Log in

View Full Version : The fallacy of "New Atheists?"


shitty wok
2008-08-20, 01:42
There's a new book out by Chris Hedges; many of you may have seen him on YT debates.

A short background: he was raised by a Presbyterian minister, who defended civil-rights, homosexual rights and opposed the Vietnam war- much to the scorn of other ministers. Chris grew up studying the Bible and graduated from Harvard Divinity school. Later he became a war correspondent for the NYT, covering violence in the Balkans, Latin America and the Middle East. He was let go by the New York Times after he warned that the Iraq occupation would not end quickly during a speech. One of his most acclaimed books is "War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning" which describes warfare as a seductive and pervasive narcotic, another one is called "American Fascists" which exposes the movement of Christian Fundamentalists to turn America into a Christian state, as entirely fascist in nature.

Now, he wrote a new book, titled "I Don't Believe in Atheists". In this, he states that while many revered intellectuals have been atheists, the so-called "New Atheists", like Hitchens and Harris, have created their own form of fundamentalism. He lambastes them for a variety of reasons: erroneously blaming religion for the war in the Balkans; demonizing Muslims as soulless and evil; and advocating torture in interrogations as well as military hegemony in the Middle East. He also claims they have hypocritically perpetuated the same fallacy that Christian fundamentalists have: that evil is external, and that one group is morally sound and will lead the world to a better future.

At first I was skeptical of his claims, but after a while, it started to make sense. The whole idea of a faith-free utopia is absurd , and this is what Hedges opposes most. Even without religion, there would still be violence, ethnic tribalism, authoritarian government, and misogyny. After all, Utopia means "no place"

Discuss

kurdt318
2008-08-20, 02:38
In this, he states that while many revered intellectuals have been atheists, the so-called "New Atheists", like Hitchens and Harris, have created their own form of fundamentalism.

He also claims they have hypocritically perpetuated the same fallacy that Christian fundamentalists have: that evil is external, and that one group is morally sound and will lead the world to a better future.

Holy shit I just jizzed myself.

I've been saying for years that today's brand of atheism is nothing more than the antithesis of fundamentalist christianity. When I think of the famous atheists of the past, names like Sagan, Orwell, Vonnegut and Asimov come to mind but, when I think of atheists of today I get an image of Penn Gillette yelling "You dumb shit!" in some poor, old, Catholic nun's face as she says her rosary. Now, don't get me wrong I know there still are Sagans and Vonneguts out there.

I think the difference between atheists of old and the atheists of new, is that the former would more consider themselves "secular humanist" than "atheist". Yes, both groups are "secular" but, modern day atheists seem to be lacking on the "humanist" aspect. They seem to have lost patience (or never had any patience to begin with, as most of them are teenagers :p) with theistic peoples, and are more content to say "You stupid cunt, you're wrong!" than " I respect you and your beliefs, even though I disagree with them."

P.S.

Now, I just have a feeling that someone is going to bring up the fact that "no one has ever killed in the name of science like they have for Christianity, Islam and Judaism. I think this is debatable, but we cannot forget that science and skeptical thinking are still very young. Hell, people are still being accused and killed for being "witches."

Anyway, if I may point you in the direction of an man named Edward Teller, the "father of the hydrogen bomb." A man who thought it would be a good idea to use hydrogen bombs for such tasks as building a deep-water harbor and extracting oil in northern Alberta. Developing such a comfort with a horrific weapon is not a step the human species should be taking.

Edward Teller: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller

Sticky Brick
2008-08-20, 04:40
There's a new book out by Chris Hedges; many of you may have seen him on YT debates.

