As an atheist this really saddens me, but it is something I saw happening over the last decade or so... I don't hang out with other atheists my age and younger the same way I don't hang out with overly religious people. They give off the same airs of smug superiority and talk about everyone else negatively.
They're making the point that you can't prove or disprove God, just as you can't prove or disprove unicorns or Thor or whatever fictional thing you want. There's no existing proof either way.
Because of this, simply "not knowing" isn't the rational response. If it was, then you'd have to take it on every single case in which there's no defining proof either way no matter how unlikely the claim is.
This is obviously quite different from flat earth arguments as there is strong evidence against it. You can still deny it if you wish, but then you go against heavy evidence against your position. Even still, one can "bypass" it all by claiming something completely crazy like that Satan is behind all the "proof" that Earth is round and thus none of it is actually real and we're just seeing illusions and evidence planted by him. Again, that's a claim we don't have proof for either way, but it would be absolutely ridiculous to take the position that "I don't know" is the only rational response.
If you can't prove gods exist, there is no reason to believe in any of them. That's atheism in a nutshell. No evidence means no belief, NOT the belief they don't exist. I'm sure you can understand this point, it's not hard.
I'll just start with that I'm not saying Watson shouldn't have felt uncomfortable in the situation she was in, neither am I saying that she shouldn't have called out the behaviour. But these comments make the situation seem more insidious and threatening than how she described it.
Edit: As I earlier said, Dawkins was in the wrong with this one. But I think people should adjust their outrage accordingly. If even Watson accepted Dawkin's apology, I see no reason to look at Dawkins like the devil in this case either.
If you can't prove gods exist, there is no reason to believe in any of them. That's atheism in a nutshell. No evidence means no belief, NOT the belief they don't exist. I'm sure you can understand this point, it's not hard.
Yes, I didn't explicitly mention that part because I hope it's implicitly clear from my post, but blu seems to have problems grasping the concept so maybe I should've been explicit with it.
I did precisely answer what you asked. By some very normal and well-accepted definitions, the existence, or its negation - the inexistence, of a God entity, is improvable. So, do you equate the concept of God to Santa or a fire-breathing reptile? If you do, then we might look for evidences (we could fail). If you, OTOH, accept the definition of God as existing beyond the realm of possible knowledge, then where's the problem?
I did precisely answer what you asked. By some very normal and well-accepted definitions, the existence, or its negation - the inexistence, of a God entity, is improvable. So, do you equate the concept of God to Santa or a fire-breathing reptile? If you do, then we might look for evidences (we could fail). If you, OTOH, accept the definition of God as existing beyond the realm of possible knowledge, then where's the problem?
As I said earlier, we have the same evidence for a god than for any other supernatural thing you can think of: zero evidence. Why is god more likely to be real? And more especifically the personal gods. Are you at least an atheist when it comes to the personal gods from earth, or you also don't know?
As I said earlier, we have the same evidence for a god than for any other supernatural thing you can think of: zero evidence. Why is god more likely to be real? And more especifically the personal gods. Are you at least an atheist when it comes to the personal gods from earth, or you also don't know?
I'm non-religious and I'm a strong sceptic where it comes to any of the deities described in the religions that come to my mind right now. I'm perfectly agnostic to the concept of God, though. By definition ; )
An agnostic theist/atheist is an oxymoron. The very notion of belief deals with the unknown - I believe it's 5 o'clock, though I have no indications it's actually so (I don't have a watch on me, etc)
It is not, these are well defined epistemological concepts, atheism/agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. I can believe something does not exist whilst acknowledging I don't know if they do or do not.
Destroying a mosque, taking part in pogroms against others religious communities, teaching that Islam have no part in India history, political assassination...
Because improvability is a very real thing that is part of everybody's existence, I guess. You could say I effectively equate God and improvability, and that'd be correct.
As an atheist, this goes a long way into explaining why vocal atheists online are so insufferable. But I wont be distancing myself from being an atheist. Instead, we should make clear these people are morphed beyond being atheist and just being arsehats.
It is not, these are well defined epistemological concepts, atheism/agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. I can believe something does not exist whilst acknowledging I don't know if they do or do not.
As someone who is an atheist-ish, and grew up in an very conservative Christian church. I find that the New Atheists reminds me of those people in those churches. They're aggressive, they're snobby, and a lot of them carry some bigotry.
In my opinion, the New Atheist movement is an very non-POC movement. They want to belong to something special, and they act like their shit don't stink. I'm a person who don't believe in a higher power, and that's the point. I don't think atheists should be harassing people, and I don't think atheists should be belittling people's beliefs. That's not how you convert people, or "open their eyes". It feels cult-ish, and in addition, the New Atheist Movement leaders reminds me of televangelist preachers.
