I was browsing TA’s link list for some good blogs or sites on atheism – ‘coz believe it or not, these people got me really interested in what they’re saying. Being the open, cynical Christian that I am I tried to learn more on the subject and was seriously considering atheism as a life option. That was, until I found out that quite a number of atheists (not all of them) are no different from a lot of the religious, in that they say
a) You’re wrong, we’re right, and I’ll never accept things otherwise.
One can probably chalk this up to human nature – you can’t persuade anyone. I’m all for fighting for what you believe in (so to speak), but most of it is still “I can’t agree to disagree.” (The atheists just have better arguments when it boils down to facts.)
b) Join the Dark Side. *wheezewheeze*
Convince, [de]convert, repeat. Convince, [de]convert, repeat. I have little more than no respect for those who try to impose their beliefs in God (or their belief of a lack of a God) on other people. I’ll listen to a door-to-door preacher, and I’ll read a discussion on the absurdity of God. But the moment I read or hear “That’s why you should be a ___!” that’s the end of it.
c) All <members of a group> are <extremely critical statement>
I’d have no problem if these people didn’t say All. Unfair generalizations like “All Christians are deluded” or “All Atheists are deluded” seem to be a favorite among religious extremists and fundamentalists, as well as their equally fanatic atheist counterparts. Most/Some/A few Christians/Atheists would be much more accurate – everyone’s a little bit racist.
No offense, I know a lot of good, smart believers and atheists – it’s why I wanted to post this in the first place. But I’ll just admire atheism and go on with my personal, somewhat improbable belief in a God. One who focuses on me and the people I give a damn about, doesn’t give a damn about what I do, but will love me and get me through the day and give me someone to pretend to talk to.
I hate those that do B – especially from the Atheist side. That’s just way too retarded. And um, there are a lot of them in the local blog community. I think that’s the great thing about the personal nature of the choice to be atheist/agnostic, the decision was never made just because somebody said you should be one.
As for atheists making better arguments, well, hell yeah. Read the comments on my blog. It will shame you by association. LOL
I agree; people who stand around saying “you suck” while all the while whining about how those people tell them that they suck…it’s far too hypocritical. I try to see myself as a critic of religion in general, but NOT predjudiced. I have no problems with anyone’s beliefs, so long as they aren’t flinging them at me.
I will critique religion, but I will never say to someone “you’re stupid for believing that”. I see nothing wrong with a friendly argument, in fact, I highly enjoy hearing views different than my own, but the second someone starts assuming things or trying to convert me…conversation over.
I think every ideology, religion, lack thereof, has the potential to morph into something less than attractive on an individual level. If, let’s say, from age 5, one is taught that the Sun is actually a god. They grow up learning about the Sun as a deity and about all his attributes. They do this for 18 years while under their parents’ care. No matter how many times their non-believing friends tell its ridiculous to believe in the Sun because science long ago proved it’s actually a planet, they are likely to continue in that tradition despite it all, except, of course, if they eventually get away from their family and inner circle, go to college and learn about other ways of thinking – as most do. But the firm believers, and the firm non-believers are almost unpersuadable and often have to be self-persuaded by some life event that makes them rethink things. You are dead right when you say that atheists can be as irrational in their attempt to be rational as believers in their attempt to persuade. One last thing: in many religious traditions, it is actually the commission of that tradition to persuade others because if they don’t, the future, according to their particular book, is dire for those whom they fail to “convert.” – everthingafter
“But I’ll just admire atheism and go on with my personal, somewhat improbable belief in a God.”
You sound more like an agnostic to me.
I am an agnostic bordering on atheist, and a pet peeve of mine is a certain breed of a)’s. As an example: a)’s who ridicule creationists, but when questioned, clearly don’t even remotely understand evolution.
Now, I might seem like a hypocrite, since I do ridicule the theory of creationism (the idea, not the people who believe in it), but I do so only after having read extensively on both.— As a scientific theory, creationism *is* quite ridiculous, and belongs more in the realm of speculative mythology than anything else.
What I find annoying are atheists who ridicule religious dogmatists for being ignorant when they themselves know less about their own beliefs than the dogmatists, who at least know what they believe in.
