Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, February 3, 2010
Religion The Limits of Atheism
Posted by Charles Mudede on Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 9:09 AM
Atheism is the new fundamentalism?
1
What they dislike is the freedom to be assertive about Atheism. It uses the arguments of religionism and turns them on their head.
2
charles, your embrace of fundamentalism - if this is in fact fundamentalism - is quite interesting. usually i shy away from such a characterization, because it suggests irrationality, stubbornness, etc.
but perhaps it is.
and if it is, you are right - it is the best type. it is the one founded in logic, willing to examine evidence, and willing to change.
but perhaps it is.
and if it is, you are right - it is the best type. it is the one founded in logic, willing to examine evidence, and willing to change.
3
Ah, the old "kind of God" sidestep. This chap is basically arguing the fallacious point of all religious belief, namely that all Gods are fake excepting MY god.
4
This is why I sidestep the very argument about the "existence" of God and move directly to the morality of the term "god" itself.
The term "god" is a political term, which title carries with it political power. If a being were to present themselves and declare themselves God, the fundamental question is not "do you believe in me" it is "by what right do you take that term, and what power does that term grant to you."
That question then opens up the proper conversation, which is the morality of the office itself.
The term "god" is a political term, which title carries with it political power. If a being were to present themselves and declare themselves God, the fundamental question is not "do you believe in me" it is "by what right do you take that term, and what power does that term grant to you."
That question then opens up the proper conversation, which is the morality of the office itself.
5
Wow, that speech was actually quite well thought out and cogent. A sort of position that is, unfortunately, very rarely seen in America. Which is of course, why the athiest fundamentalists he talks about exist. It's the unstoppable force versus the immovable object, the deadly combination of stubbornness and willful ignorance on both sides.
6
I am so sick of the stupid "atheism is fundamentalism" and "atheism is another religion" arguments.
Atheism is the lack of belief in any gods. If you do not think any gods exict, including if you aren't sure, you technically are an atheist.
Sound like a fundamentalist position?
No I haven't watched this video yet. YT is blocked at my office.
Atheism is the lack of belief in any gods. If you do not think any gods exict, including if you aren't sure, you technically are an atheist.
Sound like a fundamentalist position?
No I haven't watched this video yet. YT is blocked at my office.
7
Be careful what you wish for. Most atheists treat it as a religion, and are more akin to fundamentalists, in my personal observation.
Besides, we were all not created in His Noodliness' image when the FSM created the Multiverse and populated it with His Chosen People, the Pirates.
Besides, we were all not created in His Noodliness' image when the FSM created the Multiverse and populated it with His Chosen People, the Pirates.
8
Well, if religious people want the atheists to calm back down - they could try taking a holiday from the routine brutality and murder done under the name of religion.
But no - just because we are denied access to abortions, vaccines against genital warts ... and granted in return raped children and stacks of murdered - we should all just calm down and let you all get along with it.
Right - taking a stand against this gibbering insanity is somehow distasteful, and not the acts themselves.
But no - just because we are denied access to abortions, vaccines against genital warts ... and granted in return raped children and stacks of murdered - we should all just calm down and let you all get along with it.
Right - taking a stand against this gibbering insanity is somehow distasteful, and not the acts themselves.
9
BTW - the answer to question presented to the panel (the whole debate can be found at the site, and not just the snippet above) is no. The clearest reason being that atheism has no dogma, and is willing to accept change backed by evidence.
Religion by and large does not have a mechanism for change, famously preferring the rules to be carved into stone.
Religion by and large does not have a mechanism for change, famously preferring the rules to be carved into stone.
10
I'm going to quote from a comment I made on a similar thread back in October:
"Objectively speaking, the question of whether or not God exists is moot. God is only meaningful and relevant as a subjective truth as experienced existentially by an individual human being (usually in the form of faith). In other words theists and athiests seeking to establish the existence or non-existence of God as an objective truth (fact) both get it wrong".
"Objectively speaking, the question of whether or not God exists is moot. God is only meaningful and relevant as a subjective truth as experienced existentially by an individual human being (usually in the form of faith). In other words theists and athiests seeking to establish the existence or non-existence of God as an objective truth (fact) both get it wrong".
11
#6 as we've covered in detail here on Slog, there are at least two distinct types of atheism. One is a lack of belief in god. The other, which is what this video is presumably about, is an active belief that there is no god. Big difference.
12
No new information here, just the same talking points:
It's fundamentalism because:
1) All scientific branches deny religion unilaterally (like they all deny the validity of horoscopes)
2) This denial doesn't sway the faithful. (that's actually more of an argument that the religious are fundamental, no?)
3) Atheists ignore the fact that famous musicians, poets, and philosophers were religious, and the religion inspired art. (Because a colorful, popular story inspires art does not mean it's true: see "fables" and "every work of fiction ever produced".)
4) They attack the religious argument where it's weakest, not where it's strongest. (This seems like an ad hominem, "they're meanies for attacking us on the grounds of logic". Even if atheists pick the more obvious examples of religion's falseness to highlight, that doesn't make it any less true)
5) Atheists are arguing against a "strawman" of God that doesn't, in this case visually, reflect what common people think of in their personal faith. (Sets up an argument whereby God can't be refuted because it means something different to everyone, as though there are no common, refutable factors)
6) Atheism needs God to exist. (Touche. Though I'm sure atheists would be happpy to not have to define themselves in opposition to crazy people - in the way that I'm glad not to have to identify myself as a "Holocaust-believer" - and go back to solving scientific problems, or, say, having some tea)
7) Doesn't allow the "Grand Perhaps". (I don't think that science flat-out denies a "Grand Perhaps", and some branches of physics do get into those kinds of questions, but science is the king of "Small and Medium-sized Perhapses". Science USED TO be concerned with those kinds of issues, but since such grand perhapses are so easily debunked, it's just a waste of time to revisit each one)
Even if he seems like a nice-enough guy, he's just a more eloquent version of the antagonist in Tim Minchin's "Storm" (http://youtube.com/watch?v=UB_htqDCP-s#t…)
More...
