Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Atheists now dumber than religious people

Atheists now dumber than religious people
February 28, 2012, 06:20:12 PM
"To say something along the lines of 'I'm an atheist; I think religions are not all bad' has become a dramatically peculiar thing to say and if you do say it on the internet you will get savage messages calling you a fascist, an idiot or a fool. This is a very odd moment in our culture. Why has this happened?"

http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2012/02/neo-atheism-atheists-dawkins

WBC isn't even this stupid.

It's totally pointless. Atheists usually talk about tolerance as their reason for being atheist.

And here we have atheists, demanding we all follow them like droids.


Re: Atheists now dumber than religious people
February 28, 2012, 07:46:38 PM
Atheists are like toasters who decide they would do better not being plugged in to the wall socket.
What is left? Physical appearance. All functionality is gone.

Re: Atheists now dumber than religious people
February 28, 2012, 09:10:08 PM
"To say something along the lines of XXXXXXXX on the internet you will get savage messages calling you a fascist, an idiot or a fool. This is a very odd moment in our culture. Why has this happened?"

Your post says nothing about the nature of atheism, and everything about the nature of the internet.

You sir, are a fascist, an idiot, and a fool.

Re: Atheists now dumber than religious people
February 28, 2012, 11:04:39 PM
Dawkins is terrible here and really shows how philosophically unencumbered he is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hb4aanpsx6Q

Re: Atheists now dumber than religious people
February 28, 2012, 11:04:47 PM
"To say something along the lines of XXXXXXXX on the internet you will get savage messages calling you a fascist, an idiot or a fool. This is a very odd moment in our culture. Why has this happened?"

Your post says nothing about the nature of atheism, and everything about the nature of the internet.

You sir, are a fascist, an idiot, and a fool.

Be the interwebs (I would simply say that atheism has been overcrowed) but, don't you agree that (not all) atheists are dumber than ever before? I mean, perhaps we are getting dumber in every aspect, but, in the case of religion, atheism seems specially decadent.

Re: Atheists now dumber than religious people
February 28, 2012, 11:16:56 PM
"To say something along the lines of XXXXXXXX on the internet you will get savage messages calling you a fascist, an idiot or a fool. This is a very odd moment in our culture. Why has this happened?"

Your post says nothing about the nature of atheism, and everything about the nature of the internet.

You sir, are a fascist, an idiot, and a fool.

Be the interwebs (I would simply say that atheism has been overcrowed) but, don't you agree that (not all) atheists are dumber than ever before? I mean, perhaps we are getting dumber in every aspect, but, in the case of religion, atheism seems specially decadent.
Disagree strongly.

As for Dawkins, he is a scientist rather than a philosopher. He has a single central  argument from which everything else he says derives. Namely: all modern religions worship a god of the gaps..  Think of Dawkins more as atheism's court jester than its Plato. I saw him in an excellent head-to-head with a simple southern states American, where he won the argument by using the line "well you I might not be able to SEE evolution, but I can sense it, and I know it's there" (subverting a standard christian appeal to the instinctual "knowledge" of God). He is a troll with tenure and is well worth the money.

Re: Atheists now dumber than religious people
February 28, 2012, 11:53:55 PM
I wonder if the man takes himself seriously. He's certainly aware that being "controversial" is producing income for him, but this jackass is the Dr.Phil of well practiced physics/life science.

Perhaps the modern disillusion with religion and spirituality is an expression of the narcissist protecting his human rights to indulgence and isolation. 

Re: Atheists now dumber than religious people
February 29, 2012, 12:32:43 AM
Perhaps the modern disillusion with religion and spirituality is an expression of the narcissist protecting his human rights to indulgence and isolation. 

I see it the same way.  I might not even call it a disillusion with religion but, to put it in stronger terms, an active resentment toward religion and spirituality.  The crowd wants freedom FROM absolutely everything.  And You-Know-Who is the biggest fascist of them all!

