Opinion of internet atheists

[afleitch]

First of all, what is an ‘internet atheist?’ I mean, I’m sure people who say they don’t believe in god are probably non believers the rest of the time too. But I know what is meant by it, because we all know that type of person online. We’ve all met them and they generally are assholes. And that’s why atheists in general are horrible etc etc. Problem is, it seems to apply to any atheist or agnostic who simply states his position partly as a way to detract credibility. It’s okay for people who are religious to talk about their faith and their belief and evangelise but if we do it, it’s arrogant or boring or fanatic. None of us on this forum are telling you ‘you must not believe in god’; we’re just saying that we don’t. If you go on Facebook and your Christian friend can’t even go a single post without saying god makes them happy, god provides for them, they’re praying for you it’s met with general silence, but say that you don’t believe and make a post then ‘whoa buddy don’t be so fanatical about it.’

I lost my faith after years of intense and down right f-cking traumatic personal reflection when I emerged into the adult world and realised people like me in one way through faith didn’t like me and actively stood against me because of something else. I’m not an ‘internet atheist’ or a ‘New Atheist’ or whatever label is used. I reached my conclusion by myself through reading, through asking and even in the early stages through prayer. Most of you in this forum experienced that with me. I can argue my position respectfully and consistently and on this forum I discuss it on this board or in any post where politics and religion overlaps; I don’t shoehorn it in to everything I say. I find immense beauty in reality, awe in the position of our sun as essentially the closest ‘godlike’ object in our presence and I’m passionate about science and human progress. If that leads you to conclude ‘internet atheists lol’ then you know what, you’re the asshole.

[afleitch]

BRTD, you treat religion worse than even the most annoying atheist of Christian fundie does. Because you treat religion as an accessory. To you it’s about what people wear, what people listen to and what they do with their hands a church and how hot the sermon leader is. That’s a twisted sense of religion buddy because you’re a vapid self absorbed sh-t. There’s nothing outside of you. Nothing outside of what you do, what you wear, what you smoke, what you listen to, where you shop or where you live. Everything can only be viewed through a Minneapolis based BRTD shaped prism. You can’t even understand why other Christians believe different things or worship different things or why people who aren’t Christian think your ‘Jesus is cool’ mantra is nothing more than t-shirt slogan psychology with no substance. You don’t care what people believe (or even what you believe) or ever take the time to think things through. If someone talks about a mass, or prayer or way of worship that means something to them because it’s not what you like you dismiss it; ‘Oh he’s wearing a suit, oh he’s playing an organ, I don’t have the attention span to deal with that because life for me is one big f-cking party.’

You’re the one who takes a two storey high dump on people’s beliefs BRTD and you have the cheek to call us boring? You’ve been posting the same topics, polling the same issues and generally shoehorning in things you like into conversations even if it has nothing to do with the subject on here for ten years. Grow up and move on. You think Opebo is cool, because you’re too unoriginal to come up with anything like his posting style and demeanour, or anything original at all. You know what? I’m pretty sure Opebo thinks you’re a dick.

[afleitch]

I've turned anti-atheist over the past several months.  at least anti-"New Atheism".  case in point is a Dawkins quote, saying that theology shouldn't be taught in universities because science has put a man on the moon and theology has accomplished nothing.

Dawkins is not the atheist pope, Tweed.

[afleitch]

I've turned anti-atheist over the past several months.  at least anti-"New Atheism".  case in point is a Dawkins quote, saying that theology shouldn't be taught in universities because science has put a man on the moon and theology has accomplished nothing.

Dawkins is not the atheist pope, Tweed.

So? I'm sure you've criticized prominent Christians before. Dawkins is no different.

That's not what i'm getting at nor he for that matter. Disliking people who are atheist because of Dawkins is a bit like disliking Christians in general because of the Pope or Fred Phelps. It's a silly argument. I happen to dislike the Pope both new and old and wouldn't mourn Fred Phelps passing at the hands of a truck driver but I don't tar other Christians with that brush.

[afleitch]

I think Fezzy hit the nail on the head. Most atheists aren’t really anti-religion for the same reason that Christians aren’t ‘pro-religion.’ It’s just we don’t believe in any god and Christians believe in theirs. Our lack of belief in a god doesn’t define us, nor organise us into a common community because there’s no really commonality amongst atheists as people. I can see why some atheists do start grouping together socially, for the same reason that people who are religious even if they all have different beliefs and gods, can coalesce against atheists in debate. It’s almost as if it’s better to believe in something than to believe in nothing and as fezzy says, because atheists by default don’t believe in god then that ‘hole’ has to be filled by something that’s ‘not god’; atheism. Therefore that's our 'religion' or belief system.

But there isn’t really a hole. Atheism doesn’t provide me with emotional and spiritual succour. My friends and family do that. My pet cat does that. I’m not out there to belittle people who believe they obtain support from their deity or from their belief or from meditation or prayer, it’s just that I don’t. I don’t consciously think that each day of my life involves me not believing in god and I’m getting something from that non belief. I hardly think about it at all unless someone asks me.

