Why atheism is irritating

@odenskrigare,

Boagie,

Avatar said that reason was an essential part of the Christian tradition, which implies that irrationality -- of which fundamentalism, fanaticism, and superstition are surely EXEMPLARS would constitute a distortion, if not an actual BETRAYAL of that tradition.

How do you then go from him (or her) saying this to you're extraordinarily intemperate response in which you bizarrely imply that this makes Avatar (whose just praised the necessity of reason) into a defender of theocracy, genocide and "literal" insanity. Did you note, incidentally that Odenskirgare mentioned that he was writing as a NON-THEIST?

And to think people suggest that there might be a modicum of MISUNDERSTANDING in the whole atheist-religion debate!

Please feel free, by the way, to to imply that by mentioning this to you, I must be a secret supporter of Talbian/the unlamented Bush Administration or that I'd like people to be stoned to death for transgressing 2000 year old hygiene norms. I mean, if you represent reason, and I disagree with you, what motive could I have apart from being an enemy of reason?

@LWSleeth,

LWSleeth wrote:

By the same token, how can scientism devotees act like they KNOW physicalness and theories derived from it (such as Darwinistic evolution and abiogenesis) are "facts" (even stated as such by experts like Dawkins), when they really aren't facts yet? No, not all science/physicalist believers do that, but not all theists claim they "know" either. Aren't we talking about a certain radical element in each faction? Anyone, no matter how smart they think their theory is, is deluded if they believe it before it is properly supported by evidence.

But how can, say, a Christian who believes in a creationist theory believe and at the same time not 'know' how the universe was created?

LWSleeth wrote:

You might not believe this, but I have fiercely debated both sides of this issue. In fact, read my exchanges here with some Christians, and you might not be able to tell I am not an atheist.

I believe this.

LWSleeth wrote:

I tend to be a warrior for objectivity.

This... not so much. :bigsmile:

LWSleeth wrote:

Why must one decide on a "side." What is wrong with pure, unadulterated wait-and-see, uncommitted, looking-for-the-truth-fully-supported-by-observation/experience ideas?

You tell me. You have an irrational hatred of biochemical theories of life, origin and evolution, which are noticeably biochemical phenomena.

LWSleeth wrote:

One can't be objective and rule out a conscious universe, or the possibility that physicalness does indeed possess some self-organizing principle we've not discovered yet.

One can be objective and rule out anything as an avenue of investigation that has no evidence or usefulness.

LWSleeth wrote:

Partisan attachment to things being a certain way is the absolute biggest hindrance to truth discovery.

Indeed, and in all walks of life.

LWSleeth wrote:

And in the meantime, why tolerate partisan interpretations at a philosophy site? Shouldn't there be a standard for understanding all sides, a standard for scholarship? A standard for practicing the principles of sound logic, and condemning those who use reason in a sophist manner merely to score points for their "side"? Shouldn't the true philosopher resist hatred, prejudice, superficial study intended to spin the argument in one's favor?

Geez, if I wanted partisan debate, I could've joined a skinhead or nationalistic website. I thought philosophy was supposed to be about the dispassionate, courageous, unbiased search for truth . . . no matter how much it confronts one's personal beliefs and fears.

Not entirely sure who you're getting worked up at or why...

LWSleeth wrote:

Anyone who wants to "control" what the masses believe has assumed they know the "truth" and therefore are justified in manipulating that part of humanity susceptible to indoctrination.

If that were true, it would be scary enough. What worries me is that the opposite is true: that belief is chosen as a method of control for self-serving ends, rather than control chosen as a method of best serving believers.

@Bones-O,

Bones-O!;53515 wrote:

But how can, say, a Christian who believes in a creationist theory believe and at the same time not 'know' how the universe was created?

That seems a one sided question to ask. Are you suggesting there are people, say the REALLY smart ones, who believe in physicalist creation theory and at the same time do not believe they "know' how the universe was created? Or is it that you think the delusion of claiming to "know" when one doesn't is somehow mitigated by having one's delusion be more intelligent than some other.

