The Argument Againt Pseudo-Atheism

[<alt>doxygen]

He's hardly alone, there are lots of theists who hate the so-called "new atheists", not because they exist, but because they won't shut up and let religion rule the roost. Ultimately, that's what this is all about. It's not that atheists exist, it's that the modern group of atheists can't be shut up by peer pressure.

Well, you can count me as an agnostic who will fight any version of theocratic leaning strain of theism quite literally. They can rule their own domains, but leave me and my government out of it. I don't go the Hitchens route of telling them their beliefs are wrong or evil in some way unless they become wrong and evil by trying to force me to live according to their idea of god's will.

 

[HonestJoe]

Sure, but when speaking specifically about the existence of god(s), I'm not interested in their "wider world view"... I am interested in whether or not they believe that god(s) exist, or whether they instead believe that we currently have no way of knowing either way.

Fair enough but then you're in the wrong thread. You might not have seen the OP before but they're not about asking those kind of questions, they're only interested in stereotyping and attacking. I didn't really reply expecting any reasonable response from them, only to try to prevent it descending in to the usual hate-filled pointless arguments.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

My quarrel with "New Atheism" is threefold: one, it fails to distinguish the question of the existence of God and the question of the truth of organized religion;

There are certainly some that fit that description. They seem to me to be more reacting to militant politicized/militarized religion than acting out of philosophical atheism. There are both militant theists and militant atheists on this board for all to observe.

and two, it relies on a semantic equivocation to avoid taking responsibility for its own atheist position;

To me that semantic difference isn't enough of a distinction to argue about, but have at it.

and three, it is stridently polemical about that of which it is essentially ignorant, i.e., the religious impulse.

That one I can understand. I try not to get that way, but I make exceptions with militarized and/or politicized religion, which I do see as poisonous to both church and state, and as a threat to my freedom.

Just FYI, when you embed quotes like that the board software doesn't necessarily ping the quoted parties.

 

[Angel]

Fair enough but then you're in the wrong thread. You might not have seen the OP before but they're not about asking those kind of questions, they're only interested in stereotyping and attacking. I didn't really reply expecting any reasonable response from them, only to try to prevent it descending in to the usual hate-filled pointless arguments.

"Stereotyping and attacking"? You think? How would you describe the stereotype the OP is manufacturing, Joe?
Surely criticizing and presenting detailed argument are forms of attack in the most civilized sense, no?

 

[Cephus]

Well, you can count me as an agnostic who will fight any version of theocratic leaning strain of theism quite literally. They can rule their own domains, but leave me and my government out of it. I don't go the Hitchens route of telling them their beliefs are wrong or evil in some way unless they become wrong and evil by trying to force me to live according to their idea of god's will.

Same here. The right to swing your fist ends at someone else's nose. I don't care what religious insanity people want to stuff into their own heads, but once it starts to impact other people, enough is enough. If they want to believe, fine. If they want to try to tell other people to believe, then they get as much pushback as I can muster against their mind poison. That doesn't just go for religion, it goes for all irrational beliefs. Flat earth. Anti-vax. Alien abductions. Conspiracy theorists. If you can't back up your asinine ideas with demonstrable facts, then keep your mouth shut. Otherwise, if you're so interested in embarrassing yourself, I'll be happy to help. Reality matters, whether they like it or not.

 

[William Rea]

Isn't this topic being discussed already in myriad other threads? Changing a couple words here and there in a thread title doesn't change the premise. Must we continually clog this sub-forum with half a dozen of the same threads at any given time? The evident futility of banging heads in a given thread doesn't cease by the creation of a new thread on the exact same topic. Just saying.


OM

I did warn of this CARMisation process.

1. Theist starts thread.
2. Theist gets owned in thread.
3. Theist starts new threads to bury getting owned in previous threads.

It will increase exponentially in order to bury previous owns.

It will start with atheism and grow to DarwinNaziDawkinsBabyEatingEvolutionHitler.

 

[Angel]

I did warn of this CARMisation process.

1. Theist starts thread.
2. Theist gets owned in thread.
3. Theist starts new threads to bury getting owned in previous threads.