A short background: he was raised by a Presbyterian minister, who defended civil-rights, homosexual rights and opposed the Vietnam war- much to the scorn of other ministers. Chris grew up studying the Bible and graduated from Harvard Divinity school. Later he became a war correspondent for the NYT, covering violence in the Balkans, Latin America and the Middle East. He was let go by the New York Times after he warned that the Iraq occupation would not end quickly during a speech. One of his most acclaimed books is "War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning" which describes warfare as a seductive and pervasive narcotic, another one is called "American Fascists" which exposes the movement of Christian Fundamentalists to turn America into a Christian state, as entirely fascist in nature.

Now, he wrote a new book, titled "I Don't Believe in Atheists". In this, he states that while many revered intellectuals have been atheists, the so-called "New Atheists", like Hitchens and Harris, have created their own form of fundamentalism. He lambastes them for a variety of reasons: erroneously blaming religion for the war in the Balkans; demonizing Muslims as soulless and evil; and advocating torture in interrogations as well as military hegemony in the Middle East. He also claims they have hypocritically perpetuated the same fallacy that Christian fundamentalists have: that evil is external, and that one group is morally sound and will lead the world to a better future.

At first I was skeptical of his claims, but after a while, it started to make sense. The whole idea of a faith-free utopia is absurd , and this is what Hedges opposes most. Even without religion, there would still be violence, ethnic tribalism, authoritarian government, and misogyny. After all, Utopia means "no place"

Discuss

Richard Dawkins doesn't think that Religion is the root of all evil. He knows the world is a little more complicated than that.

Yes if we rid the world of religion, there will still be war, murder, blah blah blah. People can kill in the name of whatever. Whether it be in the name of ones house, or their political agenda. But religion has done more harm than good. Getting rid of it is a good step.

He talks about this in one of his interviews. Harris and Hitchens believe the same thing.

You can use this website called youtube to find interviews and such.

AngryFemme
2008-08-20, 11:15
...as most of them are teenagers ...

...Anyway, if I may point you in the direction of an man named Edward Teller, the "father of the hydrogen bomb."

Are teenagers and Edward Teller are the best examples you can come up with? The entire article detailing Teller's life left out the fact that he was an atheist. Why do you think that is? Possibly because his non-belief had very little to do with his work, and he rarely made a public spectacle of it?

As for the teenagers - give them a break. They're still developing their "stances" in their own minds, and lack the maturity to be good spokespersons. For most of them, it's the bucking of authority and disappointing their parents that, as you so eloquently put it, "make them jizz" over it.

Rust
2008-08-20, 11:33
The only fallacy here is the huge strawman that you and/or he built.

Show me were any of those "New Atheists" you mentioned have ever said that a faith-free world would be an Utopia, without violence, ethnic tribalism, authoritarian government, and/or misogyny.

I really doubt that any one of them have said such a thing. They might have said that things would be better, and when you see Muslim Terrorists kill in the name of Allah and Christians bombing abortion clinics, it's pretty fucking hard to disagree that there would be some improvement.

I also like how you (he) mentions "advocating torture in interrogations" when neither of the men you mention believe it should be legal. Only Sam Harris has given an argument regarding torture, and it's that we shouldn't be so against it while we're also in favor of bombing cities in Iraq in Afghanistan (i.e. bombing cities kills dozens if not hundreds of civilians while torture does not). Ultimately he still believes torture should be illegal.

So who are these boogeymen that are advocating torture?

MR.Kitty55
2008-08-20, 15:56
Religion doesn't make people do "bad" things it hinders the human ability to think and distorts reality.

Religion breeds stupidity, not evil (Even if there was such a thing)

The OP is refuting people who say "religion causes evil" which is incredibly easy to disprove, however, religion without a doubt makes people unable to think rationally...

kurdt318
2008-08-20, 17:28
Are teenagers and Edward Teller are the best examples you can come up with? The entire article detailing Teller's life left out the fact that he was an atheist. Why do you think that is? Possibly because his non-belief had very little to do with his work, and he rarely made a public spectacle of it?

If you take the time to re-read my original post, you'll find that I never made the argument that Edward Teller's religion had anything to do with his life's work.