Of course a leader in Atheism is going to advocate for Atheism. Dawkins whole schtick is that religion gets undeserved respect. Which is true - it does.
The alt right is hijacking real arguments against Islam as a doctrine, removing the same arguments aimed at Christianity and using it to further their own agenda.
I am going to go on a tangent here but I feel the need. It's not Western Chauvinism to criticise Islam; rather the epitome of leftism. The bottom line is woman/gays are subject to second class and inhuman treatment in Islamic countries. The majority of the left doesn't seem to care out of fear to be seen as racist; falling in to the trap that Muslim people and Islam are inseparable.
Why are gay people thrown, off buildings and stoned to death - religion. How can anyone with any sense of human compassion not voice anger at such barbaric beliefs present in all three abrahamic monotheisms?
Again, you will pardon people for holding on to hateful religious beliefs on the basis of being Muslim but not the alt-right. Can you not see that even Conservative religion(Islam in particular) and the alt right have many mutually barbaric and fatuous view points. Both are anti-gay, anti-trans, anti-woman, pro-life, exclusive beliefs.
Fuck any text that calls for the subjugation and or killing of the innocent in any sentence of their text. Pernicious viruses. Fuck fundamental religion. A morally defensible and rational stance. The Abrahamic religions are indefensible from a humanist perspective.
However...
I understand where the article is coming from. As much as Dawkins/Harris etc try to draw a distinction between Islam as a doctrine and Muslims as people. For propaganda purposes for the alt right, the distinction is non-existent and any argument against unethical practices of Islam etc, is heaped on 'brown' people /Muslims.
It's unfortunate really.
I think it is also important to note New Atheism's stand against Christian theocracy in the USA, which the Alt-Right is allied too.
TL;dr Islam needs to be criticized just not by people with equally backwards beliefs. I am also aware that for many the distaste for Islam becomes a distaste for all Muslims. Which is, admittedly a problem.
Ideas, right. The way I see it god is just another idea, just like santa clause. There's no difference really, they're both human ideas, with no evidence for them being real. Why is one human idea more likely to be true than other if there's zero evidence for them?
It is not, these are well defined epistemological concepts, atheism/agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. I can believe something does not exist whilst acknowledging I don't know if they do or do not.
It is not, these are well defined epistemological concepts, atheism/agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. I can believe something does not exist whilst acknowledging I don't know if they do or do not.
I got your idea from the start. What I don't share is that we need to believe in something if we know its factual status. Belief, as such, is an apparatus to tackle the unknown. Sometimes we have reasons to believe. Sometime we just believe. In both cases we have the need to believe because we don't have sufficient knowledge to be sure, especially if we have to prove our convictions to other rational parties. In those scenarios we express belief -- for the absence of facts. Those rational parties may or may not share our beliefs.
Ideas, right. The way I see it god is just another idea, just like santa clause. There's no difference really, they're both human ideas, with no evidence for them being real. Why is one human idea more likely to be true than other if there's zero evidence for them?
It is not, these are well defined epistemological concepts, atheism/agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. I can believe something does not exist whilst acknowledging I don't know of they do or do not.
Atheist believes no God has revealed himself to man.Hence the Theist part. Atheists are agonistic on a the existence of a God; though many believe it to be unlikely.
Adeist would be someone who believes there is no God(creative intelligent force behind the universe) and is sure if it.
I am going to go on a tangent here. It's not Western Chauvinism to criticise Islam. The bottom line is woman/gays are subject to second class and inhuman treatment in Islamic countries. The majority of the left doesn't seem to care out of fear to be seen as racist; falling in to the trap that Muslim people and Islam are inseparable.
[/b]
This is bigoted and a gross generalization. To says that women are second-class citizen in countries as diverse as Marrueco, Algeria, Senegal, Turkey, Malaysia... is western chauvinism.
I could agree with you if you take a feminist perspective, saying that women are second-class citizen worldwide. Salary-gap, sexual harassment, political underrepresentation of women... are prevalent in every western societies. I mean, Iran's parliament have more women per capita than the french parliament. Singling out muslims countries as a monolithic entity is not a criticism of Islam, it's western chauvinism.
Also, saying that the left is pro-Islam is laughable, it's straight out alt.right discourse on the subject.