It will increase exponentially in order to bury previous owns.

It will start with atheism and grow to DarwinNaziDawkinsBabyEatingEvolutionHitler.

A wonderful fantasy, Sir William. Deeply appreciated.

 

[Cephus]

I did warn of this CARMisation process.

1. Theist starts thread.
2. Theist gets owned in thread.
3. Theist starts new threads to bury getting owned in previous threads.

It will increase exponentially in order to bury previous owns.

It will start with atheism and grow to DarwinNaziDawkinsBabyEatingEvolutionHitler.

Yup. That is exactly what the Matt Slick crowd does too. He tried to get me on his podcast for a while so he could snow me over with nonsense. I declined and spent a while dissecting his garbage, which I presume he didn't like one bit. I guess if you can't dazzle 'em with intelligence, bury 'em in BS.

 

[Angel]

Yup. That is exactly what the Matt Slick crowd does too. He tried to get me on his podcast for a while so he could snow me over with nonsense. I declined and spent a while dissecting his garbage, which I presume he didn't like one bit. I guess if you can't dazzle 'em with intelligence, bury 'em in BS.

From the trailer for "The Short Riders of Echo Canyon"?

 

[Angel]

There are certainly some that fit that description. They seem to me to be more reacting to militant politicized/militarized religion than acting out of philosophical atheism. There are both militant theists and militant atheists on this board for all to observe.

Those certain "some that fit that description" are the intended targets of my criticism, not anyone else. Their motives are of no interest to me.

To me that semantic difference isn't enough of a distinction to argue about, but have at it.

"That semantic difference" is the difference between coherence and incoherence in thinking. I find that important.

That one I can understand. I try not to get that way, but I make exceptions with militarized and/or politicized religion, which I do see as poisonous to both church and state, and as a threat to my freedom.

That comes down to freedom v. freedom. It's a tricky balance to maintain, but that's what America is about, that tricky balance/

Just FYI, when you embed quotes like that the board software doesn't necessarily ping the quoted parties.

I had no idea. Thanks for pointing this out.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Those certain "some that fit that description" are the intended targets of my criticism, not anyone else. Their motives are of no interest to me.

Okay.

"That semantic difference" is the difference between coherence and incoherence in thinking. I find that important.

I can see the difference bothers you quite a bit. Once I understand where someone stands and they are consistent, I don't care.

That comes down to freedom v. freedom. It's a tricky balance to maintain, but that's what America is about, that tricky balance/

Agreed. I think the founders got that right. I want to keep it that way.

 

[Angel]

...
Agreed. I think the founders got that right. I want to keep it that way.

So do I.

 

[HonestJoe]

"Stereotyping and attacking"? You think? How would you describe the stereotype the OP is manufacturing, Joe?
Surely criticizing and presenting detailed argument are forms of attack in the most civilized sense, no?

Prove me wrong; address my actual reply to your OP in post #2, on the basis of the concepts rather than individuals or generically defined groups of people.

 

[devildavid]

I did warn of this CARMisation process.

1. Theist starts thread.
2. Theist gets owned in thread.
3. Theist starts new threads to bury getting owned in previous threads.

It will increase exponentially in order to bury previous owns.

It will start with atheism and grow to DarwinNaziDawkinsBabyEatingEvolutionHitler.

This post is both dead on accurate and flat out hilarious. Thank you.

 

[devildavid]

Prove me wrong; address my actual reply to your OP in post #2, on the basis of the concepts rather than individuals or generically defined groups of people.

He never addresses the content of a post. He only knows how to lamely attack his favorite boogeymen and imply that those who disagree just don't have the big brain he has and so possibly can't understand his incoherencies that he thinks are deeply thought profundities.

 

[Angel]

Prove me wrong; address my actual reply to your OP in post #2, on the basis of the concepts rather than individuals or generically defined groups of people.

So you ignore my requests and instead demand of me that I prove you wrong in a post that I "Liked"? I think you may have proved yourself wrong, whatever you're on about here. A pleasant day to you, sir.