Atheism seems to be taking the same course that many of the world's religions have taken. Sure, they all may start out harmless, but sooner or later they all end up with a chauvinist attitude. A belief that they are the only ones on earth who hold the true explanation of the universe (:rolleyes: Gee, I've never heard that one before...).

It seems to me that you understate the danger of a group that views themselves as "unequivocally correct". Now, whether infact they ARE correct, is up for debate, but that is not the issue I am arguing. Societies that claim "moral righteousness" tend towards authoritarianism. Which completely goes in the face of the scientific method. Again highlighting the fallacy of "new atheists." Atheism as a belief is no different from religion, but atheism (skepticism) as a process is great.

I feel that most "new atheists" belong to the former, blindly accepting science and skepticism. Sure, they may not believe in God and they may feel they are right in thinking so, but God help them if they can explain why.

tl/dr: Show some fucking respect for other human beings

Sticky Brick
2008-08-20, 19:26
I feel that most "new atheists" belong to the former, blindly accepting science and skepticism. Sure, they may not believe in God and they may feel they are right in thinking so, but God help them if they can explain why.

tl/dr: Show some fucking respect for other human beings

How exactly does someone "blindly follow science"? you really stumped me on that one. And blindly being skeptical?

Are you seriously a fucking moron?

kurdt318
2008-08-20, 20:03
How exactly does someone "blindly follow science"?

By not challenging and experimenting. Carl Sagan does a fine job of laying out a list of what we should and should not do in science, called "The Baloney Detection Kit". By doing what he suggests we should avoid, I feel we blindly follow science. Below are a selection of what Sagan advises us NOT to do in science, I consider these to be examples of blindly following science:



ad hominem- Latin for "to the man," attacking the arguer and not the argument

argument from authority- trusting someone merely because they hold a high position in society

appeal to ignorance- "whatever has not been proven false must be true"; abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence

observational selection- "counting the hits and forgetting the misses"

post hoc, ergo propter hoc- Latin for "it happened after, so it was caused by", confusion of correlation and causation

Baloney Detection Kit: http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html



But, if you want a real world example of when people have blindly followed science let's look at the idea of racial superiority behind slavery. Now, I'm not as educated on the history as I would like to be but, did any scientist (or regular person) ever bother to run experiments and see if there was infact truth to the long held belief of Africans being inferior to whites?

And blindly being skeptical?

This deals alot with arguments from authority. People discredit a scientist's findings because of his faith or lack therof. They attack the man without evaluating his evidence.

Are you seriously a fucking moron?

I certainly hope not :).

MR.Kitty55
2008-08-20, 20:11
The whole concept of science is based off of evidence and proof, as opposed to religion which is based on blind faith and adamant obedience.


Not to mention that if something in science is proved wrong its tossed out and the new supposedly correct theory is followed, as opposed to religion where when an aspect is (or the entire thing) is proved wrong it's just ignored by its followers.

So please, go fuck yourself for comparing religion to science. Perhaps some people do follow science blindly (I've never met anyone) but science doesn't demand of you to do so, in fact it asks for proof, religion on the other hand demands you follow it blindly. once again, fuck you for being an idiot and preaching your insanity as logic.

Rust
2008-08-20, 21:54
I consider these to be examples of blindly following science:

Those are logical fallacies. They are not "blindly following science" in and of themselves. That's like saying "Lying" is "blindly following Science".

Logical fallacies are examples of fallacious reasoning, which can be committed while attempting to do, or "follow", a huge amount of things; Science would be one of them. (I say attempting because one could argue that actual Science is only done when you don't engage in those things).

Want another example of pretty shoddy arguments? Making sweeping unsubstantiated accusations like: "I feel that most "new atheists" belong to the former, blindly accepting science and skepticism" ... :rolleyes:

KikoSanchez
2008-08-20, 22:35
He also claims they have hypocritically perpetuated the same fallacy that Christian fundamentalists have: that evil is external, and that one group is morally sound and will lead the world to a better future.