It's fundamentalism because:
1) All scientific branches deny religion unilaterally (like they all deny the validity of horoscopes)
2) This denial doesn't sway the faithful. (that's actually more of an argument that the religious are fundamental, no?)
3) Atheists ignore the fact that famous musicians, poets, and philosophers were religious, and the religion inspired art. (Because a colorful, popular story inspires art does not mean it's true: see "fables" and "every work of fiction ever produced".)
4) They attack the religious argument where it's weakest, not where it's strongest. (This seems like an ad hominem, "they're meanies for attacking us on the grounds of logic". Even if atheists pick the more obvious examples of religion's falseness to highlight, that doesn't make it any less true)
5) Atheists are arguing against a "strawman" of God that doesn't, in this case visually, reflect what common people think of in their personal faith. (Sets up an argument whereby God can't be refuted because it means something different to everyone, as though there are no common, refutable factors)
6) Atheism needs God to exist. (Touche. Though I'm sure atheists would be happpy to not have to define themselves in opposition to crazy people - in the way that I'm glad not to have to identify myself as a "Holocaust-believer" - and go back to solving scientific problems, or, say, having some tea)
7) Doesn't allow the "Grand Perhaps". (I don't think that science flat-out denies a "Grand Perhaps", and some branches of physics do get into those kinds of questions, but science is the king of "Small and Medium-sized Perhapses". Science USED TO be concerned with those kinds of issues, but since such grand perhapses are so easily debunked, it's just a waste of time to revisit each one)
Even if he seems like a nice-enough guy, he's just a more eloquent version of the antagonist in Tim Minchin's "Storm" (http://youtube.com/watch?v=UB_htqDCP-s#t…)
13
Charles Mudede, February 3, 2010: "If so, it (atheism) is the best type of fundamentalism."
David Schmader, November 27, 2009: "...to me, atheism seems like the most benign form of fundamentalism..."
The atheism as friendly-fundamentalism theme seems to be the popular opinion among the Strangeroids!
Darwin help us!
David Schmader, November 27, 2009: "...to me, atheism seems like the most benign form of fundamentalism..."
The atheism as friendly-fundamentalism theme seems to be the popular opinion among the Strangeroids!
Darwin help us!
15
Positive Atheism, with its assertion that there are no god or gods, and not just the lack of belief in them, isn't necessarily fundamentalist because you can get there logically (though you can definitely get there with faith/assumption too.) I'm a positive atheist, I actively disbelieve any gods exist, because the concept of an intelligent creator born of nothing makes no sense. The "well who created god?" argument is an absolutely valid one that no theologian has ever been able to adequately answer. It leads to an infinite regress of creators, with the only reasonable answer I've seen so far posited, is that at some point a god evolved from a godless universe, showing a god isn't necessary for a universe to exist.
16
Good Afternoon Charles,
I didn't see/hear the video. But, your comments intrigue me. It reminds me of something Harvey Cox, the noted American theologian once said (I think?) "Not to decide, is to decide". My variation is "Not to believe, is to believe". I think in this secular Republic (the USA, which it is, in principle) atheists, agnostics or anti-theists as Christopher Hitchins would say are largely benign. It is when the "state" officially discourages or outlaws any "religious beliefs" that a problem can develop. Never forget that Soviet Russia was an official atheistic state and Joseph Stalin, it's onetime Premier (who was a former seminarian but eventually an atheist) one of the most ruthless dictators in human history.
I didn't see/hear the video. But, your comments intrigue me. It reminds me of something Harvey Cox, the noted American theologian once said (I think?) "Not to decide, is to decide". My variation is "Not to believe, is to believe". I think in this secular Republic (the USA, which it is, in principle) atheists, agnostics or anti-theists as Christopher Hitchins would say are largely benign. It is when the "state" officially discourages or outlaws any "religious beliefs" that a problem can develop. Never forget that Soviet Russia was an official atheistic state and Joseph Stalin, it's onetime Premier (who was a former seminarian but eventually an atheist) one of the most ruthless dictators in human history.
17
@11: The first is the actual definition of the term. The second is quite rare even amongst the most outspoken atheists. Richard Dawkins falls in category one.
18
Just remember, VD Day is a celebration of the martyrdom of St. Valentine ....
Hmm, that makes @8 spot on.
Hmm, that makes @8 spot on.
19
Charles, with all due respect, I don't think you understand what Spinoza wrote on the topic. Spinoza was an atheist. To identify god with the universe is to eliminate god. The universe isn't "conscious," and spinoza insisted that it wasn't, in fact. People worship spinoza's "god" (the universe) by doing science, i.e., figuring out how the universe works...einstein was a worshipper.
20
According to Spinoza, the universe is, in fact, conscious, or rather, is consciousness itself. Thought is an infinite attribute of substance, and inheres in all of its parts: Omnia animata, says Spinoza, everything thinks.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Required Listening: Howard Stern on Ellen, JC Penney, Bullied Gay Kids, Rosie, Santorum, Bachmann, et al by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
State Legislator Testifies That His Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage Came to Him from a Commercial for Jack in the Box by Christopher Frizzelle
-
"Let me be the first one to say: My business will refuse to participate in a same-sex marriage ceremony," by Republican Representative Matt Shea of the Spokane Valley by Eli Sanders
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
"I don't know if I want to be here [if gay marriage passes]," by Republican State Senator Jay Rodne of North Bend by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (20) RSS