major poll has shown. As the older generations die off and fall out of power, so too do their ideas. Younger generations are more accepting and inclusive because they're growing up in a different society then their parents and grandparents.

For example, acceptance and support for gays grows each year as the older more conservative people die off and get replaced with younger, more world aware generations. It's happened with every generation in the modern era with every social or civil issue that's ever cropped up from racism to gender equality to homosexuality.

We are getting better, not worse.

The problem you see in the US is that the political system is controlled by the oldest, whitest people in the entire fucking universe that basically hold their jobs for life despite not even grasping the current era they live in. Their attitudes are a reflection of the generation they grew up in, not of the religion they follow.

Pfft, Radishes! Everyone knows Turnips are the one true vegetable.

[Duelist925]

For many atheists, our main goal is persuading the world out of religion.

... Many of us don’t just want a world where believers and atheists get along and let each other practice their religion or lack thereof in peace. Many of us want a world where there’s no religion. We don’t want to see this happen by law or violence or any kind of force, of course. But we think religion isn’t just mistaken. We think it’s harmful. Some of think it’s appallingly harmful. Some of us think it’s inherently harmful: that the very qualities that make religion unique are exactly what make it capable of doing terrible harm. What’s more, we see religion as not just hurting atheists. We see it as hurting billions of believers. So we’re working towards a world where it no longer exists.

....Ok, wow. If you replaced religion with...Anything else, race, sexuality, or preference for butter on ones toast, that would beconsidered one of the most offenseve and/or stupid things ever say.

Hey, tell you what. Replace Religion with Atheism in that paragraph, and it sounds a lot like something some idiot fundie biblethumper.

I suggest looking at the others. I'd say that logic deconstructs religion quite easily compared to other of the nastier aspects of life.

As has been pointed out by several people smarter than myself, Religion is not about logic. If it were about logic, religion would be freaking mathmatical. Religion is as much about logic as a painting, or a poem, or a piece of stained glass.

[quote]
Heh - reminds me of what I said in another thread. I'd really love to be a D&D cleric.
[/quote

Heh, I need to tell you about the Atheist cleric a friend made. At a high level, he managed to disbelieve a physical god out of existence.

A comparison I'd be happy to accept, though the reasons for politics owe more to tribalism.

Politics is pretty much a slightly more polite form of tribalism.

Hmm, I find religion to be self-perpetuating and worse.

....How is self perpetuation a bad thing? Hell, every idealogical system, ever, has been and is, if it's still around, self perpetuating, including atheism.

For example, slavery and casual racism used to be the norm in the US, as did homophobia. There are laws to deter racists and homophobes (varying in intensity from state to state), but as Smiley can attest there are still deeply entrenched attitudes against gays.

I would say that the attitudes aren't just justified by messages in the bible, but perpetuated by it. We've got prominent presidential candidates affirming their hostility to gay rights even now. They're users of the text. The ones who follow are the ones used by it.

This? This lies on the fact that old bigots are still in power. As more and mopre of them retire, or die, that changes. Casual racism was still the norm, despite there being laws against it, until the old guard was replaced with the younger,more accepting new guard.

The same, the homophobia of the current administrative generation is being gradually replaced by a younger guard that has learned that is jsut doesnt matter who someone wants to screw.

I
Radishes are more holy.

Just saying.

Rapscallion

Psh. All know that the Carrot is the most Holy of all the root vegetables.

[Ghel]

....Ok, wow. If you replaced religion with...Anything else, race, sexuality, or preference for butter on ones toast, that would beconsidered one of the most offenseve and/or stupid things ever say.

Hey, tell you what. Replace Religion with Atheism in that paragraph, and it sounds a lot like something some idiot fundie biblethumper.

You really think so? In this discussion, religion is equivalent to racism, homophobia, etc., and atheism is equivalent to tolerance, accecptance, etc. Atheists are the ones that are pointing out what's wrong with religion and the various things that it posits without evidence. Atheists are far more likely, on average, to be accepting of differences, as long as those differences have a rational basis.

Wow, seriously? Holy raging hypocrisy, Batman. "We don't want you or your freedom to exist and would prefer a world were you don't exist at all. Oh, but we don't want to hurt anyone or anything!". Never mind that there's evidence religion may have biological roots. So how precisely do you propose getting rid of it? Genetic culling? Selective breeding? Atheism is the vast minority here and she proposes that its the rest of the world that should be changed because 2.3% of its population thinks they're right?

Where do you get this genetic culling/selective breeding thing? Certainly not from anything Christina has said or anything I've said. You seem to be making shit up.

The evangelical part of the argument is convincing others that they're wrong. Not through threats or coersion, but through reasoned arguments.

I mean, we're not the ones threatening people with eternal torture if they don't see things our way!

And mostly as an aside, your 2.3% is low for an estimate of global non-religious. The current estimate is around 14% of people, globally, are non-religious. Granted, this likely includes many people who don't call themselves atheists, but it also excludes those who belong to atheistic religions. Not that it really matters, since an appeal to numbers of adherents does not tell us whether the underlying belief is true or not.