I guess my point is: do some research, and only then arrive at a conclusion. Don’t just say “well. the whole God thing sounds iffy to me, so I’m gonna be an atheist.” Because that’s just as ignorant. And both the atheist side and the religious side could use less dogmatic ignoramuses.
Here’s the three magic little words that we could all learn to use more often and thus make this world a better placer:
“I Don’t Know.”
I try and use them when I can, but ignorance is a hard habit to break.
–
http://noamgr.wordpress.com
[...] Atheists I Don’t Want On My Team The three ideological analogs of the cockblocker for an atheist trying to conduct an intelligent debate with a non-atheist, are described in this blog: http://metacynical.wordpress.com/2008/05/26/dont-even-get-me-started-on-race/ [...]
Well, I sort of see where you’re coming from, so far as a global atheist mindset might go (and is annoying), but on the other hand, in terms of global statements, one like “Anyone who believes in ‘Intelligent Design’ or Creation is ignorant of basic scientific theory and fact” is, in fact, true.
“And so what if it is?” is the question I’d be asking right now.
Will Entrekin – But to them, i.e. those who believe in “intelligent design” or creation, scientific fact is elusive, and more than that, it’s flawed. Why? Because a) in their beliefs, God trumps science every time, and if God created the heavens and the earth and everything contained therein, God is the creator and ultimate dictator of science. And b), science is flawed because in the Christian tradition, we are flawed because of man’s fall from grace. So to them, in an ideology in which God not only created the very idea of science, but can manipulate it, whatever scientific research has achieved in regard to the origin of life is irrelevant. Other than the explanation of a mere accident and cosmic anamoly, we have yet to understand how this world came into being; how or why the atmosphere, environment and elements contained within the earth exist in a delicate balance that, if swung slightly left or right, would have set human history offcourse; and how, after at thousands of years of record-keeping, we have yet to find proof of life on any other planet. Whether you are atheist, Christian, or whatever, it is astounding that we live in an phantasmal and seemingly infinite universe, yet, we are, at least officially, alone. Let me repeat again: alone in an infinite universe; not one single-celled organism that we know of, nowhere. Picture tumbleweeds and a dried up spacescape of photons, rock and gases. Yet somehow, by a stroke of luck, the candle of life is ignited on earth. Perculiar. I think all can agree that there is much to learn.
everythingafter, you make the erroneous assumption that just because we can’t detect what other life may exist* out there, it must not exist
Take it this way: using the best technology we have at the moment, we are yet to directly observe an extraterrestrial earth-sized planet at visible wave-lengths.
How do we know they exist? — one method is to observe tiny periodic fluctuations in the redshift-blueshift of distant stars, and thus deduce the minimum size of what object orbits said star (minimum because the system is most likely tilted with respect to us).
Another method is to watch how a star dims, and thus deduce the size of the object that has passed between us and the star (using spectroscopy, we may even find out what elements make up the atmosphere of the planet).
Though it’s amazing that we now possess the knowledge to be able to detect a planet we cannot even see, there is NO WAY for us to know for certain if said planet has harbored any life (through spectroscopy we may say a planet is a likely candidate if it shows elements that are associated with life).
For all we know, many of the planets we have and will discover are teeming with life. But as far as our knowledge and understanding of science goes, unless these are intelligent beings who have also sent out radio-wave messages into space like we have**, our chances of actually finding out about said life-forms is 0.
And even if we ever do discover any sort of technology that could get us closer to those planets so that we may analyze their properties, it will most likely not be any time near our lifetimes.
Our best and pretty much only bet right now is to look for signs of life within our own solar system, which limits our chances by a factor of… well, I don’t know, billions?
But I went off on a tangent. The problem with creationists and religious extremists, metacynical, is that they also deeply influence public policy and mar it with their ignorant worldviews.— (eg: http://car54.wordpress.com/2008/05/25/top-10-reasons-to-give-texas-back/ )
That this exists in a country that is supposed to be at the forefront of scientific research (and these people do have influence over funding and education), is deeply troubling to me.
–
* many scientists would say “and most likely does;” though there are pessimists. estimates on both sides are highly speculative either way, since we simply don’t have enough information.
