Why atheism is irritating

@odenskrigare,

I have a hard time accepting the individual soul idea

Machines can presumably be conscious (something I changed my mind about), then there's the bundle theory of Hume that says there is no distinct "self", borne out by neuroscience, and so on

@xris,

xris;66786 wrote:

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.

I don't know; I think that the term 'agnostic atheist' is redundant. The new atheists movement is nothing like the Spanish inquisition; let's not be overly dramatic.

@odenskrigare,

Yeah no one's tongue is getting ripped out

@hue-man,

hue-man;66819 wrote:

I don't know; I think that the term 'agnostic atheist' is redundant. The new atheists movement is nothing like the Spanish inquisition; let's not be overly dramatic.

Yea, it's a bit redundant but folks like to assign their own terms and it doesn't hurt anything. I'm curious about this movement thing though; I've read back in this thread and the term remains a bit murky for me. Could you expound on what it is?

Thanks

@Khethil,

Khethil;66833 wrote:

Yea, it's a bit redundant but folks like to assign their own terms and it doesn't hurt anything. I'm curious about this movement thing though; I've read back in this thread and the term remains a bit murky for me. Could you expound on what it is?

Thanks

It's been called the "new atheists movement" by the media. It's basically the movement started by Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, and Dennett to promote secular values, science, rationality, and critical thinking about religious beliefs.

The Reason Project: A Non-Profit Dedicated to Reason

@hue-man,

hue-man;66819 wrote:

I don't know; I think that the term 'agnostic atheist' is redundant. The new atheists movement is nothing like the Spanish inquisition; let's not be overly dramatic.

Redundant, what my views are or the term? It may be over dramatic but they display all the features of fundamentalism.

@xris,

xris;66886 wrote:

Redundant, what my views are or the term? It may be over dramatic but they display all the features of fundamentalism.

The term is redundant, not your views. What are the features of fundamentalism?

@hue-man,

hue-man;66898 wrote:

The term is redundant, not your views. What are the features of fundamentalism?

So how are my views expressed now you have made agnostic atheists redundant? fundamentalist are unbending in their dogmatic views unable to even conceive they may just be wrong and are determined their views will be paramount in any debate.

@xris,

xris;66905 wrote:

So how are my views expressed now you have made agnostic atheists redundant? fundamentalist are unbending in their dogmatic views unable to even conceive they may just be wrong and are determined their views will be paramount in any debate.

Atheism is the naturalist thesis that a supernatural agent (God) doesn't exist. If you don't believe that God doesn't exist, or that God does exist, then you're an agnostic. Agnosticism can be considered to be weak or general atheism because it withholds belief in supernatural agents, but atheism actually argues that God doesn't exist. I don't mind if you call yourself an agnostic atheist, but it's redundant because all you have to call yourself is an agnostic, and agnosticism is a redundant restatement of the fact that all synthetic propositions are subject to doubt.

If the features of fundamentalism are as you stated, then the new atheists movement isn't fundamentalist at all. They're not arguing that they can't be wrong, because it's logically possible that you're wrong about any synthetic proposition. They're simply arguing that unreasonable beliefs should be called by their name, and that these beliefs have consequences. They're trying to make people question the validity of their beliefs, and they don't all argue that religion never has good consequences, though they do argue that religion can have very bad consequences and that we don't need religion to believe in good things. The fact that they're not passive doesn't mean that they're fundamentalists.

@hue-man,

hue-man;66915 wrote:

Atheism is the naturalist thesis that a supernatural agent (God) doesn't exist. If you don't believe that God doesn't exist, or that God does exist, then you're an agnostic. Agnosticism can be considered to be weak or general atheism because it withholds belief in supernatural agents, but atheism actually argues that God doesn't exist. I don't mind if you call yourself an agnostic atheist, but it's redundant because all you have to call yourself is an agnostic, and agnosticism is a redundant restatement of the fact that all synthetic propositions are subject to doubt.

If the features of fundamentalism are as you stated, then the new atheists movement isn't fundamentalist at all. They're not arguing that they can't be wrong, because it's logically possible that you're wrong about any synthetic proposition. They're simply arguing that unreasonable beliefs should be called by their name, and that these beliefs have consequences. They're trying to make people question the validity of their beliefs, and they don't all argue that religion never has good consequences, though they do argue that religion can have very bad consequences and that we don't need religion to believe in good things. The fact that they're not passive doesn't mean that they're fundamentalists.

