Millitant atheists and Philosophy

General Academics Religion and Philosophy
1

I’ve been quite busy on n24 the last couple of weeks and have come to some new insights, I think.

Are millitant atheists promoting scientism what is behind the upsurge in the creationist movement?

Is atheism always just the lack of beliefs in gods?

What do people understand when they use the word “agnostic”

I’ve been at pains to get through to people who just have no interest in philosophy whatsoever, yet they throw philosophic terms around like it means nothing.

Here is just one of the last articles I’ve been debating in:
http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/Atheism-is-a-quasi-religion-20141017

Here is at least one where I address science and bible literalism (YEC) http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/The-evolutionary-creationists-20141017

Some atheists try to use science (TBBT;evolution) to disprove god claims - YEC is maybe just a reaction to this ideology of science

Weird

2

I’ve also pointed out numerous times that science and religion is two separate things, I’ve quoted Popes John Paul, Bennedict and Francis on science, I’ve provided them with statements on the RCC, Methodist and NG Kerk position and acceptance of evolution as fact.

I’ve explained how theology have changed over the years and why the bible isn’t a literal book, but a spiritual book
Here’s another look at ideologies http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/Individual-perception-and-application-the-flaw-in-ideology-20141015

Slowly there have now been articles coming in about how evolution and the bible can be reconciled, some Christian even wrote an article “Christians, leave that atheist alone” although I can’t say that it is directly directed at me :slight_smile:

I have taken on these atheists who try to use science to disprove god claims and showed why it cannot be done

But I’m still talking to brick walls on BOTH sides

3

YEC was originally primarily an American thing, and moreover, a political movement far more than a religious one. It was designed specifically to circumvent America’s strict separation of church and state laws, by a bunch of people who envisioned an American theocracy, of course with themselves as “theo.”

As for atheism, while there is nothing inherently fundamentalist about it, I do perceive in many atheists a sense of absolute conviction and intolerance that I do not share. I truly, honestly do not know whether there are any deities, and have no particular gut feel on the issue either (and as Carl Sagan said, I prefer not to think with my gut. :slight_smile:

It is possible that some of the fundamentalism we see today is indeed a reaction to militant atheism, but who can tell?

Personally, I think non-religious people should spend less time arguing with religious folks about whether gods exist, and more to simply argue for proper separation of church and state.

I have also begun to think that churches are not necessarily a bad idea, and that many of them carry the seeds of their own eventual destruction inside them. The Catholic church was the first such institution: during medieval times, it actually played an important role in keeping learning alive and creating some stability in a very dangerous and chaotic world. But combine learning with stability, and you almost automatically create a more educated populace that will eventually become more skeptical of church authority.

I think many churches today are going the same route. Even the more fundamentalist ones are not opposed to learning per se: my experience with fundies is that very often they are actually very literate and well read, and they live in communities that are often quite peaceful and stable, indeed more so than the gangland that surrounds us. And by this, they are once again creating precisely the conditions that will lead to their own demise.

Perhaps churches are a natural part of the evolution of a more secular society. :slight_smile:

Either way, I simply cannot find the passion in me to endlessly argue with these folks. I call it “having a life.” :slight_smile:

4

Most churches who accept evolution, just term it as “theistic evolution” and do reject YEC as the stupid ideologies they are.

The problem is that the church doesn’t really care if you hold to bible literalism or a more complex theology. The clergymen is also really the problem as they often just complete their theology degree without really becoming theologians or learning anything about science, so they fall for YEC ideology very easily as it promotes the simple and outdated monotheistic theology.

From what I’ve read on the forum I am pretty much convinced that militant atheism does drive this YEC delusion, add to that most normal peoples simplistic ontological position and bible literalism and you’ve got a recipe for a continuing pathological delusion.

5

I’ve never come across a “militant atheist”. Do they not wear camou and AK47s?