Bones-O!;53515 wrote:

You tell me. You have an irrational hatred of biochemical theories of life, origin and evolution, which are noticeably biochemical phenomena.

So, if one is skeptical of physicalism, one suffers from an irrational hatred? It isn't the theory I dislike, it is the attitude of "believers" who exaggerate the evidence they have, and condescend as a debating tactic.

However, I gave my reason for resisting physicalism -- twice. Physical processes cannot be shown to self-organize at the quality of organization found in life and consciousness (despite the exaggerated importance pinned on autocatalytic reactions, Miller-Urey, crystallization, Belouzov-Zhabotinsky and Brusselator reactions, artificial intelligence, Bernard cells, proteinoid microspheres, etc.). If biochemistry could be made to enter into the sort of perpetual system-building self-organizing dynamic that originated and evolved life, I'd have absolutely no problem with a physicalistic creation theory.

Bones-O!;53515 wrote:

One can be objective and rule out anything as an avenue of investigation that has no evidence or usefulness.

Oh yes, the dismissal pastime scientism devotees are so fond of. Occam's razor demands it, right? It could never be physicalist believers' propaganda to convince the world they've got it all figured out when they say "Oh no, that can't be, we've already dismissed that."

So "no evidence" eh? Of course you've studied all that mankind has discovered, including, say, the Buddha's achievement, and so when you state there is no evidence it's because you actually know that, not because you've dismissed such accomplishments due to believing you already "know" what is and what isn't.

And there's your concept of "usefulness." I am sure you wouldn't beg the question by forcing any proposal to meet scientism (and therefore physicalism) standards for "useful."

Let's not leave out our favorite subject, how scientism devotees would never promote a blatant distortion, such as that the proof of adaption proves the whole of evolution theory. Yes, we know the evolution of whole organisms did happen since genetic sequencing, fossil records, dating techniques, comparative morphology, taxonomy, patterns of biogeography and so on, clearly show it.

But all informed thinkers also know that only life's development over time, common descent, and that minor adjustments of existing organ systems to local environmental conditions are confirmed as effectively certain. And they know that what caused life's progression from cell to complex organisms can only be linked to adaptive mechanisms theoretically (i.e., not factually). So given that evidence gap between adaption and organ-system evolution, I am certain I must have misunderstood R. Dawkins when he said "the theory of evolution is a fact in the same sense that it's a fact that the Earth is round and not flat."

I say you and other physicalists could not be thinking such things because, after all, if you all were closed, opinionated, a priori believers who think they know the truth . . . why you'd be no better than those ignorant and sanctimonious Christians you all think so little of. :eek:

Bones-O!;53515 wrote:

Not entirely sure who you're getting worked up at or why...

Well, this is a thread on what's irritating about atheism, isn't it? :whistling:

@LWSleeth,

LWSleeth wrote:

That seems a one sided question to ask. Are you suggesting there are people, say the REALLY smart ones, who believe in physicalist creation theory and at the same time do not believe they "know' how the universe was created? Of is it that you think the delusion of claiming to "know" when one doesn't is somehow mitigated by having one's delusion be more intelligent than some other.

No, but there's two points here. One: not all physicists or people interested in physics "believe" in theory; they accept that theory provides models and the models are analogous to reality to the extent to which they reproduce its results. You get people who will make a religion out of science, good scientists even, but this is not the norm. On the other hand, if you are, say, a Christian, you have to accept the Biblical genesis as some level of truth - you can't be a Christian and not believe the Bible is true since it is the most fundamental article of that belief system.

Two: even for those who believe in physical creation theories, they have started from a position of assumed ignorance, studied, investigated and pondered, and eventually reached some intermediate conclusion that is always subject to revision following further information. A creationist starts from a position of assumed knowledge and rejects any possible alternative thereafter, no matter how much information becomes available or how convincing is the evidence.

