For starters, I’m an agnostic (pretty close to atheist), I don’t really have any thoughts on whether a God exists or not. I do however, have some thoughts on how this…”battle” between Atheism and Religion seems to be shaping out. I have many friends who are both atheist and religious, but almost all of them believe what they believe because they have researched their beliefs (to one degree or another) and have a decently solid basis for it. Now, it’s a well-known fact that most people are religious because their parents were, and they grew up with religion. With atheists, it’s quite a different story. Let me get to the point…
It saddens me to say this, but it seems like more and more atheists, especially internet atheists, are simply “converting” to atheism either because they hate religion (most notably Christianity) or are attracted by a lifestyle where the only rules of morality are the ones they themselves create. Whether they actually believe what they say they do, (or rather, disbelieve), is an issue that is put on the backburner. I feel that many of modern atheists simply accept disbelief of God on the basis of simple arguments, all too willingly, motivated mostly by their desire to be “free” of religion and its “restraints”. This growing propensity seems to be bolstered by the fact that many atheists (especially those on the internet (i.e. r/atheism) will openly support religions like Satanism, if only to piss of Christians. As I wandered from one atheist internet forum to another, I didn’t see any intellectual threads talking about something of value, such as “Why I choose to believe/disbelieve.” Instead, I saw scores and scores of threads discussing such topics as “The War on Christmas” and “The ignorance of Christians” and of course, the textbook “THINK OF THE HOMOSEXUALS” (Boo fucking hoo).
This trend has grown to such a degree that, to many people, atheism doesn’t mean “disbelief in God” or “disbelief in religion” anymore, as it should, but more markedly, “anti-religion”. People have literally come to equate atheism with liberalism, where the only form of morality is the Golden Rule and anything that is related to religion in anyway is evil. People have come to believe that being an atheist is simply giving yourself a license to do whatever you want (similar to the video below)
Nothing could be farther from the truth. As I said before, I am an agnostic with atheistic tendencies. However, I do not condone drinking, drugs, fornication, cursing, or (and I don’t care if this offends anyone) the practice of homosexuality. I condemn these things on a scientific basis. Jared Taylor, one of the foremost advocates of the far-right community, and a staunch atheist himself, holds the same set of moral (or as I call them, efficient) values.
I sincerely believe that this growing delusion that atheism = liberalism, that atheism = license, or that atheism = freedom (from more than just religion) flies in the face of the facts. Again, more and more people seem to be becoming atheists simply because they downright despise religion or are attracted by the idea of a life without any rules, where they can be “chill” and “nice” to everyone. This growing fad has left the atheist community with a shortage of real intellectuals who seek truth rather than license, and leaves us instead with the rabid, seething masses of ignorance, such as the kind that breeds at r/atheism. “I WANT TO DO WHAT I WANT WITH MY BODY, BREAK THE CHAINS OF STUPID RELIGION, FREE THE SEXUALLY AND THE PHYSICALLY REPRESSED, DOWN WITH THE OLIGARCHY” This is not atheism, this is barbarism and primitive, devolved man, seeking to gratify base desires and drag down society with him and using atheism/relativism as a shield to deflect all criticism and attack opponents with impunity.
That being said, I feel that atheism is being abused in modern society, our community has become starved for real intellectuals and filled to the brim with neck-bearded anti-religious whack jobs seeking to gain a vantage point so that they can unload their vengeance upon society for “holding them back”. And frankly, I’m tired of it.
I think some people just group attributes together......and they don't always go together.
IE: There are heterosexual women who wear Birkenstocks. There are liberals who are members of the NRA. There are atheists who have lucky charms.
If you are a democrat, it doesn't guarantee that you actually understand global climate change any better than if you were a republican.
The people who SEE all "associated attributes" as a "rule" are the very ones who would raise this sort of question about the "dilution" etc...as that's how they are likely to view the situation.
A person who is aware of issues as individual, and not issued, as a set, to members of a given group, would not even ask the question.
It would avoid common questions such as:
If you're an atheist, how do you explain the big bang as making bacteria out of nothing?
It was, in these cases, assumed that if you don't believe in supernatural beings, that you are have a set of beliefs regarding the origin of the unviverse or evolutionary processes.
The person ASKING the question has grouped these together, because they cannot comprehend not knowing something, as a placeholder.
IE: There can be no gaps in knowledge, SOMETHING MUST BE PLUGGED IN!!!!
So, it is assumed that if a person doen't believe in god, they must replace that belief with an explanation that explains everything that the asker associates WITH god.
A place holder that says "I don't know yet" is not something they are familiar with...even as a concept.
Go Steve!!!! I agree
I think if we were to attach a political ideology to atheism it should be Libertarian. I think Penn and Teller make a lot of sense and manage to be intellectually consistent between their politics and their philosophy. I agree that many who call themselves "atheist" likely chose that moniker for the effect it had on their mothers at Thanksgiving. They haven't really thought through the idea of being skeptical. A great for instance are "atheists" who accept the Al Gore concept of human caused global climate change and agree that we have to hand over billions to solar and wind power companies and get everyone to drive a Prius. They refuse to look at nuclear power as a viable option for reducing carbon emissions and they call anyone who dares to question Al Gore as deniers and anti-science. They lump them all together with the flat earthers and intelligent design proponents.
I'm an old school tree hugger. I never drank the anti-capitalist kool-aid that so many did. But then I've never really bought into the liberal mindset. It seems like a religion of it's own. No matter the evidence they continue to believe. Look at Detroit, a fine example of liberal leadership. Across the nation wherever liberals have been in the majority for a few decades despair and misery are all the people have. Yet they still try to push the same ideas without questioning their leadership. Now that's a religion as far as I'm concerned.