 

[HonestJoe]

So you ignore my requests and instead demand of me that I prove you wrong in a post that I "Liked"? I think you may have proved yourself wrong, whatever you're on about here. A pleasant day to you, sir.

I assumed you were aware of what you are doing with your threads (not just this one) but I can address your questions directly if it helps; The stereotype comes from statements like “the new brand of loud loutish atheism inspired by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, RIP,” and the implied definition of “Says the Pseudo Atheist: "Atheism is simply lack of belief. Nothing more." You’re implying that anyone who defines their atheism in this manner is implicitly linked to the “loud louting atheism” you’re attacking. You’re implying I am so you’re attacking me on the basis of this stereotype. If that wasn’t your intention, you need to adjust (or at least clarify) your definitions.

Liking my posts was meaningless since I fundamentally disagreed with the premise of your OP. You can’t just accept my reply while continuing to defend your position (or at least attack anyone else who disagreed). When another poster did reply to my actual posts, our discussion naturally took us away from the point of your OP – we essentially agreed you are wrong, just for different reasons.

So, are you now willing to address the actual points in my initial reply, again, on the basis of the concepts rather than individuals or generically defined groups of people?

 

[Angel]

...To me that semantic difference isn't enough of a distinction to argue about, but have at it....

..."That semantic difference" is the difference between coherence and incoherence in thinking. I find that important....

... I can see the difference bothers you quite a bit. Once I understand where someone stands and they are consistent, I don't care....

Not sure whether that last by you refers to the "semantic" problem itself or to my problem with the "semantic" problem.
If your indifference is aimed at the "semantic" problem itself, I would just leave you with the thought that this problem -- the incoherence of thought -- is arguably at the bottom of all our troubles in the world today, and has always been at the bottom of the world's troubles for the whole of the history of mankind.

 

[Angel]

I assumed you were aware of what you are doing with your threads (not just this one) but I can address your questions directly if it helps; The stereotype comes from statements like “the new brand of loud loutish atheism inspired by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, RIP,” and the implied definition of “Says the Pseudo Atheist: "Atheism is simply lack of belief. Nothing more." You’re implying that anyone who defines their atheism in this manner is implicitly linked to the “loud louting atheism” you’re attacking. You’re implying I am so you’re attacking me on the basis of this stereotype. If that wasn’t your intention, you need to adjust (or at least clarify) your definitions.

Liking my posts was meaningless since I fundamentally disagreed with the premise of your OP. You can’t just accept my reply while continuing to defend your position (or at least attack anyone else who disagreed). When another poster did reply to my actual posts, our discussion naturally took us away from the point of your OP – we essentially agreed you are wrong, just for different reasons.

So, are you now willing to address the actual points in my initial reply, again, on the basis of the concepts rather than individuals or generically defined groups of people?

"What we've got here is failure to communicative." Post #2, as I read it, does not "fundamentally disagree with the premise of [my] OP." So we have a problem right there in communicating.

What's more, the Dawkins brand of atheism stereotyped itself, and it is loud and loutish, and I might add ignorant.

Now, the crux of the matter here is your point that someone might be a Pseudo Atheist without being a Dawkins Atheist. I agree. But one cannot be a Pseudo Atheist without being a Pseudo Atheist. And my OP is aimed at the bogus argument that makes Pseudo Atheism Pseudo Atheism. I am not correcting manners in the OP; I'm correcting logic.

 

[HonestJoe]

What's more, the Dawkins brand of atheism stereotyped itself, and it is loud and loutish, and I might add ignorant.

No, Dawkins is personally loud and loutish in some of his public statements. He doesn’t represent even a sub-set of atheism in that, only himself. Even people who support or agree with him are doing so as individuals, not representatives of atheism.

Now, the crux of the matter here is your point that someone might be a Pseudo Atheist without being a Dawkins Atheist. I agree. But one cannot be a Pseudo Atheist without being a Pseudo Atheist. And my OP is aimed at the bogus argument that makes Pseudo Atheism Pseudo Atheism. I am not correcting manners in the OP; I'm correcting logic.