** and these messages would have to have been sent precisely at the moment that we are observing the planet! (rather: however many light years ago that planet is away. remember: we are observing the past)— even here on Earth, we have been sending such messages for only around 50 years out of the 4 BILLION that this planet has existed. Had an intelligent race pointed their telescopes at us not a century ago, for all they know our planet is a deserted rock
–
http://noamgr.wordpress.com
“…but on the other hand, in terms of global statements, one like “Anyone who believes in ‘Intelligent Design’ or Creation is ignorant of basic scientific theory and fact” is, in fact, true,” is in fact fallacious (hasty generalization). This is the kind of statement (by some atheists) that is nothing but pure rhetoric bullshit. So err, Anthony Flew who now believes in some sort of creator (he’s a deist) is ignorant of scientific basic theory and fact? Are you kidding me? So, are you saying that the author of “God: A Critical Inquiry” can be fooled into thinking that the notion of a creator is utter nonsense and based on little scientific ground? I am not saying that ID is true or that since Flew believes it, then it must be true. What I am saying is that your statement that “all IDers are ignorant of ‘basic’ scientific theory and fact — is true” is just a very amateurish flamebait one-liner that makes little sense.
@metacynical: There are a lot of theism blogs written by very smart theists, philosophers, and even scientists. You should read them too. Hard to find but usually one blog links to another. Don’t be brainwashed by atheists who spit out one-liners like “God is just like toothfairies, his existence is too imporobable” because these are the kinds of atheist who know little of philosophy and ontology. Like you said, fundy atheists. All they could give are silly one-liners that makes them sound smart and important. Read the likes of Dummet, Berlinski, Keith Ward, (off the top of my head) and others. Berlinski is an agnostic mathematician and philosopher but he finds Neo-Darwinian evolution ridiculous. Just shows that not all anti-evolutionists are IDiots/ignorant of scientific fact/theory as purported by fundy atheists. ;)
Good luck in your choice whatever it would be.
where the hell are these people coming from? LOL.
I mean, how can they be finding your site?!
This could only mean one thing… *shudder*
benj – I found it just by going to the main page, and right there was a post I was interested in.
@meta (“So what if it is?”): nothing, really. I was just pointing out that some blanket generalizations can be true, and giving a better example of such than “everyone’s a little bit racist.” The latter I don’t believe; the former I do.
@everythingafter (“But to them, i.e. those who believe in “intelligent design” or creation, scientific fact is elusive, and more than that, it’s flawed.”): right. Two mindsets I was pointing to as founded upon ignorance. Scientific fact can’t be elusive, because it doesn’t move anywhere–it’s not difficult to grasp. For most who don’t, it’s willful negligence. And for people who see such as flawed, it’s more a question of lack of understanding, because the better people understand science, the less flawed (albeit more incompletely) it becomes.
@Kant: yes, portraying a (true) hasty generalization was precisely my point, but thank you for pointing it out. I’m not familiar with Flew. My intention with the statement was also to note that pretty much anyone with a basic understanding of biophysical chemistry has moved beyond “One who focuses on me and the people I give a damn about, doesn’t give a damn about what I do, but will love me and get me through the day and give me someone to pretend to talk to” as a conception of whatever concept we call God for lack of better words. Because that’s not God; that’s a fairy godfather.
sir, i am only 16 years old and i am easily irritated.
firstly, the Avenue Q reference was merely an attempt at inserting weak humor.
and second, you have absolutely no say in my concept of god or God, or in anyone else’s. noting that “pretty much anyone with a basic understanding of biophysical chemistry has moved beyond … as a conception of whatever concept we call God for lack of better words” implies that you view me as having a lack a basic understanding of biophysical chemistry, and that my concept of God is below those who supposedly have such.
and i don’t like people who do that. just saying.
Ah, sorry, I’ve never seen Avenue Q. Also, I wasn’t trying for a say in your, or anyone else’s, conception of god. And concerning your age versus your knowledge, I have little faith in the secondary education system’s ability to teach very well. Even college prep classes, I found, didn’t prepare one for college so much as they prepared one to take tests. So I meant no offense; I was just saying that there’s a lot out there and to experience, and people who cling to a belief in a divine being who knows the precise amount of hair on their heads tend to be the ones without much experience. I didn’t take it that you did, either; I thought your analysis of the question you posed in the blog was rather astute, and my comment here was just to note that while you’re mostly right, generalizations are worth analyzing, too.
Oh, and you may be young, but I’m no ’sir.’ Just saying.
