Author Topic: Name calling and blaming. Atheism v theism.  (Read 440 times)

Dave

  • Formerly known as Gloucester
  • Don't Pray in My School, and I Won't Think in Your Church
  • *****
  • Posts: 7105
  • Gender: Male
Name calling and blaming. Atheism v theism.
« on: August 06, 2018, 05:38:36 PM »
In many discussions I have seen theists have lumped all atheists together, mentioning the likes of Stalin or Pol Pot and the crimes their regimes committed.

Well, theists have sects and I would like to posit that atheism also does. One could consider Humanism, atheism and antitheism, the "soft" end to the "hard one, to be the three main "sects". http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6487 offers 17 further divisions that are mainly details of depth of disbelief.

OK, in strict honesty we should accept Stalin etc since, if the disbelieve in the supernatural is the qualification, they do qualify as atheists. So - all atheists belong in the same box, eh?

So, surely that means that all theists, regardless of denomination or sect, are likewise in the their box. As all atheists disbelieve in the supernatural so all theists believe in it, many worshipping the same entity. But, well, theists are theists, if they all worship some form of supernatural entity. So, to be fair, they have to own to the likes of Osama bin Laden, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi et al as being their brothers-in-god.

It seems unfair of, say, Christians to claim that such people are not really "men-of-god"; but those people claim that Christians are the blasphemers - both cannot be right. Even Muslims suffer the same dichotomy within their religion, most extreme Muslim groups being Sunni they consider the Shi'ites to be blasphemers.

I am just developing the idea, any comments?
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

No one

  • Not Defeated by the Dark Night of the Soul
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
Re: Name calling and blaming. Atheism v theism.
« Reply #1 on: August 06, 2018, 08:19:53 PM »
All subsects that humans dissect themselves into, have their level heads and their asshats. Unfortunately, the spotlight shines brightest on the asshats.

Recusant

  • Miscreant Erendrake
  • Administrator
  • Wears a Colander Hat for Special Occasions
  • *****
  • Posts: 6005
  • Gender: Male
  • infidel barbarian
Re: Name calling and blaming. Atheism v theism.
« Reply #2 on: August 06, 2018, 11:25:21 PM »
In many discussions I have seen theists have lumped all atheists together, mentioning the likes of Stalin or Pol Pot and the crimes their regimes committed.

It's a faulty syllogism:

P1. Stalin and Pol Pot were atheists.

P2. Stalin and Pol Pot committed atrocities.

C. Atheism results in the commission of atrocities.

No actual logical connection is shown between atheism and the commission of atrocities.

Stalin and Pol Pot committed atrocities in furtherance of establishing control over their respective states; attempting to eliminate any and all perceived threats to that control. Their atheism was irrelevant in regards to motivations for their actions.

As for "sects" within atheism, I'm not convinced that there is much utility in the idea, and have found attempts to promote them (Atheism+, Sunday Assembly) unattractive.

"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Ecurb Noselrub

  • No Wall in my name!!!
  • Wears a Colander Hat for Special Occasions
  • *****
  • Posts: 6337
  • Gender: Male
Re: Name calling and blaming. Atheism v theism.
« Reply #3 on: August 10, 2018, 02:35:31 AM »
All subsects that humans dissect themselves into, have their level heads and their asshats. Unfortunately, the spotlight shines brightest on the asshats.

Yep, every team has its super stars and its duds.  And a lot of Average Joes.

Sandra Craft

  • Surprisingly OK
  • Global Moderator
  • The Cure for Boredom is Curiosity. There is No Cure For Curiosity.
  • *****
  • Posts: 9200
  • Gender: Female
Re: Name calling and blaming. Atheism v theism.
« Reply #4 on: August 10, 2018, 09:31:40 PM »
Can't agree that no atheist believes in the supernatural, tho I'd be willing to bet that most don't.  I have known some who do believe in the supernatural, just not in gods.
Sandy

  
"I think this is the prettiest world -- as long as you don't mind a little dying, how could there be a day in your whole life that doesn't have its splash of happiness?"  from The Kingfisher, by Mary Oliver

Dave

  • Formerly known as Gloucester
  • Don't Pray in My School, and I Won't Think in Your Church
  • *****
  • Posts: 7105
  • Gender: Male
Re: Name calling and blaming. Atheism v theism.
« Reply #5 on: August 10, 2018, 10:00:49 PM »
Can't agree that no atheist believes in the supernatural, tho I'd be willing to bet that most don't.  I have known some who do believe in the supernatural, just not in gods.

Hmm, so atheists don't have to be rationalists? The "astral plain" etc may be real for them? OK, I just find it difficult not to lump all of that in the same category. Such things cannot, at the moment at least, be scientificaly detected and measured, they have no rational explanstion that I know of.

Problem is, as has so often been said "atheist" defines prople in terms of something they disbelieve in - it attaches us to "god(s)" by a negative tether.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Sandra Craft

  • Surprisingly OK
  • Global Moderator
  • The Cure for Boredom is Curiosity. There is No Cure For Curiosity.
  • *****
  • Posts: 9200
  • Gender: Female
Re: Name calling and blaming. Atheism v theism.
« Reply #6 on: August 10, 2018, 11:49:53 PM »
Can't agree that no atheist believes in the supernatural, tho I'd be willing to bet that most don't.  I have known some who do believe in the supernatural, just not in gods.

