Religion and Atheism

[Altherion]

I'm starting this thread as suggested in this post. The conflict in that thread came from (more or less) an instance of what Wikipedia refers to as New Atheism. This is a recent movement the proponents of which are actively (and quite vocally) hostile to religion and advocate that others behave in the same way. Some of them tend to attack religion from a scientific perspective which I, as a scientist, find rather embarrassing given the utter unsuitability of science for substantiating such attacks. I can say more on this a bit later, but in any case, if anyone from that thread would like to continue the discussion on whether attacking religions is OK or not, they can do it here.

[ThePrunesThatWasPromised]

Attacking religion is certainly warranted, to a point; where upon it becomes tiresome.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Attacking religion is certainly warranted, to a point; where upon it becomes tiresome.

Is it really attacking religion to point to claims holy books make and say that seems unlikely. Sounds more like debating the merits of somewhat outlandish claims. Yet some how religion gets a pass.

So for instance the actual topic that brought us here: Angels. If you honestly believe there are winged humanoid beings in existence you had better be ready to offer up something better than, "it's in the bible."

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

There are assholes who hold to religion.  Religion as a whole should not be jusdged based on our assholes.  The same is true of those who hold that religions are fundamentally incorrect at their inception.  I don't judge anyone based upon the biggest assholes in the group.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

There are assholes who hold to religion.  Religion as a whole should be jusdged based on our assholes. 

Well, if you say so, Scot.

[All-for-Joffrey]

Is it really attacking religion to point to claims holy books make and say that seems unlikely. Sounds more like debating the merits of somewhat outlandish claims. Yet some how religion gets a pass.

So for instance the actual topic that brought us here: Angels. If you honestly believe there are winged humanoid beings in existence you had better be ready to offer up something better than, "it's in the bible."

Why is it any of your business though unless they're pushing those beliefs on you or others? In the angel thread, this is exactly what you seemed to be doing. I don't believe in angels but I didn't feel the need to go on about it in a thread specifically for people who do. That's like Commodore coming into the LGBT thread and posting his "the bathroom bill is an assault on our fundamental freedoms" BS. In my view, I really fail to see how most of these "new-atheists" are different than Christian or Muslim evangelicals. (Also, one thing I noticed about a lot of new atheists -- but not you specifically Tywin -- is how they often seem to signal out Islam more so than Christianity and Judaism despite the fact that all three holy books basically say similar things -- both good and bad.)

 

ETA: Also, in college I thought it was strange that there were atheist student groups. Organizing around a lack of belief in something with no other commonality always struck me as strange. It almost makes it atheism another organized religion.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I want to believe that the legends of Faries have some basis in reality.  That doesn't make my belief true but it is heartfelt nontheless.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

The tenets of organized religion, pretty much any organized religion, are fundamentally irrational. I actually think that a a kind of vague, amorphous spirituality is perfectly normal, but once you move past that and into the realm of making truth-claims about absurdly specific events for which there is no evidence and can be no evidence - well, then you really do dip into the realm of the irrational. Religion is a cultural force that usually works on a sub-rational level. 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Why is it any of your business though unless they're pushing those beliefs on you or others? In the angel thread, this is exactly what you seemed to be doing. I don't believe in angels but I didn't feel the need to go on about it in a thread specifically for people who do. That's like Commodore coming into the LGBT thread and posting his "the bathroom bill is an assault on our fundamental freedoms" BS. In my view, I really fail to see how most of these "new-atheists" are different than Christian or Muslim evangelicals. (Also, one thing I noticed about a lot of new atheists -- but not you specifically Tywin -- is how they often seem to signal out Islam more so than Christianity and Judaism despite the fact that all three holy books basically say similar things -- both good and bad.)

If only there was like ... some kind of reason that a person might be talking more about religiously-motivated killings by Muslims than religiously-motivated killings by Jews and Christians these days. I don't know. I suspect that such a reason might exist, but I certainly can't figure out what it might be! 

[All-for-Joffrey]

If only there was like ... some kind of reason that a person might be talking more about religiously-motivated killings by Muslims than religiously-motivated killings by Jews and Christians these days. I don't know. I suspect that such a reason might exist, but I certainly can't figure out what it might be! 

Oh idk, maybe because Muslim majority countries are more war-torn than Christian-majority countries and war produces...war crimes/extremist assholes? Philosophically there aren't really any major differences in the three religions based off their holy books. 

[TrueMetis]

 Some of them tend to attack religion from a scientific perspective which I, as a scientist, find rather embarrassing given the utter unsuitability of science for substantiating such attacks.

Well maybe we have different experiences on what's happening, but since most "new" atheists are attacking specific claims, usually involving how whatever given holy book is "infallible" or has revealed whatever scientific knowledge before we discovered it ourselves, a scientific perspective seems like the best option. God in a general sense can't be tested, and most atheists acknowledge this. But most religious people make specific claims, and those can be tested.

Yes, I do believe in Angels.  I'm an Orthodox Christian.

TM,

I agree with TAT that it is rather toolish to bash and mock people for religious beliefs you disagree with.

So your saying we shouldn't mock say, Daesh or the westboro baptist church. Or Ken Ham and Kent Hovind who believe in a no-shit 6 day creation Noah's Flood actually happened version of the history of Earth? We're going to have to disagree on the idea that religious beliefs are not to be mocked. Religious people do not get special exemption on having their bullshit mocked. I don't consider it toolish to bash and mock religious beliefs anymore than it is to bash and mock homeopaths or anti-vaxxers.

