No, I mean things like:
“Oh, I’m going to a church vacation trip this summer”
“Wow, you really still go to church? You actually believe that bullshit? What a gullible fool you are”
Things like that. Again, it’s pretty rare, but I’ve seen it. It’s not nearly as common as this:
“Oh hey, I’m going to a church vacation, you wanna come”
“Nah, I’m not really a church-goer. I’m actually an atheist”
“OMG! I’ll pray for you! We can still save you from burning in hell”
Both are pretty vile, IMO.
You missed the “just”, I think. A pre-requisite for religion is a common spiritual belief system. But it isn’t sufficient - you also need the ritualistic aspects and the cultural normative effects. I don’t believe the US Army is comprised of people with the same spiritual belief system.
Again, it’s just my definition but I find it a bit more useful than the “do you have a church?” model.
Okay, I’ll buy the first case as a militant. Never seen it, and I live in the Bay Area. not a hotbed of faith.
That’s a very good way of putting that. I’d say that even the most ardent atheists I’ve known wouldn’t jump on anyone for saying they’re going to a church event. However, I’ve known a ton of theists who want to save people from hell.
If someone were to jump all over you for mentioning a church activity they definitely are a douchebag. I’m not sure how common those guys are though.
The atheist organizations are mostly for protecting the civil rights of atheists against militant and crazy Christians. They are obscure and not for recruiting . They are absolutely not a church.
Good or bad for what? What interests are we concerned with promoting here?
If your main interest is in converting people to atheism, then militant atheists are probably a good thing. You won’t get far with winning converts unless you are prepared to make a fuss about how and why atheism is a good thing.
Personally, however (and I suspect I share this view with a majority of other atheists), I do not care too much about spreading atheism. Most religious belief, in itself, is fairly harmless. Yes, religion can be harmful when it gets harnessed to other prejudices, such as homophobia, but the connection between religion and homophobia (etc.) is largely contingent. It is perfectly possible to be a devout Christian (or, I think, Muslim etc.), and gay, or gay friendly, and many people are. Likewise it is perfectly possible to be an atheist and a homophobe (or misogynist, or whatever). If you convert a homophobic Christian to atheism, there is no guarantee he will not still be a homophobe.
If, on the other hand, your main concern is furthering the advance of science and rational thought, and public support and understanding of science and rational thought, then I think militant atheism often does a lot more harm than good. If you go around telling religious people, even not particularly devout religious people, that science proves that there is no God (which is not true anyway) or that religious belief is silly and irrational, then, in most cases, they are likely to become more intransigent in their religious beliefs, and, what is much worse, convinced (as they may not have been before) that their religious commitments mean that they must reject science (or important pats of it, notably evolution) and rationality in general.
Historically, with occasional rare exceptions,* Christianity and science have got along just fine. Indeed, ever since Christianity became the dominant religion of the West, until very recently, almost all scientists have been Christians, often quite devout ones, and the research of many of the greatest scientists of history was often largely motived by their religious beliefs. Likewise, the official theology of most of the major Christian denominations, even today, is fully accepting of modern science, including such things as the Big Bang and Evolution by Natural Selection, and teaches that science is not at all in conflict with Christian faith. The notion that everything in the Bible (and particularly the Genesis creation story) must be understood as literally true was refuted by St Augustine, probably the most influential of all Christian thinkers (apart from Jesus himself, and the Bible’s actual authors), in the 5th century AD. It is true that there are, indeed, growing numbers of militant fundamentalist Christians who believe otherwise, but they constitute an aberration from the mainstream Christian tradition, which has always valued rationality (except, perhaps, when it comes to a handful of key items of dogma, such as the Resurrection and the Trinity).
If you want to promote the interests of science in a country, like the United States, where the influence of Christianity is strong, you will do much better to make people aware of the above facts, and thus reassure them that they can safely believe in both Jesus and evolution (and science and rationality in general), than if you tell them (what is in any case false) that Christianity and science are incompatible with one another. When militant atheists promote this message, they are, in fact, contributing to driving people who might otherwise be science friendly Christians, into the arms of the science-hostile fundamentalists. It is no coincidence that the rise of Christian fundamentalism (as opposed to Christianity) is almost entirely a 20th century (and, originally, almost entirely American) phenomenon. It was the scientific triumphalism (and the associated implicit, sometimes explicit, atheism) of early 20th century America (see, for instance, the works of J.B. Watson) that drove many American Christians away from science and towards militantly anti-scientific fundamentalism. That process is still going on, and fundamentalism has moved from being an insignificant, fringe movement to a large and powerful one that constitutes a real threat to science, science education, and even good governance and the stability of the world’s economy!
Frankly, the militant, in-your-face brand of atheism (which has been around a lot longer than Richard Dawkins and his ilk) is partly to blame for provoking this reaction.
