The New Atheists; The Cult of Science?

[Qfwfq]

INow, the Tomato/tomato thing is because of the different possible pronunciations thereof, which still means the same thing. You can say "tomato" or "tomatoe", it's still the same thing.

Actually, it was initially the opposite: refusal to distinguish agnostic from atheist. It then became a totally different problem and I've had enough.

 

"I like tomatoes, but I don't like tomatoes. I also like tomatoes, especially when used with a tomato or two. I think a tomato is the best thing to build or repair a tomato with, though it's a good idea to use it with a tomato. A tomato that is riding a tomato along the tomato of a large tomato must watch out for the many tomatoes and avoid them. The same goes when a tomato is trying to walk across the tomato."

 

Q - It doesn't matter what historical meanings have been attached to what terms. It only matters what they mean today.

Why do you address Q instead of IN in saying this?

 

B - If you reply to someone's point, you should be aware not only of what they said and meant but also of why they made the point, who's point they were addressing and what that member's point was. I debunked IN's claim. His claim was that the use of the word atheism has historically meant agnostic atheism. I showed that his claim was false.

 

So... I'm the one you criticize for discussing historic use of the terms? :)

 

He coined the term because he did not come to some special "insight", "knowledge" or philosophical "gnosis" for the existence of God - he simply did not know.

No use telling me what Huxley said when I've been using it as grounds for my contention. Agnostic according to Huxley is one who holds no belief or opinion that isn't epistemological: what he meant by gnosis. If you disagree, discuss it with Huxley, and elsewhere.

 

It is said that "agnosticism" is the most reasonable scientific response to the question of God. But it turns out that its not.

I have been abstaining from discussing this here because it too is off topic

 

we should at least agree on the terms being used.

That's exactly what I had attempted. Had you not noticed? I proposed the simplest thing which is reasonable to the purpose of this topic, aside from whether it is widely accepted and based on solid grounds. It has ended up with heckling and baiting, as well as misinformed objections and hair splitting.

 

And BTW, the point of the OP was that some people make a cult of science. It wasn't about what science is, objectively, nor about whether atheism is, objectively, its cult. It would be an interesting and valid topic but molasses and endless heckling have totally prevented the actual discussion of it.

 

Now, folks, I've had enough. :hihi:

[Boerseun]

Q - please put away the baseball bat and throttle back to normal font size. It's just rude - it's a small room and you're shouting real loud, and I've got a mean hangover.

 

I will not discuss this matter any further.

 

Point is, we cannot proceed unless we agree on the terms being used. An atheist is an "a-theist". An agnostic is an a-gnostic. Unfortunately I cannot heed your well-intentioned advice to take it up with mr. Huxley, seeing as the poor guy's been pushing up daisies for a while.

 

Now in your reply to this (if you would care to), please tell me what your definitions of these terms are - don't bother to tell me that mine is wrong. Because its not. It's just possibly different to yours.

 

And then we can continue with the discussion revolving around the "New Atheists: The Cult of Science."

[InfiniteNow]

I debunked IN's claim. His claim was that the use of the word atheism has historically meant agnostic atheism. I showed that his claim was false.

Actually, what you just showed is your ability to strawman... again.

 

How you get that interpretation from these words below is beyond me.

 

[Atheism] is not an assertion that there IS NO god, so you're presenting a very common strawman.

 

<...>

 

what you are describing [is] ("hard atheism"), not atheism as commonly experienced in the populace.

 

What I have found in my own travels is that commonly (not universally, but commonly) when someone of a "theistic" persuasion calls someone else atheist, they are doing so to imply that this is a person who "believes" there is no god. This is not true with a great number of atheists, and I think it is often just a distraction technique to shift the argument and displace their burden of proof. Instead of requiring the believer in god to share any evidence for their position, the believer deflects and says, "Oh yeah, well you don't have any proof that god does NOT exist, and since you

believe

that god does

not

exist, then your position is no more tenable than my position where I

do

believe in god."

 

The idea is, the believer circumvents the request for evidence by suggesting that the atheist has no evidence for his/her "belief" that there is no god.

 

This is where semantics become important. My atheism is not a belief in no god, and I'm inclined to think that most atheists feel the same (I've got no data on this, and could be wrong. I stipulate that). It's just that I find the lack of evidence in favor of the god hypothesis to be blaring, and I go on about my day as if there is no god. I don't assert, "No! God does NOT exist!" That would be silly. I have no way of knowing that. It's just the most likely scenario. Just like I cannot say, "No, there is no teapot orbiting Neptune." I can just say that there is no evidence for me to think there is one there in orbit.