Don't think I'm saying our planet isn't warming up. That's pretty obvious. Don't think I'm saying our climate isn't shifting. It clearly is. It's November and it's Sunny and 70 degrees here in South Dakota. But I'm not griping. Don't think I'm saying carbon dioxide and methane emissions have an effect on our climate. The science on that is pretty sound. What I question are the two pillars of Al Gore's religion. First that the rise has been as drastic as shown because over 100 years the technology and methodology of measuring and recording has changed making claims of several degrees rise as questionable. Also those collection points have gone from rural to urban areas making the reflected temperatures change. The second is the amount of effect the first world in general and the US in specific has had on what real rise has happened. In most of the world high sulfur coal is used to cook and heat homes. They burn diesel fuel and gasoline in old designs of motors that are inefficient and belch all manner of fumes. Yet it's us with our electric heated homes and brand new cars that are making all the carbon that is heating up the world. I think the accusations that Al Gore hates capitalism are more accurate.
Don't get me wrong, I think Republicans and Conservatives are bad as well. But just because they are shoving religion at me doesn't mean I'm going to hop in bed with Liberals. I have a hard time deciding which one is worse. Lewis Black says Republicans are the party of bad ideas but the Democrats are the party of no ideas. He's right. The Conservatives keep trying new idiocy while the Liberals hang on to the same old idiocy.
I think people can be trusted to make good choices if they are left to suffer the consequences of those choices for good or bad. Taking away consequence has made it safe to make bad choices so people and corporations don't worry about what will happen. That's why I am both an atheist and anarchist. I see it as consistent intellectually.
Look at Detroit, a fine example of liberal leadership. Across the nation wherever liberals have been in the majority for a few decades despair and misery are all the people have. Yet they still try to push the same ideas without questioning their leadership. Now that's a religion as far as I'm concerned.
I think the accusations that Al Gore hates capitalism are more accurate.
OK, assuming some of that is tongue-in-cheek (or accidental hyperbole), answer me this. You're not one of those pickemup truck giant flag wavers that believe that liberals hate America, are ya?
It's not hyperbole or tongue in cheek.
For your information I drive a 2010 Chevy Impala, don't own a flag and I think Liberals are just as deluded as Conservatives. I think their combined efforts have driven this nation to the brink of economic disaster and there may be no way to pull back. I think Liberal policies have been demonstrated quite well in places like Detroit and to think that the solution is to apply more of the same is either insane or an act of faith.
Oh, and I'm not an NRA member either.
Because Louisiana is such a paradise.
The problem with being Liberal and Atheist is simple. Liberalism is a religion. It is faith based because the evidence of over 50 years of trying the same tired ideas and failing over and over hasn't slowed down the enthusiasm for those same failed ideas. You can rename it all you want, Social Democrats, Liberal, Progressive, Socialist or Communist. It's still the same package of redistribution of wealth and anti free market rhetoric that was born in the beginning of the 20th century. They're all following the same failed teachings of the prophet Marx. Not Groucho, which would have been alright, but Karl. The father of modern progressive thought.
Since Atheism is a rejection of religion you can't on the other hand accept the teachings of a more modern prophet and continue to ignore the failures of his teachings.
As a side note, those failed Liberal policies are the reason, I think, that religion has stuck around in an age of reason. When so many are destitute and the programs Liberals have created cannot help them they turn to the religious charities. When they cannot understand why they are in such dire straits because Liberals have failed to keep their promises they turn to religion to comfort them and give them something to hang on to.
Conservatives might be able to manage some intellectual honesty in being an Atheist if they are the rejected the religious right kind. They've got a few bad ideas in their stable so it depends on how much of the Kool-Aid they sucked down.
Anarchism is the method of the future. Technology has made governments irrelevant. These days we can form those associations that work and discard those that do not letting logic be our guide. That is the heart of Anarchism. Individuals making decisions for themselves and accepting the consequences of those decisions, isn't that really what Atheism is about? Putting aside the safety net of religion and accepting that you control your own destiny is at the core. We, or at least the Anarchists, think that the human mind should not be shackled by religion, nor should the human body be shackled by government. Voluntary associations are the only kind we should have.
Exactly how does anarchy build a road, monitor food safety or manage RF frequency bands? People confuse politics with the actual purpose of government which has not changed since ancient Greece.
Things get done the way they always get done. People see an opportunity and create a business to satisfy a need. If people want that thing done they will figure out a way to do it. I'm not opposed to local cooperatives to accrue resources for things to get done. I'm saying the top down autocratic method has failed to do many of those things, so why be forced into the association when it doesn't get the job you wanted done in the first place?
Anarchists find themselves in many the same useless arguments that Atheists despise. Why do I need to have all the answers for your questions? Why do I need to know everything about evolutionary biology to be able to say the bible is BS? Why do I need to know everything about road manufacture and maintenance to know all the levels of governments have failed to keep our roads in good shape wasting millions of our dollars in the process.
Zheesh. I don't even know where to start. Good grief. If only Gallup was still around...he could whip out a great response with tons of sources demonstrating how all of this is so bogus.
Sources like what? A city that has blossomed under liberal rule? A hunk of our infrastructure that isn't collapsing? The return of a manufacturing base to Detroit? A study that has shown humans becoming the ideal socialist that Marx and Lenin dreamed of?
Human nature simply doesn't jive with liberalism. Liberals need to make humans into something different than what they are, to make them "better". That's the same goal of most religions. Why do you want to force us into what you think we need to be? What makes your idea of the better human the right one?
"Liberals need to make humans into something different than what they are, to make them "better"."
- but that's what your anarchist non-society would require, if there was no police force or legal system.