So if my question is one-sided, it is because a) there is no symmetry across the creationist-scientist divide, and b) that was the side of the question I was interested in. I can see it doesn't suit you to focus on that side, so no problem. Question retracted. I had simply hoped for a more reasonable conversation this time round.

LWSleeth wrote:

However, I gave my reason for resisting physicalism -- twice. Physical processes cannot be shown to self-organize at the quality of organization found in life and consciousness (despite the exaggerated importance pinned on autocatalytic reactions, Miller-Urey, crystallization, Belouzov-Zhabotinsky and Brusselator reactions, artificial intelligence, Bernard cells, proteinoid microspheres, etc.). If biochemistry could be made to enter into the sort of perpetual system-building self-organizing dynamic that originated and evolved life, I'd have absolutely no problem with a physicalistic creation theory.

Well, physical systems do self-organise on pretty much every scale, and can build incredibly complex systems over very short timescales, so I guess this critical limit of 'quality of organisation' is the key issue here. Perhaps you can pin this down for me. As for perpetual system-building, I don't think anyone claims this. The key resources of life (e.g. the Sun) are not eternal. The available resources are degraded as they are recycled. I think you just mean very very long compared with, say, your lifetime.

LWSleeth wrote:

Oh yes, the dismissal pastime scientism devotees are so fond of.

What? If nothing has any justification for investigation, don't bother? I think that's more a matter of common sense, else we'd have to look into every bit of nonsense someone dreamed up.

LWSleeth wrote:

Occam's razor demands it, right?

No. Occam's razor demands that we eliminate assumptions that have no observable consequences. This simply allows us to have theories that are uncluttered by irrelevances.

LWSleeth wrote:

It could never be physicalist believers' propaganda to convince the world they've got it all figured out when they say "Oh no, that can't be, we've already dismissed that."

Let me get this straight... You're saying that unjustified theories are dismissed not because of lack of pragmatism, i.e. they have no usefulness, but because investigating them would undermine the physicalist propaganda along the lines of 'We have the truth?' And you're honestly telling me this is mere skepticism and not irrational hatred?

LWSleeth wrote:

So "no evidence" eh? Of course you've studied all that mankind has discovered, including, say, the Buddha's achievement, and so when you state there is no evidence it's because you actually know that, not because you've dismissed such accomplishments due to believing you already "know" what is and what isn't.

Are you asking about me personally? I have seen no evidence to justify any religious view of creation and enough to allow me reject it, and have such little respect for the rigour and manner of arguments in its favour that I am not inclined to go on a wild goose chase in search of supporting evidence. But I'm always open to evidence that lands on my lap if you care to throw some my way. However, you speak of lack of evidence in evolutionary theory quite often. Do you know everything also?

LWSleeth wrote:

And there's your concept of "usefulness." I am sure you wouldn't beg the question by forcing any proposal to meet scientism (and therefore physicalism) standards for "useful."

I really have no knowledge or interest in scientism despite the fact you have me pegged for one, whatever one is. Useful, in this case, means predict the behaviour of things, for instance to build the technological devices you see around you and are using right now. Do you know of a non-physicalist theory this useful?

LWSleeth wrote:

Let's not leave out our favorite subject, how scientism devotees would never promote a blatant distortion, such as that the proof of adaption proves the whole of evolution theory. Yes, we know the evolution of whole organisms did happen since genetic sequencing, fossil records, dating techniques, comparative morphology, taxonomy, patterns of biogeography and so on, clearly show it.

I have no idea or interest in what your scientism devotees believe. I'm not even sure they exist. Do we have to talk about them on every thread?

LWSleeth wrote:

I say you and other physicalists could not be thinking such things because, after all, if you all were closed, opinionated, a priori believers who think they know the truth . . . why you'd be no better than those ignorant and sanctimonious Christians you all think so little of.

See my first few paragraphs of this post on this.

LWSleeth wrote:

Well, this is a thread on what's irritating about atheism, isn't it?

That they believe in different things than you, yes I understand.

