Fresh thoughts on atheism

[Captain Cardio]

I ran into this on youtube and thought this guy was very insightful about atheism and the mentality of theists, among a number of other related topics. I'd highly recommend checking these out if you want some intelligent entertainment for about 80 minutes.

YouTube - Dan Dennet: Award & Speech at AAI 07 pt1 of 2

YouTube - Dan Dennet: Award & Speech at AAI 07 pt2 of 2

It's the same speech divided into parts 1 & 2. Part 1 starts out with an introduction by some lady, then Richard Dawkins, and then the actual speaker, Dan Dennet. Part 2 is all Dan Dennet.

[GSM:Xtreme]

In the event we don't feel like watching an 80 minute video, what's it cover in a bit more detail?

[HelioPrime]

Same feelings on the length of the video.

Doesn't seem so fresh. Most self patting on the back and such. Words meant for an audience of other militant atheists. Same conclusions and wording from other books or speakers for the past 50 years or so.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: HelioPrime militant atheists.

There is no such thing as a militant atheist. Don't be so silly.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Zhavric There is no such thing as a militant atheist. Don't be so silly.

oh really

Militant Atheist

"Militant atheism" is probably the second most popular term used to describe over-the-top atheists. Is it any more viable than "fundamentalist atheism?" It initially appears so, but there are at least two problems with this label. First, militancy is virtually always used to describe a pattern of behavior rather than a viewpoint. Thus, "militant Christian" or "militant Muslim" conjures the image of someone who engages in militant acts. Second, "militant" implies violence. When The Uncredible Hallq searched Google for these terms, he found that they were used primarily to depict persons or groups engaged in violence. This hardly fits any group of American atheists I've encountered. Atheist Extremism I suggest that "atheist extremism" is the term we have been seeking. It carries no requirement of adherence to a particular doctrine, and it does not imply violence. But what does it mean, and what would an atheist extremist look like? The atheist extremist would hold views which would be considered extreme by most members of the atheist community. Like any other type of extremist, an atheist extremist would be irrational. This irrationality would be manifest through cognitive errors such as (and not limited to) the following: Overgeneralization - Drawing grand conclusions based on isolated examples (e.g., "Because one Christian does something bad, all Christians are bad."). Dichotomous Thinking - Framing the world in terms of absolutes without acknowledging meaningful gradations (e.g., "Atheists are smart; believers are stupid."). Disqualifying the Positive - Rejecting positive experiences as somehow not counting in order to preserve one's negative view of some group (e.g., "Christians may give a lot to charity but only to promote their agenda of brainwashing."). Through irrationality, the atheist extremist would maintain his or her position by selectively focusing on supportive evidence while ignoring or explaining away contradictory evidence. Attempts to question his or her worldview would be experienced as personal attacks and would solidify extreme positions. Such an individual would form an intense emotional attachment to his or her viewpoint which would override that justified by evidence and reason.

[Jack]

Like any other type of extremist, an atheist extremist would be irrational. This irrationality would be manifest through cognitive errors such as (and not limited to) the following: Overgeneralization - Drawing grand conclusions based on isolated examples. Dichotomous Thinking - Framing the world in terms of absolutes without acknowledging meaningful gradations. Disqualifying the Positive - Rejecting positive experiences as somehow not counting in order to preserve one's negative view of some group.

Yet aren't these same behaviors common to theistic belief? And I don't mean extreme theistic belief, but mainstream belief?

So when atheists exhibit these behaviors they're irrational cognitive errors, but when the religious behave likewise it's not?

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Isherwood Yet aren't these same behaviors common to theistic belief? And I don't mean extreme theistic belief, but mainstream belief? So when atheists exhibit these behaviors they're irrational cognitive errors, but when the religious behave likewise it's not?

I never claimed christians were not guilty. The text does mention militant or fundamentalist christians as guilt of the same traits. The words are just meant to spread a little insight since those same shortcomings are used all the time but from an atheist point of view acting as if he/she is above question.

Example: It has commonly happened on these forums where someone will attack on the extreme absolutes. Such as attacking one fundie group to represent all christians in general.

[Jack]

The text does mention militant or fundamentalist christians as guilt of the same traits.

Not really. What it says is, "Thus, "militant Christian" or "militant Muslim" conjures the image of someone who engages in militant acts." I couldn't find the original post at the link you posted, so I can only go on the quotation.