Then you are not describing my beliefs by calling me agnostic, because you are not defining my beliefs.I believe no benevolent god exists, no argument he does not exist.Does that make me an atheist? I believe its possible that a designer,creator, might exist but we have no way of discovering this engineer..does that make me agnostic?
Whats this new Atheist movement? do they speak for all atheists? are you defending all atheists? if you read my remark i said certain atheists not all of them or these newbies.

@xris,

xris;66919 wrote:

Then you are not describing my beliefs by calling me agnostic, because you are not defining my beliefs.I believe no benevolent god exists, no argument he does not exist.Does that make me an atheist? I believe its possible that a designer,creator, might exist but we have no way of discovering this engineer..does that make me agnostic?
Whats this new Atheist movement? do they speak for all atheists? are you defending all atheists? if you read my remark i said certain atheists not all of them or these newbies.

Then you're an atheist, period. There's no need to call yourself an agnostic atheist because atheism does entail the absence of doubt. In fact, atheism is the result of doubt and critical thinking. The only real difference between the thesis of atheism and that of agnosticism is that the latter ignores the demand of the principle of parsimony (occam's razor). Parsimony demands that supernatural agency be held not to exist until it has been positively verified. Atheism recognizes the fact that knowledge is a practical concept that is subject to doubt and is provisional.

The new atheists movement doesn't speak for all atheists, but I can't say that I disagree with most of what they say.

The rise of the 'New Atheists' - CNN.com

YouTube - The Four Horsemen: Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens (1/12)

@hue-man,

Well i still think that agnostic describes my position more than atheist and adding the atheist makes it more relevant or informative of my view.thanks xris..

@odenskrigare,

... the "agnostic" prefix just kinda tells me he's not an atheist that PROFESSES to know 'there is not...' I'm guessing there are those still about somewhere?

In any case, as I always say, "God bless the atheists!" Very Happy

@Khethil,

Khethil;67064 wrote:

... the "agnostic" prefix just kinda tells me he's not an atheist that PROFESSES to know 'there is not...' I'm guessing there are those still about somewhere?

In any case, as I always say, "God bless the atheists!"

Its in the detail, there is not what? and there might be something.Handles are OK but they never really explain everyone's beliefs.

@odenskrigare,

I think the problem in this regard lies with a political desire amongst the "atheist community" (such as it is) to see people who tend to take a stance of "I don't really believe in a god - I doubt that anyone's perception of what an all-powerful deity might be is close to the truth and there need not necessarily be one anyway" to count themselves as "atheists" in order to demonstrate that such non-theism isn't the marginal social group it is sometimes assumed to be.

In this sense I think the new athiests provide a worthy point of view, as they do encourage a lot of people to admit that they don't believe in this way, and they provide support for those who have undergone bigotry for not professing any beliefs or who require an atheistic viewpoint on the metaphysical questions and answers that theists claim are exclusive to believers ("Where do you get your morals from?" "What gives you hope?" etc.)

The downside of this is that atheists are now guilty of some of the things that actually annoy them about theists - proseltysation, evangelicism and even sanctimony.

Is it possible to explain your religious perspective without indulging in these habits?

So I would say I'm an atheist, because answering the question "do you believe in God(s)?" I would say "no".

Technically it might be argued that I'm an agnostic, because I cannot know God doesn't exist and must therefore answer "I don't know".

However, it strikes me that if this is a fair point then it has to apply to everyone - which would mean anyone with the capacity to doubt would be labelled "agnostic" and only the truely zealous would be anything but "agnostic".

So whilst I think xris can be admired for wanting to underline that he hasn't closed his mind to the matter, I do see it as somewhat redundant to have to constantly reinforce the fact that you don't know there is/are a god(s) although you don't believe in him/her/it/them.

It seems to me that a Christian can admit to harbouring doubts without people saying "well, you're an agnostic then" whilst an atheist who says "I don't know if there is a god or not but I don't think there is" is often pressured into labelling themselves agnostic - which I think underlines an inherent bias in the discourse.

I suppose it's six of one and half a dozen of the other. Athiests would rather see people who claim to be agnostic join their team, whilst theists would rather see atheists move towards their position and so argue that they are technically agnostics.

@Dave Allen,

Yes Dave i fear the fact that i may be judged like so many atheists closed minded and aloof to persuasion.