@odenskrigare,

Quote:

The other issue I have with atheists is that their complaints are almost always specific to Abrahamic religions, and frequently specific to Christianity.

Ironic, hmm?

...

Much of the misunderstanding that scientists and illiterate (christianismists) have about christianity can be understood by this verse

http://www.download-pc-game.com/pics/peter.jpg

As you can see,
an in-depth reading of the Bible shows that the 144 hours of creation idea is to make what is expressed quite clearly as a metaphor into a literal claim.

Its not.

The Bible (if you actually read it) makes NO CLAIM WHATSOEVER about the age of creation.

And this is what irritates me about atheists. They mostly will just ignore this verse (or choose to misread it, more likely) and carry on pretending that the 'Bible is wrong because the universe did not take 6 days to form'

And its astonishing how they choose to believe in a literal reading of that verse, when 2 Peter 3:8 clearly shows it to be a metaphorical analogy.

But why do people do this?

Why choose a wrong reading, when the correct reading is in front of your eyes?
Because they would have to backtrack on decades of insults?
Because they would have to admit to making an error in judgement?

No.

Because the foundation of their argument against morality rests on the misreading of Genesis.

And for decades they have lived lives of moral corruption.
They have lived as if their deeds would not be accounted for.
Its their conscience and the tremendous psychological impact of having to admit that they lived without care for others, that makes them ignore 2 Peter 3:8.

If you have defrauded, lied embezzled and cheated on your wife at every opportunity (like Dawkins), then you have decades of guilt which has become a wall between you and your transcendant spirit.

You would rather believe that you die when your body does, rather than face the truth of your conscience.

And worse than that.
Because Christinaity asks for absolute Karma, your position of influence has led you to corrupt, fraud and steal (so long as you do not get caught by the policeman), and teach immorality to others as well.

There is a mountain of spiritual debt piling up.
The sooner you face it, the easier it will be for you.

...

Its also worth noting that people who openly claim to be atheists are going to get off rather lightly compared to those who pretend to be Christian. Be consoled, mr Atheist, that you are not in THAT sinking ship!

@odenskrigare,

The title of this thread is "why atheism is irritating" yet the original poster only list things irritating about specific atheists. Is there anything he finds irritating about the lack of belief in God? If so, what? It seems more likely that he has a problem with a select few atheists and is trying to stereotype the rest of us.

@Satan phil,

Satan;66628 wrote:

The title of this thread is "why atheism is irritating" yet the original poster only list things irritating about specific atheists. Is there anything he finds irritating about the lack of belief in God? If so, what? It seems more likely that he has a problem with a select few atheists and is trying to stereotype the rest of us.

Yeah dumb post tbh, I admit it

@boagie,

The new atheists movement is getting kind of old, but I don't find it irritating at all. Then again, I'm an atheist. The movement of Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, and Dennett is actually what brought me to atheism, but it wasn't very hard seeing that I was pretty close to atheism already. Understand that the new atheists movement is a result of the rising religious fanaticism and fundamentalism since 9/11; both in the Middle East and the United States. I personally believe that it's about time people started speaking up on the issue of religion and the consequence of irrational beliefs. I do, however, feel that the debate needs to now focus on what causes religiousity, and how we can deal with the problems of existence in a more realistic way while still retaining optimism.

@odenskrigare,

Peanut allergies kill more people than terrorism, and most of the worlds billion plus Muslims are generally just trying to get on with their lives. Also, religious sentiment can be divorced from fundamentalism.

@hue-man,

hue-man;66704 wrote:

The new atheists movement is getting kind of old, but I don't find it irritating at all. Then again, I'm an atheist. The movement of Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, and Dennett is actually what brought me to atheism, but it wasn't very hard seeing that I was pretty close to atheism already. Understand that the new atheists movement is a result of the rising religious fanaticism and fundamentalism since 9/11; both in the Middle East and the United States. I personally believe that it's about time people started speaking up on the issue of religion and the consequence of irrational beliefs. I do, however, feel that the debate needs to now focus on what causes religiousity, and how we can deal with the problems of existence in a more realistic way while still retaining optimism.

why make the comment, irrational, thats a fundamentalist remark.Would you accept a believer telling you that you are irrational.If it does not have adverse effects or it is not taught as a fact to the young, why deny those who have the need to believe.As an agnostic atheist im open to persuasion, to an open minded discussion.I know most believers are beyond reversion but then im pretty well set in my beliefs,so are you.