Most of western left is accepting muslims despite them being muslims, not because they are muslims. You won't find anybody justifying discriminatory laws against women or saying that Islam is a wonderful religion. In the best case, they are non-hostile and open to discussion. This line of argument is more about the left not being hard enough against muslim. If it's not, in what sense the right is better on that issue according to you ? They usually use women issues in the muslim world to justify discrimination and hatred against muslim in the West.
Doing hot-takes about 56 countries you most likely never visited is more the issue here.
You could read, from an actual arab woman and anthropologist:
I don't know if he's alt-right, but he's always been a smug douchebag. There are plenty of atheists who are upset that he's become the face of atheism because he is an antagonistic dipshit.
Even after all Dawkin's white supremacist and misogynistic bullshit, some of which was linked in this very thread? (Given your generalization of a tiny fraction of a percentage point of extremists onto the religious understanding of billions of people, I shouldn't be surprised.)
Even after all Dawkin's white supremacist and misogynistic bullshit, some of which was linked in this very thread? (Given your generalization of a tiny fraction of a percentage point of extremists onto the religious understanding of billions of people, I shouldn't be surprised.)
It's funny and sad how outspoken atheists on the internet tend to politically overlap with Conservative evangelicals.
As an atheist, anyone who denies the current public face of atheism has a problem isn't paying attention. That's not a problem with atheism, it's a problem with how the most prominent voices for atheism in recent years have been shitty people.
It can be a tough line to toe sometines. One one hand you always try to be respectful towards others and how they came to see the world, on the another I'm very much from the Hitchens school that says shitty, destructive ideas & positions shouldn't get pass just because they're dressed up in a religious bow. There's a lot of misogynistic, homophobic, anti-scientific dreck seeping from that side of the fence that I'll never, ever, be ok with.
The only surprising thing about this marriage of convenience between the most irritating rhetorical style and the dumbest possible ideology is that it took so long to come about. Whatever merits anti-theism may have with regard to social issues, humanism was never the prime mover for New Atheisms most devout adherents. They were after the burst of dopamine that comes from feeling smarter than other people, from exercising some pathetic simulacrum of masculine power, from seeing someone else feel bad and knowing they were responsible.
It is not, these are well defined epistemological concepts, atheism/agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. I can believe something does not exist whilst acknowledging I don't know if they do or do not.
They are mutually exclusive though. You can't say you don't know one way or the other but also you don't believe in God. That would mean you are convinced there is no God. And vice versa. If you're a theist, then you believe in God. It doesn't make sense to say you're on the fence about it. You've chosen a side.
They are mutually exclusive though. You can't say you don't know one way or the other but also you don't believe in God. That would mean you are convinced there is no God. And vice versa. If you're a theist, then you believe in God. It doesn't make sense to say you're on the fence about it. You've chosen a side.
I think the key difference is to claim that you have proof, that you know it, beyond belief.
For instance, i can say that i believe there is no alien life in the universe. That dosen't mean i have any proof of that, or that i know that there is none.
I think it's an important and relevant distinction.
It can be a tough line to toe sometines. One one hand you always try to be respectful towards others and how they came to see the world, on the another I'm very much from the Hitchens school that says shitty, destructive ideas & positions shouldn't get pass just because they're dressed up in a religious bow. There's a lot of misogynistic, homophobic, anti-scientific dreck seeping from that side of the fence that I'll never, ever, be ok with.
They are mutually exclusive though. You can't say you don't know one way or the other but also you don't believe in God. That would mean you are convinced there is no God. And vice versa. If you're a theist, then you believe in God. It doesn't make sense to say you're on the fence about it. You've chosen a side.
If you base what you know off what you can prove, then a lack of proof is certainly reasonable ground for disbelief. You aren't asserting anything by taking the default position.
Not a very good article, tbh, much as I agree that internet atheists are annoying.
Also, "Elevatorgate" was a pretty ridiculous incident all around, both Watson bringing it up in the first place when it was a total nothing of an incident and no wrong committed by either party, and Dawkins feeling a need to "call it out" and inherently sic trolls on her via his status when it was like 10 seconds of her vlog.
They are mutually exclusive though. You can't say you don't know one way or the other but also you don't believe in God. That would mean you are convinced there is no God. And vice versa. If you're a theist, then you believe in God. It doesn't make sense to say you're on the fence about it. You've chosen a side.
I believe X, but Im not certain is a perfectly real opinion to hold about a wide variety of things that are currently unknowable, like what were Druids really all about? Theres not enough historical record, so people cant know for sure. But one can hone in on what we do know and make a case for what one believes.
I like you, Toxi.
You're a real standup poster here but for that you're on your own.
When people in the atheist community started spouting racist BS is when I threw that community in the trash.