At first I was skeptical of his claims, but after a while, it started to make sense. The whole idea of a faith-free utopia is absurd , and this is what Hedges opposes most. Even without religion, there would still be violence, ethnic tribalism, authoritarian government, and misogyny. After all, Utopia means "no place"


I don't really see this 'hypocrisy' in them, insofar as I don't see stating that one group is more morally sound. Rather, by others leaving behind their faith from authority, they may think for themselves and stop wars over religion. Not that this will end other causes of violence, but just one.

2) This point doesn't really make sense. You say: a faith-free utopia is ABSURD. Meaning faith is a prerequisite for the possibility of a utopia. Yet the argument for this is: even without religion there are other forms of violence. Well, this doesn't mean WITH religion that these other forms will dissapear, as history as shown. Futhermore, a lack of faith is not required to dissolve of these other forms. In fact, religion has further fueled the fire of misogyny throughout history. You would have to show why a faithless society could absolutely NOT be utopian.

kurdt318
2008-08-20, 23:17
please, go fuck yourself for comparing religion to science

Why, are you scared I'm going to find something? How unscientific of you...

preaching your insanity as logic.

If I was insane, then wouldn't my insanity be my logic?

I say attempting because one could argue that actual Science is only done when you don't engage in those things.

I 100% agree. It is NEVER acceptable in science to take an argument from authority, to appeal to ignorance, to confuse causation with correlation, etc. To do any less is to follow science blindly.

Want another example of pretty shoddy arguments? Making sweeping unsubstantiated accusations like: "I feel that most "new atheists" belong to the former, blindly accepting science and skepticism"

:confused: Your first two paragraphs dealt with my substantiation.

AngryFemme
2008-08-21, 00:01
If you take the time to re-read my original post, you'll find that I never made the argument that Edward Teller's religion had anything to do with his life's work.

I took the time to re-read your original post. This is exactly what you said, in this order:

"Now, I just have a feeling that someone is going to bring up the fact that "no one has ever killed in the name of science like they have for Christianity, Islam and Judaism."

"Anyway, if I may point you in the direction of an man named Edward Teller, the "father of the hydrogen bomb.""

Why bring up Edward Teller as an example, immediately following your observation of the fact that "no one has ever killed in the name of science" - as if this somehow links to "New Atheism"?

Atheism as a belief is no different from religion, but atheism (skepticism) as a process is great.

Atheism is not a belief. It is non-belief, which stems from the skepticism they hold towards religion!

It seems to me that you understate the danger of a group that views themselves as "unequivocally correct".

In my experiences, only the faithful are bold enough to assert that they are "unequivocally correct". I don't believe I've commented in this thread, or on these boards, that I understate the danger of anyone intellectually dishonest enough to claim "unequivocal correctness".

Rust
2008-08-21, 00:25
I 100% agree. It is NEVER acceptable in science to take an argument from authority, to appeal to ignorance, to confuse causation with correlation, etc. To do any less is to follow science blindly.

You're unnecessarily mixing up words.

Following Science blindly has the connotation of "Science says X, I believe X without question". That is not equivalent to falling prey to the logical fallacies you mentioned.

I can be a Scientist in the quest to refute some deeply seated theory in Science and fall pray to one of those fallacies. In that case, I wouldn't be believing what Science says without question, I would be doing the opposite yet still be engaged in fallacious reasoning.



:confused: Your first two paragraphs dealt with my substantiation.

Huh? My post substantiated your accusation that the majority of "new atheists" are accepting science and skepticism blindly?