 

However, more to your point, there are some atheists who DO make such assertions, and sometimes an atheist really is someone who asserts certainty on this... that there "IS NO GOD!." I must say, though, that this is pretty rare. I engage in many communities of atheistic people, in many different arenas, and none that I know assert there is no god, just that there is no reason to think there is.

 

I'm not 50/50... I don't think the chances of existence are equal for and against. I'm pretty darned sure that there's not, but will never be certain. Since I am pretty confident I'm correct, I just call myself atheist (instead of agnostic) so as to avoid any confusion. This works well in most cases, since most atheists (at least, the ones I've known) view this issue in a similar way.

 

 

 

Don't you realize yet, Qfwfq, that YOU are the ONLY one arguing this point, and that practically all others involved in this thread accept and agree upon the common definition of atheism, and understand without issue that this common definition is what others mean when they use it here in their posts? You keep talking about people being off-topic, and yet you're the only one here continuing on and on with the point to claim some pyrrhic victory.

 

 

 

 

Now, folks, I've had enough.

Good. Maybe we can move on now.

[Qfwfq]

Q - please put away the baseball bat and throttle back to normal font size. It's just rude - it's a small room and you're shouting real loud, and I've got a mean hangover.

After your conduct, don't complain if I used a tad of emphasis, just get over the hangover. The baseball bat means "Oh Really?" and was due to you pointing your finger at the wrong person, turns out it shouldn't even have been IN but it certainly shouldn't have been me. I used large font for only two words and no more (which is less than some reputed members do) and those two words were: off topic.

 

At least the font made you notice those two words, but it didn't seem to make you notice the message. :doh:

 

Now in your reply to this (if you would care to), please tell me what your definitions of these terms are - don't bother to tell me that mine is wrong. Because its not. It's just possibly different to yours.

You have refused to follow what I've repeatedly said and even supported. You've been getting me not only wrong but even backwards. I've addressed only a fraction of the fallacies here and it's no use. Why should I repeat myself yet again?

 

The essential reason I stepped into this thread at all was that, to avoid the trouble of back then, it was necessary to distinguish "lack of belief" and "belief of non-existence" or however you want to put it, and to recognize that both these things are around, with the latter coming in all degrees going through suspicion, opinion, all the way to strong conviction or even certainty. You seem to be aware of this, even in your non sequitur about which makes more sense for a scientist.

 

Apparently it wasn't IN that said "historically":

Also, it seems rather clear that you sure don't like the word atheist, despite the fact that in the huge majority of times it's used it still suggests agnostic atheism.

Sorry, but I was led into that by someone else, he hadn't quoted you with a link and, having no time to go look it up, I took his word for it. However, I did quote him, which means it was right there, staring you in the face, so you could and should have pointed your finger at him before me.;)

 

G'night folks. :)

 

Edit: Looking back a sec for where the trouble started, I came across this:

I'm actually thinking out loud here more than arguing with you. I've come to the conclusion we need two words meaning:

1. no belief in a god
   
2. a belief in no god
   

Because, really, these imply two different things. Right now atheist has to apply to both. We could go with "distheist" or "untheist" meaning "a belief in no god" or "opposite of a belief in god". But, I don't think those words would catch on very fast :)

 

What do you think?

 

~modest

 

Oh, to answer your cult question. Yes, some people use atheism like an ideology. I think Harris and Hitchens do this. Perhaps they practice "distheism" ;)

Modest, since Huxley had long ago thought the same thing and coined a word and many folks have followed suit, why can't you simply accept it as pre-existing?

[freeztar]

Alrighty then...

 

How can atheists be seen as a cult, nonetheless a cult of science?

I'm still confused about this. :)

[modest]

Modest, since Huxley had long ago thought the same thing and coined a word and many folks have followed suit, why can't you simply accept it as pre-existing?

 

I would personally prefer not using "agnostic" to mean "no belief in a god" because I prefer agnostic and atheist distinguish between knowledge and belief.

 

~modest

[TheBigDog]

I have seen this very conversation here before and it always cracks me up. One of the critiques of religion is that they cannot all be right. So many ways to interpret scriptures, so many ways to frame one's belief. Here we have a group who simply want to say "We do not believe" and they are fighting among themselves about what that really means and how exactly to say it. :hihi:

 

Bill

[enorbet2]

I have seen this very conversation here before and it always cracks me up. One of the critiques of religion is that they cannot all be right. So many ways to interpret scriptures, so many ways to frame one's belief. Here we have a group who simply want to say "We do not believe" and they are fighting among themselves about what that really means and how exactly to say it. :hihi:

 

Bill

 

Eureka! Here we may have the definitive proof that atheism cannot be a cult. Apparently, if the above statement is true, there is less agreement between atheists than there is between different religions. Since a cult implies (even demands) a certain consistency and it seems obvious that there is no such consistency among atheists even at it's most basic level, it doesn't even constitute an organization, not possessing of any bible, clay tablets or temple, let alone qualifying as a cult, or a singular anything.