My other disagreement with that quote is to the following:

the atheist extremist would maintain his or her position by selectively focusing on supportive evidence while ignoring or explaining away contradictory evidence. Attempts to question his or her worldview would be experienced as personal attacks and would solidify extreme positions. Such an individual would form an intense emotional attachment to his or her viewpoint which would override that justified by evidence and reason.

While I firmly question anyone clinging to their opinions in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence, there needs to be overwhelming contradictory evidence for this to apply. Atheism contends that there is no physical or irrefutable evidence to support the contention that gods exist. Is there contradictory evidence to this position? Have indeed theists presented verifiable evidence to support their claim that gods are real?

The person quoted in basing his assumptions on a misunderstanding of what atheism is. He's operating from the definition of atheism as supplied by theists. Since the basis for his statements is faulty, the conclusion he reaches is questionable as well.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Isherwood While I firmly question anyone clinging to their opinions in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence, there needs to be overwhelming contradictory evidence for this to apply. Atheism contends that there is no physical or irrefutable evidence to support the contention that gods exist. Is there contradictory evidence to this position? Have indeed theists presented verifiable evidence to support their claim that gods are real? The person quoted in basing his assumptions on a misunderstanding of what atheism is. He's operating from the definition of atheism as supplied by theists. Since the basis for his statements is faulty, the conclusion he reaches is questionable as well.

Yet what (same/many) atheists do is extend their own perception to everyone else. They (ask/demand) that EVERYONE view religion in the same view, demanding absolute, verifiable evidence.

What the atheists tries to do is break down the debate and demand everyone view god as a scientific hypothesis, which clearly the other side will not agree to so hence the debate is useless.

Your doing just that. By using the stance of massive and overwhelming evidence to your side because the other side has no evidence that you demand.

[Halofan48]

Ah, a generalization. If an atheist is in a debate about whether or not there is a a god, yes, they will ask for proof. But other then that, many atheists mind their own business. Many are fine that other people have other beliefs, and wont go preaching theirs around.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Halofan48 Ah, a generalization. If an atheist is in a debate about whether or not there is a a god, yes, they will ask for proof. But other then that, many atheists mind their own business. Many are fine that other people have other beliefs, and wont go preaching theirs around.

Another example !

See? It's a common theme. Anytime a debate is brought up someone will drag in a negative against the theists. Or focus on a negative aspect. It's a true sign of "extremist" atheism.

This thread wasn't about minding one's own business yet someone felt the need to drag it into play. A perfect example of extremism, by dragging a negative into play when the subject wasn't being spoken about.

[Halofan48]

I'm sorry, but i don't see anything negative about Theists in my post. What caused you to make that assumption?

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Halofan48 Ah, a generalization. If an atheist is in a debate about whether or not there is a a god, yes, they will ask for proof. But other then that, many atheists mind their own business. Many are fine that other people have other beliefs, and wont go preaching theirs around.

Note the bold.

And yes, you referred to atheists as "many" don't go around preaching their view, in direct reference to theists. Most theists don't "preach" but you infer that with your comment.

[Halofan48]

I did not mean to infer that, so i'm sorry you came to that conclusion. I know most theists don't preach to others (and I use preach as a term describing one trying to spread their beliefs to another, not just theistic beliefs).

[triad]

Quote by: HelioPrime Note the bold. And yes, you referred to atheists as "many" don't go around preaching their view, in direct reference to theists. Most theists don't "preach" but you infer that with your comment.

Oh please.

It gets harder and harder to tolerate your selective quoting. He didn't infer that with his comment, you just said he did to help your arguement. In context, he is saying not all atheists are as bad as YOU make them out to be, then you turn it around on him like he is trashing theists?? If we all used this method we'd be butchering each other's quotes and talking nonsense.

You're everything you claim you don't like about other people.


Back on topic, however...

I also do not want to watch 80 minutes of video. There is no fresh thinking on atheism, its always going to be the same thing: There is no god. Pretty simple. If the video goes into how that type of thinking is reflected in individuals then I really don't want to watch it. Too stereotypical, as I sit here and stereotype a video that I haven't even seen yet. Yes, I am a hypocrite... but thats this week's theme.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: triad Oh please. It gets harder and harder to tolerate your selective quoting.

Easier to read selective quoting rather than having the scroll down entire paragraphs you've already read from the post before!

He didn't infer that with his comment, you just said he did to help your arguement. In context, he is saying not all atheists are as bad as YOU make them out to be, then you turn it around on him like he is trashing theists?? If we all used this method we'd be butchering each other's quotes and talking nonsense.