[Kelmon]

Unfortunately i was away from the discussion for a while so it would be kind of pointless to argue about things said on page 3. just let me say that so far no one brought forth any instance of anyone committing heinous acts because of atheism. As for Stalin... (Doing bad things for atheism =!= Being an atheist and doing bad things)

....Ok, wow. If you replaced religion with...Anything else, race, sexuality, or preference for butter on ones toast, that would beconsidered one of the most offenseve and/or stupid things ever say.

Hey, tell you what. Replace Religion with Atheism in that paragraph, and it sounds a lot like something some idiot fundie biblethumper.

So what? Replace it with "Poverty", "Crime" or "Unemployment", and it becomes a good thing. Replace it with "Yellow rhubarb bubblegum", and it becomes something...weird.

I don't see a problem with the initial statement. Obviously one side of an ideological battle wishes the other side would cave in and join them. I don't think any athiest can think it's "great" that religion exists. Just as well as no theist can honestly say it's "great" that there are non-believers.

It is even said this change should come about without force or changing of laws - again, obviously implying it should happen by reasoning with the other side.

Again, i fail to see where the problem is. Except in your head maybe, assuming the worst.

[Hyena Dandy]

Just as well as no theist can honestly say it's "great" that there are non-believers.

I think it's great that there are non-believers... I wouldn't want it any other way.

[Gravekeeper]

You really think so? In this discussion, religion is equivalent to racism, homophobia, etc., and atheism is equivalent to tolerance, accecptance, etc. Atheists are the ones that are pointing out what's wrong with religion and the various things that it posits without evidence. Atheists are far more likely, on average, to be accepting of differences, as long as those differences have a rational basis.

Citation needed. Just because you want it to be so doesn't make it true. Also, you're back to painting the entire group with the shit of a statistical few. Which is no more fair than the shit you accuse all religion of doing. Yet you miss the hypocrisy entirely. Again.

Where do you get this genetic culling/selective breeding thing? Certainly not from anything Christina has said or anything I've said. You seem to be making shit up.

I was asking exactly how you propose to get rid of something that may have biological factors. Your current approach will not work. Ever. You freely admit to wanting everyone else's belief's to be gone and for the whole world to agree with you. It won't happen. Ever. It's completely impossible. So what do you propose, exactly?

The evangelical part of the argument is convincing others that they're wrong. Not through threats or coersion, but through reasoned arguments.

Not going to work. Ever. See the problem? We are biologically inclined to perceive our mind and body as separate things. Hence our propensity for the supernatural. Statistically speaking, Atheism is the anomaly in this. Whether you want to admit it or not.

I mean, we're not the ones threatening people with eternal torture if they don't see things our way!

Stop painting the whole friggan world with the one bitter stereotype of theists you cling to so desperately. How do you not see the irrational hypocrisy in your viewpoint? Why can't you just leave them the fuck alone the same as you'd prefer they leave you the fuck alone?

And mostly as an aside, your 2.3% is low for an estimate of global non-religious. The current estimate is around 14% of people, globally, are non-religious.

Don't move the goal posts. I specifically said Atheist. Not religious does not = atheist. I am not religious, but I am not what you'd call an atheist either.

Not that it really matters, since an appeal to numbers of adherents does not tell us whether the underlying belief is true or not.

So why is it you understand the numbers when it comes to this, but not to every other rational argument against your constant religious stereotyping? A stereotype not a single theist present on this forum fits? In fact every theist here has been 100% live and let live, how come you can't do the same? Why do you act exactly like the stereotype you rail against, ironically for the exact same reason: Because you think you're right?

I'm sincerely sick and tired of seeing one side of this on the forums act exactly like what they claim to oppose, yet try to justify that in their case it's perfectly fine because they're the ones who are right and mommy, they hit us first.

I'm neither an atheist nor a Christian nor even religious. Yet I have a much much easier time discussing these subjects with the allegedly horrible narrow minded theists than I ever had with the atheists on this board. Who, with a few notable exceptions, have been universally militant, smug, disrespectful, provocative and seem to want to start shit at the drop of a hat. Thus creating this same thread over and over and over and over and over again.

[Hyena Dandy]

Not that it really matters, since an appeal to numbers of adherents does not tell us whether the underlying belief is true or not.

And as we've kept pointing out, TRUE OR NOT IS NOT THE POINT. Even you're not arguing everyone should be an atheist because it's true.

[Kelmon]

Not going to work. Ever. See the problem? We are biologically inclined to perceive our mind and body as separate things. Hence our propensity for the supernatural. Statistically speaking, Atheism is the anomaly in this. Whether you want to admit it or not.

Let's just assume what you're saying is true. We're also biologically inclined to mate on the spot with any other human being that we find attractive. And yet you don't see a lot of people humping each other in the streets.

Don't move the goal posts. I specifically said Atheist. Not religious does not = atheist. I am not religious, but I am not what you'd call an atheist either.

Ateism quite literally means "godless", so not believing in the existance of a deity (or deities). Do non-religious people around the world believe in deities? The vast majority of chinese people, for example? No. Hence, they're atheists.

I'm afraid it is you that muddles the definition of the term if you only want to include those that are verbal about their non-belief.