 

That, however may change, once Joel's Army, Jesus Camp, and especially Doug Coe and "The Family" manage through their intense organization and ruthless bid for power, to dismantle reason based Law, free Science in the schools and workplaces and begin the witch hunts once Theocracy is again the rule of the land.

 

Jesus plus nothing: Undercover among America's secret theocrats—By Jeff Sharlet (Harper's Magazine)

 

NBC News Exclusive: Political ties to a secretive religious group - Deep Background - msnbc.com

 

If these people continue to succeed, this discussion will be rendered moot, if not dangerous to one's health, as they will most certainly define both atheism and science as a cult and have the power to enforce it.

[Tormod]

I find this topic amusing, and I am stunned to see the low level of debate that's going on in this thread.

 

As a lifelong atheist, growing up in an atheist environment, I have some experience with being one.

 

For me it's meaningless when people claim that I'm "actually" religious or that "atheism is a religion too". For me, being an atheist is not something you *choose*, it's simply a result of not having any religious faith at all. No, it does not mean that I take all science at face value (where DOES that argument come from). No, it does not mean that I think all religious people are stupid. And no, it is not a club I ever signed up to join. I don't confess my sins and I don't believe in an afterlife, regardless of which religion touts it.

 

I do however believe many strange things. They have nothing to do with religion. They have something to do with being human and having human senses.

 

IMHO atheism isn't much to worry about. It is not a philosophy, nor is it a refusal to believe. It is not a color. It is not a meaningful way to group people when religion is used as the main categorization.

 

Atheism is not a way of life. It's not a stand. It's not a cult. And it has nothing to do with science.

 

I have been asked if I am proud to be an atheist. Proud of what? And as opposed to what? It's a pointless question.

 

I don't care how people define atheism. To me it simply means that I have no religion. Period. Call me names, label me whatever you like - it doesn't change that basic fact.

[alexander]

I find this topic amusing, and I am stunned to see the low level of debate that's going on in this thread.

 

As a lifelong atheist, growing up in an atheist environment, I have some experience with being one.

 

For me it's meaningless when people claim that I'm "actually" religious or that "atheism is a religion too". For me, being an atheist is not something you *choose*, it's simply a result of not having any religious faith at all. No, it does not mean that I take all science at face value (where DOES that argument come from). No, it does not mean that I think all religious people are stupid. An no, it is not a club I ever signed up to join. I don't confess my sins and I don't believe in an afterlife, regardless of which religion touts it.

 

I do however believe many strange things. They have nothing to do with religion. They have something to do with being human and having human senses.

 

IMHO atheism isn't much to worry about. It is not a philosophy, nor is it a refusal to believe. It is not a color. It is not a meaningful way to group people when religion is used as the main categorization.

 

Atheism is not a way of life. It's not a stand. It's not a cult. And it has nothing to do with science.

 

I have been asked if I am proud to be an atheist. Proud of what? And as opposed to what? It's a pointless question.

 

I don't care how people define atheism. To me it simply means that I have no religion. Period. Call me names, lable me whatever you like - it doesn't change that basic fact.

 

Thank you T, actually I'm not one who participates in religious discussions for the very reason of your first sentence there. But i do rarely intervene and type up a response to give, or reinforce some thoughs, so here we go:

 

I, much like Tormod am surprised that this thread turned out the way it did. Unlike Tormod I don't find it at all amusing actually, i find it sad and disturbing to see people who are usually clear, open, opinionated, exact debaters are having this major, for the lack of a better word, "*****-fit" over this topic. I mean i have seen religious discussions more civil then that, and that's not to say that they are better, or we here are worse, but i think the bar has dropped far too low for what i'm used to seeing here.

 

I think i was lucky, I was brought up in a family that didn't impose religion on to me. That said, my family is kind of oddly religious, they are not consistent, but certainly express views that at some point in their lives something happened that they could not explain, so they just believe in a supernatural power. That said, i am baptized, it is a national tradition, and i have certainly read the scriptures and am well-familiar with the religious process, infact i was an altar boy for a bit at a Russian Orthodox church.