You made up the term “pseudo atheist” and gave it a deliberately insulting and dismissive name. As I explained in the initial response, I don’t accept it as the definition of a class of person as you present it. I object to you implicitly linking the label to me, along with all of the negative implications you associate with it (“internet atheism”, “militant atheism”, the implicit links with Dawkins and Hitchens etc.).

I also disagree with the idea that talking about a “lack of belief” is anything like as significant as you suggest. Not believing and lacking belief are indeed exactly the same thing. Denying the existence of something is entirely different. Your OP argument doesn’t actually get anywhere and doesn’t do anything to challenge the definition you associate with your “pseudo atheist” label. As I explained, the only reason some atheists prefer the “lack of belief” phraseology is because saying “I don’t believe in God” is often misunderstood or misinterpreted to mean “I deny the existence of God”. Their beliefs on the question are the same, only the wording is different.

I suspect you’re actually trying to do the same thing, dismissing the “lack” aspect so you can accuse all atheists of denying the existence of God so you can challenge on the unsupported certainty. Can you confirm whether you accept the distinction between “I don’t believe in God” and “I deny God exists”?

 

[Angel]

No, Dawkins is personally loud and loutish in some of his public statements. He doesn’t represent even a sub-set of atheism in that, only himself. Even people who support or agree with him are doing so as individuals, not representatives of atheism.

You made up the term “pseudo atheist” and gave it a deliberately insulting and dismissive name. As I explained in the initial response, I don’t accept it as the definition of a class of person as you present it. I object to you implicitly linking the label to me, along with all of the negative implications you associate with it (“internet atheism”, “militant atheism”, the implicit links with Dawkins and Hitchens etc.).

I also disagree with the idea that talking about a “lack of belief” is anything like as significant as you suggest. Not believing and lacking belief are indeed exactly the same thing. Denying the existence of something is entirely different. Your OP argument doesn’t actually get anywhere and doesn’t do anything to challenge the definition you associate with your “pseudo atheist” label. As I explained, the only reason some atheists prefer the “lack of belief” phraseology is because saying “I don’t believe in God” is often misunderstood or misinterpreted to mean “I deny the existence of God”. Their beliefs on the question are the same, only the wording is different.

I suspect you’re actually trying to do the same thing, dismissing the “lack” aspect so you can accuse all atheists of denying the existence of God so you can challenge on the unsupported certainty. Can you confirm whether you accept the distinction between “I don’t believe in God” and “I deny God exists”?

Your "suspicion" about what I'm "actually trying to do" commits the very sin you seem to be accusing me of. My OP says nothing about and has nothing to do with addirming or denying the existence of God. Moreover, if you don't recognize or won't recognize the type of atheist in the mold of Dawkins that is everywhere on the internet and very much in evidence in our forum, then your blindness is noted, but of no interest to me.

The only coherent point I am able to take from your posts is that you have taken umbrage at being included in or associated with the band of Dawkins clones tarnishing the reputation of atheism on the internet. I too would take umbrage if I were an atheist, but my quarrel would be with the loud and loutish atheists, not with the one who calls them out.

If you wish to publicly dissociate yourself from Dawkins atheists, you've done that.
If you wish me to testify to same, I do.
HonestJoe is not an atheist in the style of Richard Dawkins and his imitators. So help me God.

Finally, if as an atheist you are willing to commit to your belief (or disbelief), then you are not a Pseudo Atheist either.

 

[HonestJoe]

Your "suspicion" about what I'm "actually trying to do" commits the very sin you seem to be accusing me of. My OP says nothing about and has nothing to do with addirming or denying the existence of God.

As I said, it was my suspicion that would be where your position could lead, especially based on some of you previous threads. I’m willing to accept that I could be wrong.

Moreover, if you don't recognize or won't recognize the type of atheist in the mold of Dawkins that is everywhere on the internet and very much in evidence in our forum, then your blindness is noted, but of no interest to me.

I don’t recognise them as “types of atheists”. There are all sorts of people who post all sorts of things around not believing in gods on the internet (some more seriously and honest than others). Each one of them are an individual responsible only for their own words and actions. There is no justification or legitimate reason to lump them all together like this.