*snicker*
Would have to say that I agree with Will Entrekin, actually. There are certain encompassing statements that will have truth to them, and when faced with this kind of realization, it’s a very theist thing to do to give a hands-in-ears response like “So what if it is?” or “You’re not right, you just talk pretty.” Kind of reminds me of how my mother always says “Yeah, well,” whenever I give a proper response to her argument that she can no longer refute. It gets frustrating.
So what if it is [true]? Well, then, as far as most atheists are concerned: we are right = we win.
Having said that, I think “militant atheists” give the rest of us a bad name, just as fundamentalist Christians will to their own kind. (I vehemently disagree with Kant’s atheist-bashing comment, though. The willingness to slam us while ignoring the extremists in his own religion really pissed me off.) It’s why I don’t write religion-bashing posts in my own blog, I just write about the many instances when Christians were treating me, a lowly heathen atheist, like shit. Although I have one post that talks about the dumb shit arguments theists like to spew when they think they’re winning an atheism versus theism debate. But that guy was an asshole. Moving on.
I’ve always said that as long as everybody treated each other with respect, what we believe in wouldn’t really matter. So I’m going to have to disagree with noamgr’s suggestion that everybody should say “I don’t know,” because that’s actually an agnostic response. (And let me tell you, based on my interactions with a number of agnostics, they tend to find their own statements to be both superior and humbler-sounding than anyone else’s. Like theirs is the solution to world peace. It’s sneakily pretentious, in a way. Just saying.) I think what we all should agree on is, “I respect you as an equal and as a fellow human being, regardless of your beliefs/race/orientation/etc.”
Apologies for the TL; DR comment, Metacynical. I don’t usually like getting in debates, but having Will Entrekin on the one hand and everybody else on the other kind of compelled me to do this. And in debates, I’m very TL;DR. Hee.
I should clarify that my “I Don’t Know” comment is in respect to:
a) things we haven’t learned as a race.
b) things the person in question hasn’t studied to a satisfactory point of understanding so as to form an opinion on the subject.
So no, I’m no solipsist, (well, solipsism has its place, but is rather moot as a science). And yea, “I Don’t Know” is not the answer to EVERYTHING. My problem is that people don’t use it when they should.
seriously, people. i know religion – or the lack thereof – is a touchy subject but while i’m sure he’s quite flattered by the amount of comments on a single post, i’d have to say you’re all over-reacting to itO_o. just saying.
*slinks away*
No, we have to make it go over 100!
noamgr and Will Entrekin: Good points. I find it highly unlikely that we are alone in the cosmos either, and noamgr, you are right: there’s little, comparatively, that we can detect out there at this point. I was just trying to make the point that the scientific world view and the Christian world view are at odds, clearly, but they are so much so that one can’t understand the other. For instance, I, speaking for the Christian side, said scientific fact To Christians is elusive and flawed. I said this because if one believes that God is the originator of all, that he is all-powerful and that man fell from grace, as the Bible says and as Christians believe, the very process of scientific observation and discovery has to be imperfect because its conducted by less-than-perfect people, not just morally, but in every other way.
Thus, the scientific explanation for the origin of life, how life sprang from non-life, isn’t all that relevant to Christianity, since according to that tradition, life sprang from life. A scientist or atheist or whomever can say such arguments are founded on ignorance, but this only means ignorance based a different world view. Scientists and those who believe in a god or some kind speak in different languages. For believers, it’s inconceivable that the world didn’t spring from an intelligent maker; for others, it’s inconceivable that anyone could think such nonsense.
nice topic in here. :)
i guess ill have to agree with noamgr. better be silent and well, say ‘i dont know’ when we doubt our senses. nothing is ever sure in this doomed oblong (is it really oblong?) world. good and bad, heaven and hell, believers and non-believers. opposing forces for balance must be struck. what annoys me is that ’stuff God hates’ on teenatheist’s site. its just too childish.
im also 16 and ive never considered atheism and im sticking to my religion not because i was raised into it but because despite its flaws its still worth it. hee
to mr. benj. would be really cool if it didXD
orio: hell yeah. 77 to go!!!!
Somehow i missed the point. Probably lost in translation :) Anyway … nice blog to visit.
cheers, Sanctimoniously!!