[afleitch]

To add to DemPGH, Dawkins is a fantastic writer. He writes absolutely beautifully but he can’t argue without coming across as snippy. Hitchens on the other hand only really got into the debates with which we now associate him towards the last few years of his life. It’s not a subject that really drives him (he was still an old socialist soak at heart) but he made money from it. He never actually initiated most of the debates. Instead he was invited, most frequently by evangelical colleges and universities to put on a show. So he did. If you’ve ever seen him argue against awful theologians like Lane Craig and D’Souza who invited him to debate to essentially be baited by them, he tended to be the one that kept his demeanour and kept things civilised. He often delivered the same sort of argument but the argument against religion or against Christianity isn’t a particularly complex one, nor is it particularly novel. Very few atheists claim that it is. While Dawkins talked about science, Hitchens deferred to enlightenment philosophers, stoists and contemporary thinkers he could get drunk with in his arguments and rebuttals. He used to invoke Celsus. I love Celsus actually, though much of what we have from him is second hand often cited by his critics, because he encapsulates early criticism of the Christian story.

Indeed, given how some people seem to be categorising ‘internet atheists’ then Celsus can be considered 1900 years ahead of the game

"Many of the ideas of the Christians have been expressed better, and earlier, by the greeks, who were however modest enough to refrain from saying that their ideas came from a god or a son of god. The ancients in their wisdom revealed certain truths to those able to understand: Plato, son of Ariston, points to the truth about the highest good when he says that it cannot be expressed in words, but rather comes from familiarity, like a flash frOm the blue, imprinting itself upon the soul... But Plato, having said this, does not go on to record some myth to make his point, nor does he silence the inquirer who questions some of the truths he professes; Plato does not ask people to stop questioning, or to accept that god id like such and such...Rather, he tells us where his doctrines come from; there is, in short, a history to what he says, and he is happy to point to the sources of his knowledge, instead of asking us to believe that he speaks on his own authority. Not only do they (Christians) misunderstand the words of the philosophers; they even stoop to assigning words of the philosophers to their Jesus. For example, we are told that Jesus judged the rich with the saying 'It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of god.' Yet we know that Plato expressed this very idea in a purer form when he said, 'It is impossible for an exceptionally good man to be exceptionally rich.' Is one utterance more inspired than the other?"

Here is Celsus as Dawkins;

‘Christians at first were few in number, and held the same opinions; but when they grew to be a great multitude, they were divided and separated, each wishing to have his own individual party: for this was their object from the beginning. Being thus separated through their numbers, they confute one another, still having, so to speak, one name in common, if indeed they still retain it. And this is the only thing which they are yet ashamed to abandon, while other matters are determined in different ways by the various sects. Their union is the more wonderful, the more it can be shown to be based on no substantial reason. And yet rebellion is a substantial reason, as well as the advantages which accrue from it, and the fear of external enemies. Such are the causes which give stability to their faith. Christians weave together erroneous opinions drawn from ancient sources, and trumpet them aloud, and sound them before men, as the priests of Cybele clash their cymbals in the ears of those who are being initiated in their mysteries. The following are the rules laid down by them. Let no one come to us who has been instructed, or who is wise or prudent (for such qualifications are deemed evil by us); but if there be any ignorant, or unintelligent, or uninstructed, or foolish persons, let them come with confidence. By which words, acknowledging that such individuals are worthy of their God, they manifestly show that they desire and are able to gain over only the silly, and the mean, and the stupid, with women and children. Nay, we see, indeed, that even those individuals, who in the market-places perform the most disgraceful tricks, and who gather crowds around them, would never approach an assembly of wise men, nor dare to exhibit their arts among them; but wherever they see young men, and a mob of slaves, and a gathering of unintelligent persons, thither they thrust themselves in, and show themselves off.’

Here is Celsus as Hitchens;

‘Christians assert that God will be able to do all things but He will not desire to do anything wicked, even if one were to admit that He has the power, but not the will, to commit evil…Their God, like those who are overcome with pity, being Himself overcome, alleviates the sufferings of the wicked through pity for their wailings, and casts off the good, who do nothing of that kind, which is the height of injustice…You mock and revile the statues of our gods; but if you had reviled Bacchus or Hercules in person, you would not perhaps have done so with impunity. But those who crucified your God when present among men, suffered nothing for it, either at the time or during the whole of their lives. And what new thing has there happened since then to make us believe that he was not an impostor, but the Son of God? And forsooth, he who sent his Son with certain instructions for mankind, allowed him to be thus cruelly treated, and his instructions to perish with him, without ever during all this long time showing the slightest concern. What father was ever so inhuman? Perhaps, indeed, you may say that he suffered so much, because it was his wish to bear what came to him. But it is open to those whom you maliciously revile, to adopt the same language, and say that they wish to be reviled, and therefore they bear it with patience; for it is best to deal equally with both sides,although these (gods) severely punish the scorner, so that he must either flee and hide himself, or be taken and perish.’(The part in bold above was actually the straw that broke the camels back for me after a conversation with a Christian preacher)