*By far the best known and important exception is Galileo’s conflict with, and eventual condemnation by, the Catholic Church. However, the widespread belief that this was evidence of a deep ideological conflict between Christianity (or even Catholicism in its 17th century form) and modern science, or the notion of a heliocentric universe, is almost completely mythological. Galileo, who always considered himself a good, loyal, believing Catholic, was caught up in the power politics of his time, and the claim that his teachings about the solar system conflicted with an (obscure and ambiguous, and doctrinally insignificant) passage in the Bible almost certainly functioned as an *excuse* to censure him rather than being the real motivation behind his downfall.Dawkins has sold me on militant atheism. In theory. In practice, I still can’t bring myself to tell someone what I really think when they run up on me with their religious schtick.
None of those cites you’ve provided are religions.
I am atheist. I am Buddhist. That’s an atheist religion. But atheism is not Buddhism, nor is atheism a religion just like theism isn’t a religion.
I believe he has sold me too. I may not agree with everything he says, I think we do need militant atheists out there. They are our collective voice. Christians and others religious groups have their mouthpieces. It’s only good that we have ours. I have been atheist a long time but I was afraid to discuss it with anyone. Because of people like Dawkins I am not so worried about making the announcement when the JWs visit or my brother starts talking about there being more evidence for Jesus than Napoleon.
I have a great book that contains selected writings by scientists from Copernicus to the end of the 18th century. One striking thing about it is how the mention of God diminishes as we get more modern.
By the beginning of the 19th century there was a significant scientific effort driven by parsons and the like. There were too schools of thought among the religious. The first was that science was dangerous, the second, the one held by these scientific priests, was that science would inevitably demonstrate the influence of God in the world - not in supporting an inerrant Bible, but in supporting things like the flood.
The discovery that the Earth was far older than what was said in the Bible was not a big problem, since it was all metaphor. But Darwin demonstrating that man was not specially created, that man was descended from other animals, not made in the image of God couldn’t be explained away so easily, and the scientific minister position was discredited.
Any claim religion makes about scientific or historical facts can and has been challenged, and most of the time the claims have been discredited. The response ranges from the just say not to science of the fundamentalists to the Catholics accepting evolution but sidestepping the problem that there were no two ancestors of man to commit the original sin. I think that is why we see so many Dopers, more intelligent and logical than most, being deists or pantheists, god beliefs which cannot be contradicted by science.
I do not really disagree with any of that. Increasing scientific knowledge, and the wider spread of such knowledge, has indeed, slowly but surely, led to decreasing religiosity and increasing atheism. Science does not disprove religion, but it has undermined many of the considerations that have in the past, motivated people to embrace religious belief. If it were not for the rise of science (and especially evolutionary theory) there would be many fewer atheists today than there are. By promoting the rise of science we also, indirectly, promote the gradual rise of atheism.
My point, however, is that militant, aggressive promotion of atheism as such, especially if it makes the argument that religion is incompatible with science, tends to provoke a powerful reaction (and, over the past century or so, actually has provoked such a reaction) that is inimical to science and the acceptance of science. Personally I care more about science than about atheism, but by driving believers away from science and towards fundamentalism, in the long run militant atheism probably hurts the cause of atheism too.
True, a blanket statement about science disproving religion is meaningless, because it does not consider the vast variety of religions out there. No one believes in “religion” - they believe in a specific set of beliefs about a god or gods. The variety of these beliefs has increased greatly over the past 500 years as holding a belief not endorsed by a particular religion is much less likely to get you killed.
The Dalai Lama said that if science conflicts with Buddhism, Buddhism must change. There are very few religious leaders out there like him. I understand that the new official Bible commentary for Reform Judaism recognizes that the Davidic Kingdom was not the size given in the Bible. For the most part, though, religions, which at there heart are supposedly handed down by god and thus correct, respond to their tenets being falsified either by denial or by claims that they never thought the Bible was a history or science book. And digging out quotes, like the one from Augustine, supposedly proving this, though the church did not function as if anyone listened to what Augustine said.
Science has disproven religious claims many, many times. This “God of the Gaps” idea that religion speaks only on things that science can’t say anything about (yet) is a propaganda tool, a rhetorical fallback position religion has been pushed to after losing again and again. Religion is nearly always wrong* and science is good at proving it wrong, so religion has been pushed into a tiny little intellectual corner hiding from science.
Hey not according to the Mormons who knocked at my door last week, the Bible has all kinds of scientific facts in it 
Yeah, the purview of religion has been shrinking for a good long time, and it’s almost at the point where God is just the guy who started the Universe and then disappeared. However, in my view, there is a battle of the minds out there, and we need to make sure that the idea of atheism is discussed and kept alive, and religion is challenged at all times to prove itself safe and out of the lives of the non-believers. There is nothing wrong with people believing pretty much anything, as long as they don’t use that belief to affect the lives of others - but is that really possible in the long run?
That is probably too difficult to enforce - I’d be happy with simply saying that public policy should be based on real things. If SSM opponents can justify their position through data on the harmful effects of SSM, then we can have a debate, weighing these effects against the benefits. If they are opposed to SSM because God says it is sinful, they had better demonstrate that there is a god, that he thinks this, and that it matters. It is no more a valid position than an elected official being against SSM because he thinks it is icky. They can be personally against it, but if they vote that way they are betraying their constituents. The few Republicans who voted for SSM in NY are shining examples of people doing the right thing despite personal reservations.