Re: Atheists now dumber than religious people
February 29, 2012, 01:45:23 AM
"To say something along the lines of XXXXXXXX on the internet you will get savage messages calling you a fascist, an idiot or a fool. This is a very odd moment in our culture. Why has this happened?"

Your post says nothing about the nature of atheism, and everything about the nature of the internet.

You sir, are a fascist, an idiot, and a fool.

Be the interwebs (I would simply say that atheism has been overcrowed) but, don't you agree that (not all) atheists are dumber than ever before? I mean, perhaps we are getting dumber in every aspect, but, in the case of religion, atheism seems specially decadent.
Disagree strongly.

As for Dawkins, he is a scientist rather than a philosopher. He has a single central  argument from which everything else he says derives. Namely: all modern religions worship a god of the gaps..  Think of Dawkins more as atheism's court jester than its Plato. I saw him in an excellent head-to-head with a simple southern states American, where he won the argument by using the line "well you I might not be able to SEE evolution, but I can sense it, and I know it's there" (subverting a standard christian appeal to the instinctual "knowledge" of God). He is a troll with tenure and is well worth the money.

Dawkins is good for debating creationists, furthermore, he's good debating against Intelligent Design, which is a debate of scientific theories (ID of course being totally fallible). Otherwise, he is an average not -so-dumb atheist debating against believers in a personal God, nothing special.

I might add that religion is a very complex phenomena, it's not only about the existance of God. Dawkins is not a theoretician or philosopher of academic level in Religion, wheter it is Philosophy, History, Sociology or Psychology. His fans are dumb for considering him more than he is.

There's a a good amount of dumb and fanatical atheists. Even Dawkins himself rejected  a plan of building an atheist church.

http://www.londonnet.co.uk/news/2012/jan/richard-dawkins-rejects-plan-%C2%A31m-atheist-church-city-london.html

Re: Atheists now dumber than religious people
February 29, 2012, 08:18:19 AM
Perhaps the modern disillusion with religion and spirituality is an expression of the narcissist protecting his human rights to indulgence and isolation.  

I see it the same way.  I might not even call it a disillusion with religion but, to put it in stronger terms, an active resentment toward religion and spirituality.  The crowd wants freedom FROM absolutely everything.  And You-Know-Who is the biggest fascist of them all!
I would say it's a disillusion/resentment against authority as a rule. And against goodness, purity, as a rule. I've been seeing this in nearly all aspects of culture, some of which I have noticed myself falling into at times. To illustrate just how commonplace this is, consider heroes. The very concept of a hero is so removed from reality for popular culture that calling any living (and, increasingly, long-dead) human a hero is met with sneers and disbelief, numerous wailings about the proposed valiant's various failings. It seems Steve Jobs hardly died before blog posts started popping up naming all his known personal failings through all stages of his life.* This, I imagine, is equally a case of the equally-popular desire to be seen as counter-cultural - but I think this itself is really a symptom of the same anti-authority obsession.

So, the idea of a hero is now so hostile to our way of thinking that calling a real person a hero is seen as foolish and ignorant, so the only place we accept the concept of a hero is in the realm of fantasy. Movies, comic books, novels. A place where we can excuse our "simplistic" acceptance of the hero as a figure of might and justice by constantly reminding ourselves that it isn't real, and thus we can use said realm to let our ideals flourish in untainted form. But the thing is, even here, heroes are no longer pure. Consider the move in the last five(or so? a completely arbitrary guess on my part) years towards making all remotely dark movies into somber, angsty, spooky parodies of themselves. Consider the characters that inhabit these. I've never read any comic books, but I'm superficially familiar with some of the more modern characters; Sandman, Constantine, etc. They're all anti-heroes. They all seem to be plagued by very immoral natures. Batman became an internet meme under his re-imagination by the guy who made 300(the name escapes me), with his quote about being able to do something amazing because "I'm the GODDAMNED Batman!"