Here I suppose is Celsus as me;

'Irrational animals are more beloved by God than we, and have a purer knowledge of divinity. A common nature pervades all the previously mentioned bodies, and one which goes and returns the same amid recurring changes. No product of matter is immortal. There neither were formerly, nor are there now, nor will there be again, more or fewer evils in the world (than have always been). For the nature of all things is one and the same, and the generation of evils is always the same. It is not easy, indeed, for one who is not a philosopher to ascertain the origin of evils, though it is sufficient for the multitude to say that they do not proceed from God, but cleave to matter, and have their abode among mortal things; while the course of mortal things being the same from beginning to end, the same things must always, agreeably to the appointed cycles, recur in the past, present, and future. Neither have visible things been given to man (by God), but each individual thing comes into existence and perishes for the sake of the safety of the whole passing agreeably to the change, which I have already mentioned, from one thing to another. Although a thing may seem to you to be evil, it is by no means certain that it is so; for you do not know what is of advantage to yourself, or to another, or to the whole world.… If one were to call us the lords of the animal creation because we hunt the other animals and live upon their flesh, we would say, Why were not we rather created on their account, since they hunt and devour us? Nay, we require nets and weapons, and the assistance of many persons, along with dogs, when engaged in the chase; while they are immediately and spontaneously provided by nature with weapons which easily bring us under their power. With respect to your assertion, that God gave you the power to capture wild beasts, and to make your own use of them, we would say that, in all probability, before cities were built, and arts invented, and societies such as now exist were formed, and weapons and nets employed, men were generally caught and devoured by wild beasts, while wild beasts were very seldom captured by men.”

[afleitch]

The point isn't "science can do bad things," it's that "scientific 'progress' is not inherently good, but its advocates take it to be as such and make little effort to philosophically justify that contention."  There's an arrogance involved in people attempting to bring order to chaos or whatnot and neglecting to realize that a substantial amount of humanity finds refuge, beauty, and grandeur in that chaos that they're beating back and don't want it to vanish.

Put simply, in the battle between trying to further understand the universe and accepting life, nature, and the universe itself as chaotic, beautiful, and terrible unknowable mysteries.  I side with the chaos over the order, with celebrating the unknown over the efforts to "know," and I resent the idea that "science" is ideologically championed as "a good thing" that should be blindly furthered without questioning.

But science is what is 'chaotic' surely? Order is what humans do to make sense of themselves and the world and that tends to be philosophy, myths and self expression. Science is what it is. All we do is try to understand which has a chaotic effect on our understanding of the universe and our place in it especially if it conflicts with per-conceived notions. You argue that science should be a 'sub discipline of philosophy' but why should it be bound to us mere humans? It's bad enough that our understanding of it is limited by our material limits but at least we should have the humility to accept that science transcends us.

[afleitch]

Down with the free expression of ideas!

And I think Ayn Rand is a c-nt

[afleitch]

I find it quite ironic actually. I mean I personally find the Bible disgusting when it's being spat in my face on the street to undermine me, but beautiful when I browse though Psalms. I think the Koran is more beautiful than that.  I doubt BTRD has even read the Blind Watchmaker or the Selfish Gene which is also ironic given his love of memes...

[afleitch]

Ah, but in what context did I mention zyklon-b and thalidomide? And what were the responses?

Al, usually even I get your usually cryptic interventions but I am struggling. Given that you've been asked about three times now perhaps it would be helpful if you just said

[afleitch]

Thanks for bringing up genetic testing, Mikado. That is a perfect example of how science can be used for both good and bad. Genetic testing can be used to target drug therapy in different people and I am very glad it is happening. On the other hand, if it is used by insurance companies to jack up your rates or deny you coverage, it is a misapplication of that technology. Perhaps you feel that it will inevitably happen. That, my friend, is an indictment of humanity, not science. Perhaps you feel new scientific application are used more for bad than good, but that again is an indictment of human beings.

That’s exactly it. Indeed it’s the end product of the thought processes of philosophies/humanities, politics and ethics that drive the application of science for good or for ill. If Mikado’s ‘beef’ is with the misapplication of science, then his beef should be with the very arts and philosophies he’s been trying to uphold as more virtuous, as they lead to individual and collective conscious decisions as to how to apply knowledge (and not all knowledge is scientific). They lead to people using pesticides to kill and maim millions, but they also lead to people using pesticides to alleviate famine. People might have used the mathematical sciences to work out the trajectory of a trebuchet to flatten a town six hundred years ago, but they also applied it to discover the use of perspective in art to create breathtaking landscapes. Even thalidomide is still used today assist cancer victims and sufferers of HIV. If all humans had were rocks and sticks we’d still be divided into people who use them for hunting or for war.