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;66708 wrote:

Peanut allergies kill more people than terrorism, and most of the worlds billion plus Muslims are generally just trying to get on with their lives. Also, religious sentiment can be divorced from fundamentalism.

I'm not even going to touch the peanut allergy argument; I agree that most Muslims are just trying to live their lives, but religious radicalism and fundamentalism is a problem and it needs to be confronted now. Religious moderates need to stand up against fundamentalism more; unfortunately for moderates, the most sacred text of the faith actually endorses radicalism and fundamentalism.

---------- Post added at 04:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:27 PM ----------

xris;66709 wrote:

why make the comment, irrational, thats a fundamentalist remark.Would you accept a believer telling you that you are irrational.If it does not have adverse effects or it is not taught as a fact to the young, why deny those who have the need to believe.As an agnostic atheist im open to persuasion, to an open minded discussion.I know most believers are beyond reversion but then im pretty well set in my beliefs,so are you.

Why call a spade a spade; because it is. If a belief is irrational or unjustified then I'm going to call it by its name. We call plenty of beliefs and actions irrational all of the time, and I wont discriminate in my judgment of what is or isn't rational. This passive approach to religious belief only enables the fanatics and fundamentalists.

Oh, and many people do teach these beliefs as truths or facts to the young. If someone believes that they need to believe in religion to be happy then I'm not going to deny them the right to do so, but I don't believe that it's the only way to deal with reality; it's just the only way we're taught how to deal with the problems of existence from the time we're born.

I'm an atheist; can you please define agnostic atheism to me?

@hue-man,

Well for me i see no signs of a benevolent god as described by accepted religion.I think its possible that the universe is engineered in some way but i don't think its possible to find this creator or describe it.
When i look at the believers i judge them as individuals, as i believe in the majority of cases its the singer not the song.Fundamentalist are believing in the same god as the moderate non conformist,who you might not even knew was a believer.I find a lot of atheists are the modern equivalent of the Spanish inquisitors of old,harsh and uncompromising in their quest for the truth.

@odenskrigare,

You don't have to believe in a creator God, or ethical God, to be at least nominally religious

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;66789 wrote:

You don't have to believe in a creator God, or ethical God, to be at least nominally religious

You surely need something to worship..I admire nature and glory in its magnificence but i don't worship it.

@odenskrigare,

No not really

I don't "worship" my minimal metaphysical beliefs, or anything else

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;66799 wrote:

No not really

I don't "worship" my minimal metaphysical beliefs, or anything else

So how do you define a religious nature.

@odenskrigare,

It's too hard to define, really

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;66805 wrote:

It's too hard to define, really

So am i religious or not...i dont think so.Spiritual?maybe,believe in an afterlife? possibly,in a soul? almost certainly but god? not at the moment....

@odenskrigare,

I have no idea whether there is an afterlife or not. If there is, I can't see how anyone can imagine what it would be like.

I don't believe in any kind of individual spirit, which is attached to a specific person, but I have arrived at the conclusion there is some anima mundi which enables consciousness through deduction.

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;66809 wrote:

I have no idea whether there is an afterlife or not. If there is, I can't see how anyone can imagine what it would be like.

I don't believe in any kind of individual spirit, which is attached to a specific person, but I have arrived at the conclusion there is some anima mundi which enables consciousness through deduction.

I believe in a soul only by experiences and by that i concluded there must be somewhere for the soul to go to.

Philosophy Forum

Why atheism is irritating

Quick Links

My Account

able2know