Contrast this trend with what superheroes used to be; representations of humanity's highest possible nature. Superman in particular shows this - and also seems to be one of the last hold-outs, even today, in that his constant re-inventions have yet to show the same degree of pollution as other re-invented heroic characters, such as Tony Stark(not just an alcoholic anymore, but also an incredibly egotistical womanizer and sociopathic manipulator who only performs heroic deeds because they're either fun or protect his financial investments) or Bruce Wayne(tortured childhood, constant battling against himself because he is only a few steps removed from the scum he combats). These characters were, when first conceived, paragons of virtue and honor. They served as examples of what we should all strive to be. And our culture is now so infected with lowliness, with such a disdain for purity, that when we now encounter these original concepts of said characters, they seem silly and infantile to us. Because they're not conflicted -in other words, because they know what they want to be, and completely, determinedly avoid distractions from that pursuit of perfection- they're childish. If they are not constantly struggling against themselves as well as their enemies, they are not close enough to reality for us and so become dismissed. In fact, the very idea of a hero so perfect, so pure in his power, that his defeat of villainy is natural and harmonious(i.e. effortless) seems ludicrous to us. But I say that this is what a hero should be. Not a man who is tormented by the fact he enjoys prostitutes during his off-time. Or, even worse, one who ISN'T tormented by such behavior!

Of course, this is all just in reference to comic book characters. Who cares, right? The unfortunate truth of the matter is that these are the closest things we have to the pagan gods of yore. Nordic more so than Greco-Roman, as the latter were quite immoral as well. Point being, we have become so detached from the idea of authority, virtue, and purity as GOOD things, that we have had to replace what used to be gods with something for which we can justify our admiration and enjoyment with the disclaimer "well, it's not real, but I know that; I just think it's cool." This, apart from making us all into hipsters, also encourages the idea that goodness itself is unreal. Additionally, it encourages man-boyism. Adults may -and, for most of humanity's existence, actively DID- take inspiration from the "unreal." But only children live within it fully. And so this all comes full-circle back to Linnaeus' original quote - indulgence and isolation :)

*Not that I'm saying Steve Jobs is a hero. He made toys for a living. The point is that he was, nevertheless, an influential person -for better or for worse- and the crowd hates it when power of any sort becomes concentrated in an individual, rather than spread equally among the crowd's members. They saw one who had risen above, and immediately began foaming at the mouth. He certainly didn't deserve all the praise he got, but that is irrelevant to my point.

Re: Atheists now dumber than religious people
February 29, 2012, 08:50:33 AM
Dawkins isn't my favorite person in the world, but if I had to choose a side, I'd choose his. According to religious fanatics, and even several people on this forum, not being involved in religion/spirituality/etc. is "decadent" and "hedonistic". Whatever...

Re: Atheists now dumber than religious people
February 29, 2012, 08:54:28 AM
Dawkins isn't my favorite person in the world, but if I had to choose a side, I'd choose his. According to religious fanatics, and even several people on this forum, not being involved in religion/spirituality/etc. is "decadent" and "hedonistic". Whatever...


If hedonism is the pursuit of pleasure, how is the denial of a higher reality not hedonistic? Without that "something more," the highest we can go is pleasure, since it's more enjoyable than pain.

Re: Atheists now dumber than religious people
February 29, 2012, 09:02:31 AM
If hedonism is the pursuit of pleasure, how is the denial of a higher reality not hedonistic? Without that "something more," the highest we can go is pleasure, since it's more enjoyable than pain.

It's not denial.

Most atheists don't wake up one day and reject God on some whim. They really just don't care about taking the time to be religious, because they see no evidence of a specific deity. They can be existentially aware, telling themselves modern life is dull, and therefore seek meaning. However, that doesn't require a belief in God.

Without that "something more," the highest we can go is pleasure, since it's more enjoyable than pain.

Wrong.