6

I’m referring to two things here:
Those that go beyond a simple lack of believe in god claims (negative claim) and move towards a positive position - the belief that no gods exist or the belief in the non-existence of god claims or the belief that god cannot possibly exist… it seems there really are people out there that go this far :slight_smile:

People who hold that only science can provide answers to all lines of inquiry - even abstract notions and concepts like beauty, morality, spirituality, love and supernatural claims.

Science can only observe moral behavior, for instance, but it can not say what moral is, or how love feels, or is or what its value is - these abstract claims fall outside the scope of what science does and has more to do with what philosophy does - being concerned with ideas.

7

That would be great, but I actually never initiate a debate on religion, and end up in them all the time. Because christians are always trying very hard to save me. I’ll give you an example from earlier this week. In this case evolution was just a wedge to get to the point where they save me:

Person A: I know you're an athiest, do you mind if I ask you some questions? Boogie: Sure A: Where do humans come from? [I explain evolution, and pre-emptively explain it's NOT abiogenesis... we back and forth, nothing too confrontational, and this person "gets" at some point what I mean, but then, suddenly, we go completely off the rails...] A: But, I mean, when you were becoming an athiest, did you ask god to reveal himself to you? B: Not explicitly, god had all the time in the world to reveal himself to me, but didn't. He could do it right now. And yet, all I've found is a distinct absense of god, he's nowhere to be found. A: Why didn't you explicitly ASK him to? (getting pushy) B: I think by the point this really became a question, the question was already answered in my mind. I was already beyond the point where that made sense. A: I don't understand why it wouldn't? B: Maybe you can relate to this better: Have you ever asked Krishna to let himself into [i]your[/i] heart? A: .....

Some people will use any devious scheme to get you to the point where they can shove some salvation up your ass. And all I wanted to do was have a smoke.

I do sometimes state outright to people that: “Look bro, god doesn’t exist, chill out”. This is the truth according to me and I don’t see why I shouldn’t say it, even though philosophically it’s not 100% accurate. But then, I’d also say: “Look bro, leprechauns don’t exist” without trying to hedge to be philosophically correct. When it comes to casual conversation, I do really believe there is no god. But that’s not a FORMAL position, it’s just a casual way of getting my beliefs accross without trying to verbalise a treatise.

Science can only observe moral behavior, for instance, but it can not say what moral is, or how love feels, or is or what its value is - these abstract claims fall outside the scope of what science does and has more to do with what philosophy does - being concerned with ideas.

Welllll, I wouldn’t say it CANNOT describe how love feels. But one-day it might. It CAN tell us what hormones and chemical coctails our brains experience when we fall in love, etc… I would say cannot … yet.

8

It’s not always original questions either, back when I was a missionary, we literally had a manual on how to ask these sorts of manipulative questions, complete questions with expected response trees were drawn on where to go with the next wrong response, until you finally get the right response or the person doesn’t know how to answer anymore - then you win.

9

Well, unlucky you - you probably live in a nest of missionaries. :slight_smile:
I can’t remember when last any of them tried to save me, but if they ever do, I may well still not be dragged into a debate. What I believe or don’t believe is frankly none of their business, and I may well tell them so.

I suppose it will depend on my mood. :slight_smile:

10

Nope, but I live in a populous place and people around me are aware of my lack of belief in god(s). So every now and then this does happen. Almost like the occasional deer that wanders cluelessly into these here forums.

I can't remember when last any of them tried to save me, but if they ever do, I may well still not be dragged into a debate. What I believe or don't believe is frankly none of their business, and I may well tell them so.

As is your right. If someone appears to be sincere in their curiosity I will entertain it a bit. We do need society at large to start understanding our viewpoint. Even if inexorably it leads to some frustration… :slight_smile:

11

This thread reminded my of this utterance by Penn Jillette. You only need to watch about 1 minute.

What he says there makes a whole bunch of sense and I agree, but that attitude can very easily be misconstrued as “Militant”.