Care to point out where?

redzed
2008-08-21, 01:58
At first I was skeptical of his claims, but after a while, it started to make sense. The whole idea of a faith-free utopia is absurd , and this is what Hedges opposes most. Even without religion, there would still be violence, ethnic tribalism, authoritarian government, and misogyny. After all, Utopia means "no place"

Discuss

To my mind defining 'religion' and 'faith' would be a necessary pre-requisite to any productive conversation on the merits or not of a "faith-free utopia" .. "without religion". If religion is seen as a means of social interaction, and faith as simply one's present, transient, personal beliefs ... and ... everyone is able to remain 'objective' and detached? ... but where does that happen? "no place"?

kurdt318
2008-08-21, 03:56
Why bring up Edward Teller as an example, immediately following your observation of the fact that "no one has ever killed in the name of science" - as if this somehow links to "New Atheism"?

I was trying to show that atheism (or any other belief for that matter) can be as dangerous as any organized religion when taken to the extreme. Now, I chose Edward Teller as an example of scientific estremism, NOT BECAUSE HE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN AN ATHEIST.

The man viewed science as something that should be used to help one country achieve dominance over others. He accused his colleagues of being communists and unfit to work in science if they disagreed with him politically. Teller advocated large nuclear and hydrogen weapon arsenals, almost bring the world to the brink of war.

To me, the man represents everything science should not be. Teller represents science taken to the extreme and used for the benefit of a few individuals and not the whole of humanity. He may not have killed anyone, but he came damn close to killing the whole world.

Atheism is not a belief. It is non-belief, which stems from the skepticism they hold towards religion!

In my experiences, only the faithful are bold enough to assert that they are "unequivocally correct".

You consider atheism to be a non-belief, while at the same time you believe that to be "unequivocally correct" you must have faith. Surely you've met a few atheists who are "unequivocally correct". Doesn't a little faith require a little belief.

NOTE: The "atheism" I use here is what I consider the "new atheism" which I feel to be a belief in non-belief, not merely the skepticism of atheism of old.

Following Science blindly has the connotation of "Science says X, I believe X without question". That is not equivalent to falling prey to the logical fallacies you mentioned.

Ah,

Well than this is even more prevalent in our society, than logical fallacies are. I gurantee if you walk down any highschool in America, everyone could tell you that 2+2=4 but, less than half could tell you why 2+2=4.

Care to point out where?

The logical fallacies I listed, were my evidence as to how "new atheists" blindly follow science. But as I know see what you mean by "blindly follow science" I change my response to "How new atheists create pseudo-science".

AngryFemme
2008-08-21, 04:34
I was trying to show that atheism (or any other belief for that matter) can be as dangerous as any organized religion when taken to the extreme. Now, I chose Edward Teller as an example of scientific estremism, NOT BECAUSE HE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN AN ATHEIST.

Point taken. But since "scientific extremism" wasn't implied, and atheism was (in the paragraph preceding the Edward Teller comment) - it sure seemed like you were trying to lump the two together.

Now - care to give any examples of "extreme" atheists, perhaps comparable to the likes of the overzealous religious fundamentalists or Edward Teller, the mad scientist?

You consider atheism to be a non-belief, while at the same time you believe that to be "unequivocally correct" you must have faith.

No sir. I never said I believed that to be "unequivocally correct", one must have faith. I said that in my experiences, the only people bold enough to assert that they were "unequivocally correct" just happened to be those steeped in religious faith. If I could type it all over, I'd say:

Only the people bold enough to allege that they were unequivocally correct, were those of faith. Besides, that's the core root of religious faith - having the utmost confidence and certainty that the God you put all your faith in is unequivocally, absolutely correct.

When most atheists state: "I do not believe in God" - they are stating their skepticism towards the absolute, unequivocal "correctness" the faithful assigns to whatever God they believe in.

Is that belief in non-belief, or is that skepticism of religious belief? I'm not seeing how you're making the distinction between "Old Skeptics" and "New Atheists".

honkymahfah
2008-08-21, 14:34
Atheism seems to be taking the same course that many of the world's religions have taken. Sure, they all may start out harmless, but sooner or later they all end up with a chauvinist attitude. A belief that they are the only ones on earth who hold the true explanation of the universe (:rolleyes: Gee, I've never heard that one before...).