 

But my overanalytical mind could not cope with some opinions that are held as the truth by the scripture, so at age 16 i had to start looking for answers about things that bothered me in religion. Some answers were found, found in history, in science, in other areas, others still have not but bottom line is that i became agnostic (and according to biblical scripture, a heretic).

 

However, apparently unlike some people, i never let my beliefs influence my relations with people. Thus i have lots of religious, and very religious friends, evangelists, devout catholics and protestants, buddhists, suni and shiite muslims, jews, satanists, wiccans, and people belonging to various and more obscure movements. I never have and never will let people's personal beliefs influence my views of them, because while i understand that some people who call themselves "scientists" think they understand everything, they fail to understand simple human nature of people who have not found or can not find, but need a truth; though truth not in the sense of being correct or making sense, truth as in something one believes is what they have been looking for. People turn to religion not because it is cool, popular or provides answers, they turn to religion because it gives them belief in something bigger, which many times is a way to rid oneself of a goal-less life and live for something they believe is important. Psychologically religion is a big stimulation of the super-ego and is an analgesic to the sometimes convoluted, and often depressing ideology of the society or daily life.

 

Various points have been made here by people who claim to understand, that science is a superset of atheism. Firstly getting into a discussion of what came first, atheism or science, is about as dumb as trying to decide, if you pick up a wooden stick, where the beginning of that stick is, and where is the end (the infamous chicken or the egg discussion), i have to say (this is before we touch on the cult part) that atheism can and often does exist without science. You dont have to have an answer for something to not believe in something else, and i say have an answer because i dont want to confuse belief with science as some people here tend to.

 

To expand on tormod's line of atheism is not a cult, i would like to extend it by saying that atheism has no standards, no standard beliefs, even the act of not believing in god does not play out the same way across atheism, for example some may believe there is no god because science explains phenomena that "god" was claimed to create, others just dont believe in god because they haven't seen it's actions in every day life, others yet just dont believe in god because they dont believe in the concept, here are 3 different reasons of many more, and a non-standardized belief system is unlike what a cult is. There are no rules to follow in atheism, and its incorrect to call it atheism because it creates too much of a parallel between the terms, with the ending "ism" that drives it to seem like a belief-based system...

 

I also want to expand on T's questionare of stupid questions I've been asked.

 

How does it feel to be agnostic/atheistic?

So what, you believe we all evolved from monkeys?

 

Religion teaches you good thing, most religions promote good doing, even though people who are religious tend to not follow the teachings and the meanings of the books. Most of the reiligions agree that being good to everyone, being beneficent, merciful, giving, caring, etc, are what brings the best traits of men. Of anything i have taken out of religion and my non-religious being is that regardless of your beliefs, its your actions that speak for what you are truly made of. Kind, giving people who don't belive in god, but believe in good-doing are more highly regarded by the books of religion then the religious leaders who torture and kill to gain power over people.

 

And here I am, an agnostic who takes bits of what makes sense to him, and bits of what is taught in religions and tries to live by the rules he creates, sets standards and tries not to scoop below, without the need to believe in a supernatural being, but not with any disrespect for those who do. I don't have a religion, i dont follow testaments or take things for granted, i do what i see fit for the situation and take (ideally) what's best, rather what seems to me to be the best, out of what i learn from the results.

 

Heretic, perhaps, but i dont take last dollars from the needy to put golden lettering on the front doors of my house...

 

 

 

 

Sura 98 "Al-Bayyina", verse 7 - "... those who believe and do good works are the best of created beings..."

 

Matthew 6:2-6 "So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret."

 

Deuteronomy 6 / Hebrew Part 18 " And thou shalt do that which is right and good in the sight of the LORD..."

 

Oh crud, i have a ton of calls that just came in all at once... well, i'll be running around for an hour all crazy, sorry i cant finish my thoughts at the moment :)

[Tormod]

Great post, Alexander.

 

others yet just dont believe in god because they dont believe in the concept

 

That's a neat way to say it, and it's well intended but IMHO it's interesting to delve into. It's a slightly problematic phrase because

 

1) the arrogant will turn it on it's head and say "see! you accept that at least it's a concept!" and that (to them), will mean that you do have beliefs which tend to be a sort of inverted non-acceptance of non-existing sentiments (ponder that one).

 

Somewhat akin to blue is a color, and since my car is red then you accept that the car is not blue. That means you do believe it *could* have been blue. Completely true and yet completely pointless, because I don't walk around "believing" that red cars could be blue. It's a confusion of knowledge vs faith.