Finally, if as an atheist you are willing to commit to your belief (or disbelief), then you are not a Pseudo Atheist either.

I’ve no idea what you mean by “committing” to belief/disbelief. The problem is that I meet your definition of “pseudo atheist” as you wrote in the OP. If you accept I’m not actually a “pseudo atheist”, you need to either redefine the term or accept it’s unnecessary and divisive and drop it entirely.

 

[Sampson Simpson]

Some people have spiritual experiences and others don't. Some hear gods or spirits talking to them and others don't. Some see spirits and others don't.

If you don't have any of these experiences yourself, then you might deny that anyone else has them. You might think that anyone who had these experiences has something wrong with their brain, while your brain works correctly.

nobody has spiritual experiences, they take natural phenomenon, biochemical reaction in their body and their brains, neurotransmitters firing neurons in the brain. All those "moment of clarity" or "spiritual experiences" are nothing more than normal physiological events that wishful thinking people associate with a spiritual event. Drugs can even cause spiritual events, its becuase the drugs, not because of god

 

[zyzygy]

Could the aggressive theists on this site be called pseudo-theists?

 

[zyzygy]

Pseudo Christians
Poetry by Lance Landall
Some say that they are a Christian, when in fact, such is hardly so,
They really just a Christian in name; it less substance and more show.
Thus within the Christian Bible, it warns how true Christians will act,
And therefore, going by that Bible, the following is a fact:

A genuine Christian person doesn’t hide behind politics,
Nor do they indulge in game-playing, or any underhand tricks.
A genuine Christian person doesn’t wilfully break the law,
Hates bigotry and prejudice, and gossip chooses to ignore.

A genuine Christian person won’t also hide behind the Church,
Misuse position or power, someone’s reputation besmirch.
A genuine Christian person doesn’t act promiscuously,
But firmly stands on principle and always act transparently.

No, a genuine Christian person won’t rape, maim, pillage or kill,
Nor indulge in backroom deals, or what cruelly fuels a rumour mill.
A genuine Christian person will not fiddle the books, or steal,
Nor indulge in lying, cheating, and shared secrets will not reveal.

A genuine Christian person keeps to promises that they’ve made,
Practicing what they preach, not acting vainly, and wealth won’t parade.
And a genuine Christian person always call a spade a spade,
Never forces another’s will, investigation won’t evade.

A genuine Christian person doesn’t violate human rights,
Never goes seeking attention or the limelight, and never skites.
A genuine Christian person defends freedom of expression,
Upholds civil-religious liberty and condemns oppression.

A genuine Christian person doesn’t spit, curse, blaspheme or swear,
But always acts impartially, and never cruelly or unfair.
A genuine Christian person — if they’re blessed with wealth — such will share,
Upholds biblical standards, shuns that extra-marital affair.

No, a genuine Christian person doesn’t verbally abuse,
Never tries to control, manipulate, or others wrongly use.
A genuine Christian person doesn’t damage our fragile Earth,
Nor tells jokes that show bad taste, never indulges in bawdy mirth.

A genuine Christian holds no grudge, seeks to reconcile, forgive,
Shows compassion, mercy, acts justly, and a moral life will live.
A genuine Christian person shows all an open-hearted love,
Honours and guards the Bible that’s entrusted to them from above.

Therefore, only those who act like Christ have the right to claim His name,
And not those who’re acting contrary, for such Christians bring God shame.
You see, either they’re a genuine Christian, or sadly, they’re not,
And those who aren't genuine are usually easy to spot.

So Christianity’s a package, not a case of take your pick,
And nor is it some Pick ‘n’ Mix, or make believe, rhetoric.
No, it’s something that must be lived, otherwise it’s just a sham,
Nothing but pure hypocrisy, which both God and the Bible slam.

Yes, Christians will make mistakes, because we’re all human, quite clearly,
But mistakes are hardly the same as one acting rebelliously.
However, the genuine Christian will try to avoid mistakes,
They knowing that it’s their behaviour that their witness makes or breaks.