Atheism is THE ONLY BELIEF that doesn't hold this awful assumption. Atheists clearly stand by the fact that WE DON"T KNOW. We don't know everything about the universe, and we don't know where it came from, but what we do know, is that some age old book where some guy heals dead people is most likely not the truth. Was their a book of newtonian physics that newton just found? NO. How about cell biology or thermodynamics? Of course not, all the dark places of science are always subject to religion, because science has not found an explanation yet. That why we don't see widespread religions that tell you that gravity is really just a man in the clouds pushing you on to the earth.

Just because science hasn't explained it does not mean it can't.

Rust
2008-08-21, 15:37
Well than this is even more prevalent in our society, than logical fallacies are. I gurantee if you walk down any highschool in America, everyone could tell you that 2+2=4 but, less than half could tell you why 2+2=4.

1. 2+2 =4 is the domain of Mathematics, not Science.

2. It being so prevalent in society is not an argument for singling out "new atheists" but actually an argument for not doing so! There are so little atheists in the world, much less "new atheists" (whatever the fuck people mean by that), where as there is a humongous amount of theists.


The logical fallacies I listed, were my evidence as to how "new atheists" blindly follow science. But as I know see what you mean by "blindly follow science" I change my response to "How new atheists create pseudo-science".

No, remember you said:

"I feel that most "new atheists" belong to the former, blindly accepting science and skepticism."

What you provided was a list of logical fallacies. That might support your claim that IF new atheists are blindly following science that's how they would do it, however that does not support your accusation that they are. Do you understand? Logical fallacies, according to you, would be how new atheists would be blindly following science if they were in fact doing that. You need to substantiate your claim that they are. I want to you support your accusation that "most of them belong [to the group of people that] blindly accept science and skepticism.


P.S. This was not something I was responding to initially but, I can't even begin to understand your Edward Teller point. Are we supposed to attack the creator of the spoon if a murderous lunatic begins using it to kill people? The science behind the hydrogen bomb has lead to increadible discoveries, ones that will probably allow us to extract the energy necessary to fuel the next step in the progression of human civilization. It's a horrible weapon, sure, that doesn't mean we should fault Teller for anything.

BrokeProphet
2008-08-21, 20:09
Rust made a post about how these new atheists have not suggested that a world without religion would be a utopia.

Nobody really responded to this with anything worthwhile. That is to say Rust's unchallenged point pretty much ends the discussion here.

kurdt318
2008-08-21, 20:56
new atheists have not suggested that a world without religion would be a utopia.

So then why even criticize religion?

Are we supposed to attack the creator of the spoon if a murderous lunatic begins using it to kill people? The science behind the hydrogen bomb has lead to increadible discoveries, ones that will probably allow us to extract the energy necessary to fuel the next step in the progression of human civilization. It's a horrible weapon, sure, that doesn't mean we should fault Teller for anything.

I am not faulting the man because of his creation. I merely brought him up as an example of scientific exremism. Teller used science as a vehicle to acheive his political goals and in doing so placing the world in great danger. I suppose you could also consider him a political extremist with tendencies towards politics or vice-versa.

"Had we not pursued the hydrogen bomb, there is a very real threat that we would now all be speaking Russian. I have no regrets."

-Edward Teller

Rust
2008-08-21, 21:10
So then why even criticize religion?

Because you can want improvement without thinking it must necessarily lead to an Utopia? I already covered this:

"I really doubt that any one of them have said such a thing. They might have said that things would be better, and when you see Muslim Terrorists kill in the name of Allah and Christians bombing abortion clinics, it's pretty fucking hard to disagree that there would be some improvement."



Teller used science as a vehicle to acheive his political goals and in doing so placing the world in great danger. I suppose you could also consider him a political extremist with tendencies towards politics or vice-versa.

So your example of "Scientific extremism" is someone doing something for their political views? Sounds rather silly. Yes, you're damn right I would consider him a "political extremist".