 

2) it forces the word "believe" (even twice) which again takes focus away from the atheist's ignorance of faith. I can't even call it "dismissal", because to me it's never been an issue of wanting to believe, trying to believe, being forced to believe, pondering belief or any other act of religious interpretation of being. "Belief" in the mind of an atheist is a more or less educated conviction, an assumption if you like, that things are so and such, and until I learn differently or experience otherwise, then I'm happy thinking about things in that way and it does not force me to ponder my ways or judge others by it. In this regard it is a completely different thing than moral, which is a different matter altogether.

 

So I'd maybe try to phrase it differently and simply state it as "some just do not adopt religious sentiments simply because the concept of gods has no meaning".

[alexander]

While i have a brief moment here. I understand what you are saying, Tormod, i actually meant to clarify that part, so let me do it since you brought it up.

 

Since atheism does not have standards everyone approaches/thinks or doesn't think about it differently (here "thinking" and "not thinking" are both positive cognitive actions, one is active, one is passive), and yes there are people who approach atheism like an ism and some even preach it, while others, like you, Tormod and me are just atheists just because they are and hold no belief value to it. It's like the term "gay people", some are just "gay", others thoughtfully come to it in a form of a belief...

 

Oh and let's leave science out of the discussion. Atheism is not a belief, it is not organized and thus is not a cult, and has nothing derived from science, which is also not a belief or a cult, but rather a system...

[Tormod]

Oh and let's leave science out of the discussion. Atheism is not a belief, it is not organized and thus is not a cult, and has nothing derived from science, which is also not a belief or a cult, but rather a system...

 

Touché. :eek_big:

[freeztar]

Great exchange, Tormod and Alexander. :eek_big:

 

If I may, throw a monkey wrench at it? :shrug:

 

I think Tormod's atheism is quite unique to people like myself. I grew up a devout Christian (Lutheran) and had to later wrestle these ideas to the ground. So, for me and people like me, it is about rejection of belief. It is about taking a firm stand against any belief in a deity.

Albeit, not so much anymore, but that was the initial struggle and still a valid aspect of my atheism.

 

Oh to have grown up in a secular world...:eek_big:

[Tormod]

So, for me and people like me, it is about rejection of belief. It is about taking a firm stand against any belief in a deity.

 

You're certainly right about that. I think that's quite common for people who are called, or call themselves, atheists. The ability to reject belief is apparently a scary proposition for those who do need to classify atheists as a cult.

 

I just wanted to clarify that there are in fact people who don't wrestle with it at all, and who never had to. It may be a rare thing in this world.

 

It doesn't mean I haven't had my share of people who wanted to drag me into church. We have a state religion in Norway. We've had a priest as our Prime Minister. We have a law requiring at least half of our Government ministers to be members of the state church. Schools can take students to church for Christmas and other religious occasions, although it's finally becoming less of a mandatory thing. Last year we had to fight against our oldest daughter's third grade teacher who brought the entire class to a play set up by a Christian sect in Oslo.

 

But I do wonder how ideas like the "New Atheists" grow. What could possibly be the basis for creating a lame conspiracy theory for a world order run by scientifically correct, godless hunks like myself? :friday:

[freeztar]

You're certainly right about that. I think that's quite common for people who are called, or call themselves, atheists. The ability to reject belief is apparently a scary proposition for those who do need to classify atheists as a cult.

 

I agree. Science and atheism are not mutually inclusive. To push it further into an issue of "cult" is rather absurd. Or, perhaps it is better to say that I have not seen a convincing argument that proves "new atheists" to be the "cult" of science.

 

I just wanted to clarify that there are in fact people who don't wrestle with it at all, and who never had to. It may be a rare thing in this world.

I'm a bit envious of Scandinavian predilections for Reason rather than Faith. Though, the paragraph below is a bit troubling...

 

It doesn't mean I haven't had my share of people who wanted to drag me into church. We have a state religion in Norway. We've had a priest as our Prime Minister. We have a law requiring at least half of our Government ministers to be members of the state church. Schools can take students to church for Christmas and other religious occasions, although it's finally becoming less of a mandatory thing. Last year we had to fight against our oldest daughter's third grade teacher who brought the entire class to a play set up by a Christian sect in Oslo.

Mandated religion seems like a bad idea to me. :(

 

But I do wonder how ideas like the "New Atheists" grow. What could possibly be the basis for creating a lame conspiracy theory for a world order run by scientifically correct, godless hunks like myself? :friday:

 

Indeed! :)

 

(you godless hunk... )

[TheBigDog]

What could possibly be the basis for creating a lame conspiracy theory for a world order run by scientifically correct, godless hunks like myself?

After having shared a hotel room with you I would say more "godlike" than "godless". :( :friday::)