So why is it you understand the numbers when it comes to this, but not to every other rational argument against your constant religious stereotyping? A stereotype not a single theist present on this forum fits? In fact every theist here has been 100% live and let live, how come you can't do the same? Why do you act exactly like the stereotype you rail against, ironically for the exact same reason: Because you think you're right?

I'm sincerely sick and tired of seeing one side of this on the forums act exactly like what they claim to oppose, yet try to justify that in their case it's perfectly fine because they're the ones who are right and mommy, they hit us first.

Frankly, i have no idea what you're actually addressing here. He is completely right in pointing out, that "out there" are plenty of fire-and-brimstone christians. Even without entering your country I encountered plenty of them in online communication. This is quite far from being a mere stereotype. The fact that allegedly none of them are here does not change this.

[Ghel]

Your current approach will not work. Ever.

Wrong. It does work. The largest growing segment of the population is the "nones." As in, those that follow no religion. More and more people are embracing reality every day.

Not going to work. Ever. See the problem? We are biologically inclined to perceive our mind and body as separate things.

We are also biologically inclined to have as many children as possible. We are also biologically inclined to favor the "in group" and shun the "out group." We are also biologically inclined to eat as much sugar as we can get our hands on. But because we are thinking, social, empathetic animals, we can and often do overcome our biology.

Stop painting the whole friggan world with the one bitter stereotype of theists you cling to so desperately.

The statement about "eternal torture" was an example, not a stereotype. The carrot and stick of Heaven and Hell also equates well to the carrot and stick of reincarnation. Or karma. Or any other supernatural "reward system" posited by religions.

Why can't you just leave them the fuck alone the same as you'd prefer they leave you the fuck alone?

Your priveledge is showing.

I've answered this in previous threads. Religion causes harm, both to non-believers (including followers of other religions) and to adherents of the religion. When believers stop enacting anti-abortion laws and anti-gay laws, when churches start paying taxes just like any other business, when being bat-shit crazy isn't a requirement for a Republican presidential nomination, when women are no longer jailed for being raped, when self-described "holy men" are no longer given automatic respect, when Joseph Ratzinger is charged with accessory after the fact for shuffling pedophile priests, when praying instead of seeking medical attention for a child is a crime in every part of the world, and when FGM and circumcision are eradicated from the world, then I'll leave them the fuck alone.

I am not religious, but I am not what you'd call an atheist either.

Quite true. IIRC, you've said before that you believe in reincarnation, which is a supernatural belief.

Thus creating this same thread over and over and over and over and over again.

I'm not the one starting these threads. I'm only responding when I see something wrong with what someone has posted. And maybe by saying the same things over and over again, some of it will finally start to sink in.

[Rapscallion]

That is the very height of arrogance.

I was more stunned that she saw fit to dictate my position to me, and to others. For her it's war, for me it's 'meh'. I'm more interested in this claim that there's biological reason for faith - got any links? Am curious.

Are you not suppose to be good for goodness sake? Or are you really going to concede the moral high ground to the theists once and for all? -.-

If you want to get down to brass tacks, an atheist position doesn't mean someone is specifically 'good'. While I do know a fair number of atheists at work who are humanist (I think that the term) in outlook, but there are no religious overtones to the work they do for the betterment of humans in general. They don't ascribe their works to the service of a deity, nor do they ascribe the need for their works to the enemy of said deity.

Again though, perpetuating/missionary work/etc is something exclusive to some sects of Christianity. Its not actually a common feature of religion. In fact its strictly forbidden by some of the other biggies.

I wasn't actually thinking of missionary work when I typed that. I was more thinking that it has these commands and instructions in a holy book and a bigot will teach those aspects. The next generation of believers will follow on because it was what they thought, not because they necessarily are bigots at heart. It's what they've been taught.

You think they believe half the shit they say?

Some of them, yes. Most, no. It's amusing when you realise that to gain the electoral base for their own party, they've got to alienate huge swathes of the main electorate and are doing their best not to get elected where it really counts.

Pfft, Radishes! Everyone knows Turnips are the one true vegetable.

I think the parsnips would have something to say about that.

As has been pointed out by several people smarter than myself, Religion is not about logic. If it were about logic, religion would be freaking mathmatical. Religion is as much about logic as a painting, or a poem, or a piece of stained glass.

I don't agree. Religion in the christian sense, and one or two other related faiths, is about obedience to ancient rules on the apparent sayso of an unprovable being who never shows up. In fact, the logic of christianity is that if you don't follow the rules and believe as a follower is told to believe, they're going to suffer hugely, so it's logical to avoid that.

Heh, I need to tell you about the Atheist cleric a friend made. At a high level, he managed to disbelieve a physical god out of existence.

Hmm, if you don't tell us, I'll have to put it in the site rules that you are going to tell us.

....How is self perpetuation a bad thing?

Depends on what's being perpetuated.

Psh. All know that the Carrot is the most Holy of all the root vegetables.

Only on every third thursday during an eclipse. Need really grand standards, you know?

I think it's great that there are non-believers... I wouldn't want it any other way.

We think you're cute too.

Rapscallion