Re: Atheists now dumber than religious people
February 29, 2012, 09:30:06 AM
I would appreciate it if you would avoid responding with such single-word counters. It comes off as arrogant and hostile; rude, in a word. While it is possible that you have no qualms about appearing this way, I doubt it, based on some of your previous posts. It is not a sign of weakness to be civil, and I think you already realize this. I welcome your disagreement, but I cannot entertain it if you're not willing to entertain it yourself. Tell me how it's wrong.

Similarly, how does "not being involved in relgion/spirituality/etc." not equate to denying religion/spirituality/etc.? Because the higher reality I mentioned isn't real in the first place? Whether it's real or not is not relevant. One can deny falsehoods just as much as he can deny truths. I fail to see how not accepting something is different from denying something.

I chose the term "something more," as opposed to the term "God," very intentionally. The word "God" seems to have become something of a pariah in our culture. I consider this unfortunate, but also inevitable once the idea of spirituality-without-religion came to be considered a valid pursuit. I find said idea to be egotistical nonsense, as faith is meaningless without ritual to guide and reinforce it, just as ritual is meaningless without faith to give birth and inspiration to it. But I digress; my point here is that it is a mistake to say that because "it doesn't require a belief in GOD," it also doesn't require a belief in anything else of the same nature. To seek meaning obviously does not require a belief in God. But it does require a belief in something more than what is immediately present before you; if one didn't believe that more was available, if one truly believed that there was absolutely nothing else besides what is already available, he wouldn't bother looking for it. We don't search for a second moon around our planet because we truly believe there is no such thing.

They really just don't care about taking the time to be religious...
You speak of the search for meaning as being the result of an existential awareness, but does this quoted statement not seem like an existential crisis in and of itself to you? Is your own atheism really a matter of laziness? I wouldn't exactly say I'm faithful myself, currently. But I had some purely atheist years, and lately I've been wrestling with the question of faith. I won't give you advice on this matter, not only because I would feel presumptuous in doing so -I simply don't know you that well- also because I have yet to arrive at any definite answers for myself. However, this particular statement of yours just seems incredibly... self-centered. And dead. It speaks of a dead soul. "I don't believe because it's too much work." These are the words of someone going through the motions of life, not those of someone who embraces it.

Re: Atheists now dumber than religious people
February 29, 2012, 09:47:43 AM
I would appreciate it if you would avoid responding with such single-word counters. It comes off as arrogant and hostile; rude, in a word. While it is possible that you have no qualms about appearing this way, I doubt it, based on some of your previous posts.

You try way too hard at psycho-analyzing me.

Similarly, how does "not being involved in relgion/spirituality/etc." not equate to denying religion/spirituality/etc.? Because the higher reality I mentioned isn't real in the first place? Whether it's real or not is not relevant. One can deny falsehoods just as much as he can deny truths. I fail to see how not accepting something is different from denying something.

Don't worry, then. I suppose I got caught up in semantics.

But it does require a belief in something more than what is immediately present before you; if one didn't believe that more was available, if one truly believed that there was absolutely nothing else besides what is already available, he wouldn't bother looking for it. We don't search for a second moon around our planet because we truly believe there is no such thing.

Atheism = disbelief in deities
It's that simple. Most atheists believe in something more than is present before them, which is why they regularly enjoy philosophy and science. The senses are limited, and the universe hardly is. A person can, very easily, reject the supernatural and believe there is more to the universe than is readily available. I see a lot of atheist-critics claiming atheists are strictly tied down to some worldview based purely upon their subjective, material observations of the world. That is just a blind assumption.


Does this statement not seem like an existential crisis in and of itself to you?

I'm not having an existential crisis, if that's what you are asking.

Is your own atheism really a matter of laziness?

No. I don't believe in creation, because it's only one out of any number of conceivable and inconceivable explanations for the advent of the universe (the known universe). It's just a stupid waste of time to worry about such things, really.

However, this particular statement of yours just seems incredibly... self-centered. And dead. It speaks of a dead soul. "I don't believe because it's too much work." These are the words of someone going through the motions of life, not those of someone who embraces it.

This extends past the realm of atheism and is a personal subject (probably psychological), so I'm not addressing this.