BrokeProphet
2008-08-21, 21:54
So then why even criticize religion?

Why not?

My only point is that religion is not criticized b/c of some misguided view that it will end murder or bring about a utopian society, and nothing posted so far even hints at evidence to this allegation.

The OP, the point of this thread, the alleged fallacy of new athiests, is thus destroyed.

TheMessiahComplex
2008-08-21, 21:58
So then why even criticize religion?



What the crap.
Should no one have criticized slavery either, because ending it didn't turn America in to a utopia?
Seriously now.

easeoflife22
2008-08-22, 00:02
I think the OP is a little confused about what us atheists are truly attacking. Honestly, I could give a rats ass if you believe in God, or a giant hamster that poops gold. Your beliefs are not of concern. Even Praying. Pray all you want to an all-knowing being, if you can't see the logical fallacy in that of course, lol. Honestly, do good deeds in God's name and live the philosophy of good will and love for mankind that Jesus preached. Faith isn't the problem. Heck, I have faith in my theory that the Universe is self-contained in an energy field where all possibilities for what pure energy can create, exists simultaneously. Everything is ONE. I believe we are the collective conscious of the universe, but there is no single being with special powers over it. One day science will actually prove this through folding space, traveling through time, and crossing plains of existence. To me, God is a metaphorical Knock-off for the truth, as it's complicated and requires a lot of intelligence to imagine overall existence. Not bragging, it just does. So I have my beliefs and theories, but none of them include a creator as it's unnecessary for there to be one. I am spiritual, but I'm Atheist. I also have a code of morals based around good will and love, as I believe these things foster humanities maximum potential for peace.

Now that you see Atheists aren't so different from religious people, I'll get to what bothers us. What gets me riled up is the Church, and organized religion. Even in the new testament, Jesus himself denounces the organization of religion and recommends to do good deeds solo, without audience, and without reward. See, the Church has taken this book and turned it into a system of indoctrination. They created meaningless rituals, and started exploiting it for financial gain. The Churched then started to use this power to change the world it occupied and continues on to this day. This Church would have no power, but a billion people take part in it and fill their bank accounts which are used to fund horrible atrocities to maintain their and their allies control over the planet, basically perpetuating the system that benefits them. The Church also gets involved in civil manners too. Even though Church officials can't officially take part in politics, they use their minions of Priests, Pastors, Reverends, etc... to project the will of the Church onto their congregations to do their will for them. People like me, outside of this brainwashed bullshit have to live on this planet too. For me, every Christian I convert, I deny the Church hundreds of thousands of dollars. Once the money dries up, so will the Churches control in the world, as well as the terrible wealthy elite that prosper from the systems the Church instates. Why do you think the Royal families of Europe had such close relations with the Church. They benefited equally. One controls the money, the other controls the mind. Together, they rule any society that puts up with them.

To conclude, we don't hate beliefs, but the religious institutions that propagate negative things. However, the followers are the ones that enable them, so you are to blame for their actions.

redzed
2008-08-22, 02:16
Sincerely, this ^^ is one of the best pieces I've ever encountered. If more of those who label themsleves atheists would express themsleves so succinctly, so genuinely, without insult or any demeaning references ... that opens up all sorts of possibilities, new thought ..

Kudos to you easeoflife:)

kurdt318
2008-08-22, 02:51
What the crap.
Should no one have criticized slavery either, because ending it didn't turn America in to a utopia?
Seriously now.

So, it's perfectly acceptable to question the motives of the religious, but not the motives of the atheists?

Way to set up a strawman BTW...

shitty wok
2008-08-22, 02:55
Why not?

My only point is that religion is not criticized b/c of some misguided view that it will end murder or bring about a utopian society, and nothing posted so far even hints at evidence to this allegation.

The OP, the point of this thread, the alleged fallacy of new athiests, is thus destroyed.