The difference is that angels are emissaries of a higher power, not exotic types of animal, human or hybrid creatures. If a person believes in a higher power (and the overwhelming majority of people do), it's pretty logical to assume that such a power has emissaries.

Why is that logical? Most people believe their higher power is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. It would have no need of emissaries.

Why is it any of your business though unless they're pushing those beliefs on you or others?

Well the OP asked a question and Tywin answered. Guy makes a claim in an open forum, other guy rejects claim on open forum. Would you have this problem if Tywin was responding to a guy asking if people believed in homeopathic cures for cancer?

On whether atheists are criticizing Muslims over Christians, I hear tons of conservative Christians bitching that atheists are going after them more than Muslims, so whatever on that front.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Oh idk, maybe because Muslim majority countries are more war-torn than Christian-majority countries and war produces...war crimes/extremist assholes? Philosophically there aren't really any major differences in the three religions based off their holy books. 

Abdelhamid Abaaoud was a Belgian-born EU Citizen. He didn't come from a war-torn country. He made the conscious decision to travel TO a warn torn country to train to be a terrorist so that he could kill innocent people in the name of radical Islam. 

 

[Altherion]

Is it really attacking religion to point to claims holy books make and say that seems unlikely. Sounds more like debating the merits of somewhat outlandish claims. Yet some how religion gets a pass.

So for instance the actual topic that brought us here: Angels. If you honestly believe there are winged humanoid beings in existence you had better be ready to offer up something better than, "it's in the bible."

I think pointing out things that are unlikely is OK, but to answer "Does anyone here believe in Angels?" with "No, and anyone that does is a fool. Stone age ideas should remain in the stone age" goes somewhat beyond that as it immediately insults a substantial number of people.

Also, one should at least understand the ideas that one is objecting to. I don't mean just you personally; the New Atheists are often guilty of this. In this case, the ideas are more from the Iron Age than from the Stone Age and angels are not necessarily winged humanoids (though they're often depicted as such in art) -- they're divine messengers. The word "angelus" in Latin or its Hebrew source "malakh" just mean "messenger".

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TM,

Fair point.  I suppose I would draw a line between people of faith (of whom I am one) who attempt to use faith to claim established facts cannot be true and those who simply hold to their faith without asserting established science is factually incorrect in defiance of all evidence to the contrary.  

[Chaircat Meow]

The New Atheists (Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, and the now sadly deceased C. Hitchens) are/were essentially a philosophical embarrassment.

[Chaircat Meow]

I mean this was embarrassing. And I say this as someone who does not believe Christian revelation is true.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

HMM,

That's a two and a half hour video.  Can you sum up for us what was particularly embarrassing?

[Chaircat Meow]

HMM,

That's a two and a half hour video.  Can you sum up for us what was particularly embarrassing?

You should watch it Scot.

 

 

[ljkeane]

 In this case, the ideas are more from the Iron Age than from the Stone Age and angels are not necessarily winged humanoids (though they're often depicted as such in art) -- they're divine messengers. The word "angelus" in Latin or its Hebrew source "malakh" just mean "messenger".

Does it really matter? Is it particularly rational to believe in either winged humanoids or 'divine' messengers?

[All-for-Joffrey]

 

So your saying we shouldn't mock say, Daesh or the westboro baptist church. Or Ken Ham and Kent Hovind who believe in a no-shit 6 day creation Noah's Flood actually happened version of the history of Earth? We're going to have to disagree on the idea that religious beliefs are not to be mocked. Religious people do not get special exemption on having their bullshit mocked. I don't consider it toolish to bash and mock religious beliefs anymore than it is to bash and mock homeopaths or anti-vaxxers.

That's completely different. They're either pushing their beliefs on other people are using them to enact policies or actions that directly harm other people. (Or just outright killing them in the case of ISIS). So yes, they should be mocked. The angel thread is harmless.

 

Well the OP asked a question and Tywin answered. Guy makes a claim in an open forum, other guy rejects claim on open forum. Would you have this problem if Tywin was responding to a guy asking if people believed in homeopathic cures for cancer?

No because this would be actively harming others based on religious beliefs. Believing in angels does not get other people killed.

 

On whether atheists are criticizing Muslims over Christians, I hear tons of conservative Christians bitching that atheists are going after them more than Muslims, so whatever on that front.

Fair enough. I was specifically thinking of Dawkins, Hitchens, Maher, etc. as the faces of "new atheists."

 

Abdelhamid Abaaoud was a Belgian-born EU Citizen. He didn't come from a war-torn country. He made the conscious decision to travel TO a warn torn country to train to be a terrorist so that he could kill innocent people in the name of radical Islam.

He was still involved in one of the nastiest civil wars we've seen in a while. But we do see some "home grown" terrorists who haven't stepped foot outside of their country -- but most of these are directly recruited and propagandized from people in those countries. In the US, we also see far more more acts of violence and terror from people who aren't affiliated with religion period, let alone Islam: Dylan Roof, any average white loser who shoots up a movie theater or school, etc. So blaming religion (in this instance, Islam) for acts of violence and terror is pretty absurd as said violence/terrorism would be happening anyway. Not that understanding people's motivations isn't important but the "it's because Islam" card is overplayed. As Hayyoth helped us discover in the Paris Implications thread, 55% of of the 4% of ISIS supporters in the Middle East support ISIS for some political reason or other while only 13% of them do so for religious reasons. Come to think of it, this discussion is probably more appropriate to have in the Paris implications thread. I merely added the emphasis on Islam comment as an afterthought to my initial post anyway.