@odenskrigare,

See, I think that's interesting, because to me an "atheist" should be considered no less capable of doubt than a "Christian" or "Pagan" or whatever.

This is why I stopped designating myself a "teapot agnostic" (after Russel's analogy of god being about as provable as the fact that there might be a teapot floating around Mars) even though it was philosophically satisfying and went back to labelling myself an "atheist" because:

A) It was ballpark accurate anyway.
B) If someone thinks it makes me anymore close-minded than anyone else who adopts a label other than "some sort of agnostic" it's their problem really.
C) Politically, I think it's good to let people know that atheists are not some feakishly small minority, and not let them attempt to diminsh this figure by persuading atheists to label themselves agnostics because it's percieved to be an "open-minded" alternative.

@xris,

xris;67076 wrote:

Yes Dave i fear the fact that i may be judged like so many atheists closed minded and aloof to persuasion.

Sure, and you can blame you? And your desire to append this 'label' with agnostic highlights the problem many of us face culturally these days; that being, that we bear the burden of those who've pushed rudely, towards atheist ends.

This is what I was attempting to highlight earlier; that there's a large difference between saying, "I don't believe in that" and "There isn't!". The former speaks only to his lack of belief while the latter is going to try and prove there isn't any such thing - quite the impossible and irritating task. Thus, many shirk the label 'atheist' as it often brings to mind the practices of the irritating, insistent, "there isn't"-atheist.

Interesting, the subtle overtones such labels bring - it's no wonder we despise them.

Thanks

@Khethil,

Has anyone pushed rudely, really, or do those who just push assertively get labelled rude by the theist majority? The same as black people demanding parity of esteem used to get called uppity?

The "four horsemen" Hue-man posts about above are vocal on the subject, they may even have ulterior motives (it's surely been profitable to have best-selling books on the matter). However, have they really been rude?

Or - if they have - have they been any ruder than pundits on a political subject tend to be? Even Hitchens, who strikes me as the most forthright on the matter, strikes me as intensely mannered and reasonable in comparison to some of the theists he has been paired off with in debates or as part of a set of talking heads on the subject in News programmes.

I also have no recollection of any of these people declaring that "there is no God, I know, 100% certain", or so on...

There are young people I know of, who have maybe the "zeal of the convert" and haven't had to defend their position from some of the more interesting or cunning arguments against it who do come across as rude and ignorant. I'm sure atheists say rude things, or are wholly unpleasant people all round.

However, it makes no more sense to suggest this is a characteristic of athiests than it does of any other group.

@Khethil,

Khethil;67084 wrote:

Sure, and you can blame you? And your desire to append this 'label' with agnostic highlights the problem many of us face culturally these days; that being, that we bear the burden of those who've pushed rudely, towards atheist ends.

This is what I was attempting to highlight earlier; that there's a large difference between saying, "I don't believe in that" and "There isn't!". The former speaks only to his lack of belief while the latter is going to try and prove there isn't any such thing - quite the impossible and irritating task. Thus, many shirk the label 'atheist' as it often brings to mind the practices of the irritating, insistent, "there isn't"-atheist.

Interesting, the subtle overtones such labels bring - it's no wonder we despise them.

Thanks

I'm curious as to where we draw the line between not believing in a proposition and believing that a proposition is false. If you don't believe in a proposition, doesn't that naturally entail that you believe the proposition to be false?

I'm a 'there isn't' atheist, because I believe that there is no God. I'm a naturalist because I believe that supernatural agency does not exist. This isn't an impossible or irritating task for me. Many people have this view of knowledge, that it is this dogmatic, absolute rule that isn't subject to doubt. Knowledge is a practical and provisional concept that is always subject to doubt. The only propositions that are not subject to doubt are analytic propositions. I argue that there is no God or supernatural agency based on the principle of parsimony, the verification principle, and the incompatibility of certain conceptions of God with the universe we live in. I consider it to be knowledge (justified true belief) that God and supernatural agency doesn't exist, but I could be wrong. I have more than enough reason to say that God doesn't exist, but I'm perfectly willing to change my position on supernatural agency when and if it is ever verified to exist. I'm not going to change my position based on peoples' personal experience with the divine (mysticism) or their faith (wishful thinking). Show me the money!!!

Philosophy Forum

Why atheism is irritating

Quick Links

My Account

able2know