Also holy shit why does every one of these threads become about whether atheism is a belief system (it's not, a belief system requires belief) and what the definition of atheism is.
Neither of those discussions is relevant to how so many of the most popular YouTube voices for atheism are now dipping into far right extremism. In a time when secularism is on the rise in the western world, especially among the left, it's fucking awful. The majority of atheists aren't like Sargon of Akkad, so why is this happening?
Not a very good article, tbh, much as I agree that internet atheists are annoying.
Also, "Elevatorgate" was a pretty ridiculous incident all around, both Watson bringing it up in the first place when it was a total nothing of an incident and no wrong committed by either party, and Dawkins feeling a need to "call it out" and inherently sic trolls on her via his status when it was like 10 seconds of her vlog.
Are we really going to have weeks of women coming forward about systematic abuse and assault and still characterize that as total nothing? Watson bringing it up was perfectly valid. It was directly relevant to the talk shed just given that very night. As you said, she didnt even make a huge deal about it. The people reacting to it did, and Dawkins response was particularly distasteful. Its disingenuous to characterize it as a both sides situation.
Imagine if the overwhelming reaction had been more along the lines of sheesh, yeah, that guy sure missed the point of your talk! which is what one would hope for. We wouldnt even remember that it happened.
I did precisely answer what you asked. By some very normal and well-accepted definitions, the existence, or its negation - the inexistence, of a God entity, is improvable. So, do you equate the concept of God to Santa or a fire-breathing reptile? If you do, then we might look for evidences (we could fail). If you, OTOH, accept the definition of God as existing beyond the realm of possible knowledge, then where's the problem?
I believe X, but Im not certain is a perfectly real opinion to hold about a wide variety of things that are currently unknowable, like what were Druids really all about? Theres not enough historical record, so people cant know for sure. But one can hone in on what we do know and make a case for what one believes.
Christ, why are other atheists so damn defensive about this crew?
Im an atheist. Have been for decades. I hate these New Atheists. Its a cheap trick dodge to pretend people in this thread are talking about lowercase a atheists in general.
No, we are talking about the rather loud rise of a New Atheist movement, which has been characterized in no small part by smug loudmouths who seem to think they know better than everyone else.
And while I have no opinions of Dawkins books, hed do well to stop putting his foot in his mouth in public. Hes got a long track record of saying things that range from embarrassing to outright terrible.
Fwiw, yes, NDT is also often a cringe factory when he weighs in on anything outside his direct area of expertise. I'm not lumping him directly in with the New Atheists but if there's one common thread here it's severe Dunning-Kruger effect.
You talk like it's organized, like a bunch of white dudes with tiki torches. Don't lump these people together with other atheists or the word atheist. Some people might like to be like a club, but as you well know atheism is not a religion or an elite group.
People hate vegans because one time they met a whiny person who happened to be vegan or heard about such a person through the grape vine or on tv. People hate animal rights activists because one group, PETA has done reckless stupid things. People have a bad impression of African Americans because they think rap is stupid, or maybe the rare black person they came across in their dominantly white world, didn't hold the door for them, or who knows what.
Richard Dawkins should be known more for writing The Selfish Gene, and The Extended Phenotype, both brilliant observations of the process of evolution that changed how we ask and answer questions when studying self replicating materials like genes or memes.
He's not an idiot, or a knob. Is he a jerk? I don't think so. If he was, does that invalidate his amazing contributions to science literature? Did he apparently creep on someone once and ask them out? I don't really fucking care. I hate how the microscope goes over these scientists as if they're celebrities who should be judged like pop idols.
Totally. But it's tough since most well meaning, non-combative atheists seem to have no interest in using atheism as a communal rallying point. I can't really blame them -- not only doing you risk being marked a fat-fingered fedora wearing twat almost instantly, but it's just an odd thing to 'come together' over. Unfortunately this just means the worst of us are able to organize and make themselves heard regarding a number of issues.
He's not an idiot, or a knob. Is he a jerk? I don't think so. If he was, does that invalidate his amazing contributions to science literature? Did he apparently creep on someone once and ask them out? I don't really fucking care. I hate how the microscope goes over these scientists as if they're celebrities who should be judged like pop idols.
Even though you don't care, I'll inform you that he didn't. He wasn't the one in that elevator. What he did wrong was trying to push aside criticism of sexist behaviour by comparing it to atrocities women face in other parts of the world. Like people experiencing something less than genital mutilation had no right to speak. He also admitted and apologized for this mistake later on, unprovoked.
Sorry to cut out the rest of your post, sounded fair.