Absolutely, but you have to remember, many people really do believe in God and that there is a perfectly valid reason to reject SSM in the bible. These people are allowed to be politicians and are allowed to vote, and democracy allows the majority to get their way even if it is wrong.
That’s why I think we need people who are prepared to speak up and to confront wrong-headedness. We won’t be able to change the leaders minds, but just letting the voters know there is a different way must be worth something. It also seems that the best way to change people’s minds is to hammer away for a long time, gentle persuasion does not always work, and that’s why I’m for the militant atheists, but with reduced dickishness sometimes.
I’m for whatever methods are effective; though on a personal level, I eschew militancy, mainly because militant advocates are regarded as people that can’t be reasoned with.
I’ve become extremely fascinated with the psychology of changing people’s minds. I’ve been slowly wading through the entire backlog of “Point of Inquiry” podcasts and there is no shortage of interviewees discussing this topic either specifically or tangentially. Though this podcast diet is an extremely superficial (at best) study of the subject, I’m nonetheless forming a few notions:
[ul]
[li]No one technique — hard, gentle, or somewhere in between — is going to be a magic bullet for changing everyone’s minds. The ideal method suggests that each person requires a nuanced approach that takes into account the underlying fears and values they care most deeply about.[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]People who are under attack — whether physical or rhetorical — put up defenses to protect their position and combat cognitive dissonance. That they are irrational is moot, so long as they protect the deeply held belief. This would suggest “brute force” approaches are going to be deflected by all but the most impressionable people or those who are already on the verge of adopting your position.[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]Humans are not predisposed for rationality — it takes supreme effort to approach that frame of mind, and many people — especially those who are inclined to allow for the supernatural — have no interest in making the journey in the first place.[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]The longer (and deeper) a person has involved themselves with a subject, the more self-selective they will be about the validity of new information regarding that topic. This in turn leads to the accumulation of confirmation biases that strengthen those neural pathways supporting the belief.[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]Atheists, priding themselves on their rationality, are more likely to ground their message in logic, simultaneously undervaluing the emphasis that should be placed on emotional responses, a lesson advertisers have understood for decades. [/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]The prevailing general impression of atheists (in the U.S.) is currently quite unfavorable. Those who would advocate a militant approach need to give serious thought whether belligerent action would reinforce this perception; and if so, prescribe complementary measures that can counteract the “negativity quotient.”[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]Solid adoption of an idea is likely to be a gradual process that is mindful of where the potential convert already sits on the “buy-in bench.” In other words, depending on the cognitive distance we have to travel, we may not be able to change a person’s mind in a single stride.[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]Atheism, by definition, is nothing more than a lack of something. It says what we’re not rather than what we are. We should underestimate that our “selling proposition” is to take something away that people hold dearly. No wonder we’re not polling well. It would behoove us to offer an alternative or replacement for the faith-basd comfort they get from religion.[/li][/ul]
I’m not particularly interested in converting believers to disbelief.
But what I am interested in doing is making the point to believers that if they want to be taken seriously, they must be able to DEFEND their beliefs.
Too many believers simply take their religious belief as a given. Everyone believes in God, except for a few weirdos. Believing in God is the natural, obvious, and right way to be. Positions that are grounded in religious thinking can’t be critiqued or questioned. And so on.
The point of being out and upfront as an atheist is to “denormalize” religious belief, to move it away from being the automatic default, and into the realm of being a personal choice, like believing in astrology or UFOs.
Hell, yeah. If we can undermine the authority of the Bible to the point that leaders might say that they personally believe but admit that it isn’t a good source of morality for those who don’t. we’ll be in good shape. Kerry appears to be a good Catholic by his own lights, and I bet he believes in the Bible to the extent that a good Catholic does, but he admits he shouldn’t enforce it as public policy. only as personal policy. Attacking his religion would be stupid and counter-productive.
Yes, but religious claims about physical and biological phenomena are far from being the whole point, or even the main point of religion. People do not believe, and cling to belief, primarily because they think God provides an explanation of thunderstorms or even of the diversity and adaptedness of life. They believe (and want to believe) because they think that Jesus loves them and will take care of them (and other things of that general sort). If they think science is going to take that away from them, they are likely to react by rejecting and becoming hostile to science, and even to rationality in general, and over the course of the 20th century, millions of Americans have done just that, with disastrous consequences.
However, if they think that it is possible both that science can be true (and for the scientific method to be a path to truth) and that Jesus loves them just the same, then they are likely to be much more accepting of science. And, in fact, that is the case. Science (and reason in general) cannot disprove (certainly it has not disproved) the claim that Jesus loves certain people, or even all people. That does not mean that it is true, of course, but it does mean that if your concern is defending science and rationality, rather than proselytizing for atheism per se, it is stupid (as well as false) to pretend that science proves that Jesus doesn’t exist or that he doesn’t love them, and it is even more stupid to sneer at them for using their belief in Jesus’ love as psychological crutch (even if you are convinced that that is really what is going on). That is just going to turn them more and more against science and reason.