Oh please. Anyone going to hell for blatant disbelief is the same

jk!

Back on topic, however... I also do not want to watch 80 minutes of video. There is no fresh thinking on atheism, its always going to be the same thing: There is no god. Pretty simple. If the video goes into how that type of thinking is reflected in individuals then I really don't want to watch it. Too stereotypical, as I sit here and stereotype a video that I haven't even seen yet. Yes, I am a hypocrite... but thats this week's theme.

Ah going to hell for being a hypocrite also I see

[Jack]

What the atheists tries to do is break down the debate and demand everyone view god as a scientific hypothesis, which clearly the other side will not agree to so hence the debate is useless.

The debate is not over whether or not god exists (each side has pretty much reached a conclusion on that and isn't likely to be swayed by arguments from the opposition) but over whether or not there is sufficient reason to accept the notion of gods.

If no sufficient reason can be brought forth, then to go ahead and believe anyway requires faith alone (the usual theistic stance). The refusal to believe without reason is the usual atheistic stance.

That might end the debate were there not those theists who insist that there is credible, verifiable evidence that supports the belief in gods. Naturally we who do not perceive such evidence will challenge those statements, asking to see the evidence so we can critically examine it.

This is where the author of the quotation missteps. In referring to "militant atheists", he presumes atheists have their own belief system they espouse and promote. We do not. There is no alternative religious view common to all atheists. There isn't even a secular philosophy all atheists accept. Our sole unifying attitude is that there is no rational, sensible reason to believe that gods exist. Should we ever be provided with one we would be willing to reconsider our position. If irrefutable evidence of a god were presented, no atheist worthy of the name "free thinker" would ignore it. I have no idea what affect that would have on theists who believed in gods other than the one proven to exist.

The other thing the author fails to understand is that atheists are challenging theism, not theists. He doesn't appreciate the difference between opposing a belief system and opposing those who hold those beliefs. Every atheist I know gets along pretty well with theists, even those who insist on presuming everyone's a member of their belief group. We're surrounded by them every day. It would drive us to either insanity or living as recluses if we could not abide theists. In fact we often agree with theists on a number of issues. It's just that one philosophical position on which we differ. Differing with someone over a single philosophical viewpoint isn't sufficient reason to dislike that person as an individual. We have nothing against theists, we just don't accept their theistic belief.

(P.S. I'm really not sure who authored the quotation provided in post #5. I've read every page of the blog the link leads to and nowhere do I see the quoted material posted.)

[JaneDoe321]

Whenever I hear "militant" I immediately cringe. Normally it's just used to attempt to portray the "offending party" as too wrapped up in whatever ideology they're accused of espousing to be capable of rational thought.

I'm not saying I don't know any/accept the idea of "militant atheists", or militant breastfeeders, or militant vegans, but all too often the *entire* group listed after "militant" gets glopped in with the zealots, which isn't really fair.

(I actually hold a few things against some specific theists, but I try to remind myself they're not "all like that" so I don't end up a raving sociopath.)

[HelioPrime]

TED | Talks | Richard Dawkins: An atheist's call to arms (video)

This is another example.

Now of course Dawkin's doesn't promote warfare or real fighting. But his urge to fight the presence of religion in society comes across that way.

[Jack]

Now of course Dawkin's doesn't promote warfare or real fighting.

Them you'd agree "militant" isn't accurate?
Militant:
# disposed to warfare or hard-line policies; "militant nations"; "hawkish congressman"; "warlike policies"
# competitive: showing a fighting disposition; "highly competitive sales representative"; "militant in fighting for better wages for workers"; "his self-assertive and ubiquitous energy"
# a militant reformer
# belligerent: engaged in war; "belligerent (or warring) nations"; "a fighting war"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

The use of "extremist" is equally inaccurate:
# (used of opinions and actions) far beyond the norm; "extremist political views"; "radical opinions on education"; "an ultra conservative"
# a person who holds extreme views
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

At what point does atheism become "extreme"? What makes that position "far beyond the norm"?

The author could have said, with more accuracy, that Dawkins is unapologetic or unwavering in his objection to religious belief, but then that wouldn't have been as sensational as defining his position as atheistic extremism.

So where did that quote come from? While I don't disagree with the sentence, "When The Uncredible Hallq searched Google for these terms, he found that they were used primarily to depict persons or groups engaged in violence", I question its source as well. I happen to subscribe to the RSS feed from that blog and couldn't find any reference to militant or extreme atheism in his posts.