The likes of Harris and Dawkins think we are morally advancing as a species, which is completely absurd. And Hitchens claiming that religion "poisons" the world, as well as the content book, clearly indicates that the world will be better off without it. I'm strongly in favour of criticizing religion, but Harris' views are completely in favour of using aggressive military force, even a nuclear strike on the Arab world.

TheMessiahComplex
2008-08-22, 03:45
So, it's perfectly acceptable to question the motives of the religious, but not the motives of the atheists?


I'd like for you to quote from my previous post where I said that. Go ahead, we'll wait.

kurdt318
2008-08-22, 04:03
I'd like for you to quote from my previous post where I said that. Go ahead, we'll wait.

Come on man, I didn't think it was that hard to get:

So then why even criticize religion?

^ Here I question the motives of atheists.

What the crap.
Should no one have criticized slavery either, because ending it didn't turn America in to a utopia?
Seriously now.

^ Here you show incredible disgust and characterize (also known as a strawman argument) my simple questioning of atheist motivation.

So, it's perfectly acceptable to question the motives of the religious, but not the motives of the atheists?

^ Here I point out that you show disgust when I question the motives of atheists and assume that you would not have reacted in the same manner if I questioned the motives of the religious.

TheMessiahComplex
2008-08-22, 04:24
^ Here you show incredible disgust and characterize (also known as a strawman argument) my simple questioning of atheist motivation.



Ok this is where the disconnect is.
First, "incredible disgust" definitely doesn't describe how I felt about it. Not really important though.

The thing is that I'm not calling you out for questioning atheist motivation, which is what you seem to think. Feel free to do that all you like.
BrokeProphet says "new atheists have not suggested that a world without religion would be a utopia."
And you reply directly to that statement with "So then why even criticize religion?"
I was calling you out for implying there that there's no point in criticizing religion unless it will somehow lead to a utopia, which just sounded ridiculous.


^ Here I point out that you show disgust when I question the motives of atheists and assume that you would not have reacted in the same manner if I questioned the motives of the religious.

And that assumption would be wrong. Again, it's not that you questioned atheism and somehow offended me, it's just the way in which you did it. There's plenty of dumbass atheists on this board that occasionally post far worse 'arguments' against religion, I have a similar reaction to them.

Are we all straightened out now? Can we move on with our lives?

Rust
2008-08-22, 11:17
So, it's perfectly acceptable to question the motives of the religious, but not the motives of the atheists?

Way to set up a strawman BTW...

Are you fucking kidding? You yourself created a strawman right there!


He didn't say you couldn't/shouldn't question the motives of atheists, he said that your question implied that just because something wasn't an Utopia you you shouldn't criticize it (i.e. Me/BP: "Nobody said it would result in an utopia"; You: "Why criticize it then?").

He presented a scenario where we criticized an awful system, and pretty much demolished it in 99% of the world even though it didn't result in an Utopia. In other words, there are plenty of reasons to criticize something (i.e. including religion) even if it doesn't result in an Utopia. Then answer to your question is more than obvious.

BrokeProphet
2008-08-23, 21:37
The likes of Harris and Dawkins think we are morally advancing as a species, which is completely absurd.

I really don't want to derail the thread, but then again the OP stands entirely refuted with simpe logic, even if Kurdt cant grasp that, so....

You DONT think we are advancing morally as a species?

Most of the civilized world does not allow children to be worked, or fucked. This is something pretty new. This is something that is morally sound. This, in the course of human events, is major.

Women have equal rights......holy shit. This is NEW, within the last hundred or so years new. This is morally correct.

Slavery has been all but abolished in the world.........again, new. Morally correct.

We have programs to feed the hungry, aid the sick, help children with medical problems......we have a society that intergrates the handicapped and goes to some length to do so.........new morally correct stuff here.

We have come a long, long way morally as a species.

Sticky Brick
2008-08-29, 03:30
Here's a cool video.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcY5SIfOkEg