Hmm, so atheists don't have to be rationalists? The "astral plain" etc may be real for them? OK, I just find it difficult not to lump all of that in the same category. Such things cannot, at the moment at least, be scientificaly detected and measured, they have no rational explanstion that I know of.

Problem is, as has so often been said "atheist" defines prople in terms of something they disbelieve in - it attaches us to "god(s)" by a negative tether.

No, I don't think atheists can be assumed to be rationalists.  I think all that can be said of atheists is that we don't believe in gods, not necessarily for rational reasons or application of the scientific method, and not necessarily excluding belief in other supernatural things.  It's just no gods. 

As far as lumping goes, I'd lump belief in the supernatural as silly but not outside of atheism.  I also wouldn't consider use of the scientific method as something automatically a part of atheism.  The supernatural may be out and the scientific method may be in for most individual atheists but from what I've seen atheism in general doesn't require either stance, and not all atheists take either stance.
Sandy

  
"I think this is the prettiest world -- as long as you don't mind a little dying, how could there be a day in your whole life that doesn't have its splash of happiness?"  from The Kingfisher, by Mary Oliver

Dave

  • Formerly known as Gloucester
  • Don't Pray in My School, and I Won't Think in Your Church
  • *****
  • Posts: 7105
  • Gender: Male
Re: Name calling and blaming. Atheism v theism.
« Reply #7 on: August 11, 2018, 07:55:46 AM »
Can't agree that no atheist believes in the supernatural, tho I'd be willing to bet that most don't.  I have known some who do believe in the supernatural, just not in gods.

Hmm, so atheists don't have to be rationalists? The "astral plain" etc may be real for them? OK, I just find it difficult not to lump all of that in the same category. Such things cannot, at the moment at least, be scientificaly detected and measured, they have no rational explanstion that I know of.

Problem is, as has so often been said "atheist" defines prople in terms of something they disbelieve in - it attaches us to "god(s)" by a negative tether.

No, I don't think atheists can be assumed to be rationalists.  I think all that can be said of atheists is that we don't believe in gods, not necessarily for rational reasons or application of the scientific method, and not necessarily excluding belief in other supernatural things.  It's just no gods. 

As far as lumping goes, I'd lump belief in the supernatural as silly but not outside of atheism.  I also wouldn't consider use of the scientific method as something automatically a part of atheism.  The supernatural may be out and the scientific method may be in for most individual atheists but from what I've seen atheism in general doesn't require either stance, and not all atheists take either stance.

Hmm, things to think sbout.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

xSilverPhinx

  • Non Dvcor
  • Administrator
  • Luxembourg Trembles!
  • *****
  • Posts: 14928
  • Gender: Female
  • Twinkle, twinkle little star
Re: Name calling and blaming. Atheism v theism.
« Reply #8 on: August 12, 2018, 09:30:16 PM »
Can't agree that no atheist believes in the supernatural, tho I'd be willing to bet that most don't.  I have known some who do believe in the supernatural, just not in gods.

Hmm, so atheists don't have to be rationalists? The "astral plain" etc may be real for them? OK, I just find it difficult not to lump all of that in the same category. Such things cannot, at the moment at least, be scientificaly detected and measured, they have no rational explanstion that I know of.

Problem is, as has so often been said "atheist" defines prople in terms of something they disbelieve in - it attaches us to "god(s)" by a negative tether.

No, I don't think atheists can be assumed to be rationalists.  I think all that can be said of atheists is that we don't believe in gods, not necessarily for rational reasons or application of the scientific method, and not necessarily excluding belief in other supernatural things.  It's just no gods. 

I agree with this.
Give no mercy to your fear.



xSilverPhinx

  • Non Dvcor
  • Administrator
  • Luxembourg Trembles!
  • *****
  • Posts: 14928
  • Gender: Female
  • Twinkle, twinkle little star
Re: Name calling and blaming. Atheism v theism.
« Reply #9 on: August 12, 2018, 09:38:19 PM »
In many discussions I have seen theists have lumped all atheists together, mentioning the likes of Stalin or Pol Pot and the crimes their regimes committed.

Well, theists have sects and I would like to posit that atheism also does. One could consider Humanism, atheism and antitheism, the "soft" end to the "hard one, to be the three main "sects". http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6487 offers 17 further divisions that are mainly details of depth of disbelief.

OK, in strict honesty we should accept Stalin etc since, if the disbelieve in the supernatural is the qualification, they do qualify as atheists. So - all atheists belong in the same box, eh?

So, surely that means that all theists, regardless of denomination or sect, are likewise in the their box. As all atheists disbelieve in the supernatural so all theists believe in it, many worshipping the same entity. But, well, theists are theists, if they all worship some form of supernatural entity. So, to be fair, they have to own to the likes of Osama bin Laden, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi et al as being their brothers-in-god.

It seems unfair of, say, Christians to claim that such people are not really "men-of-god"; but those people claim that Christians are the blasphemers - both cannot be right. Even Muslims suffer the same dichotomy within their religion, most extreme Muslim groups being Sunni they consider the Shi'ites to be blasphemers.

I am just developing the idea, any comments?

Double standard. Many theists I've argued with want to lump the likes of Stalin in the same bag along with all atheists, yet mention that Hitler had ties to the Catholic Church to diehard Catholics and you'll see them squirm and screech like you've never seen anyone squirm and screech before. If you're lucky, you might even see them twitch.  :twitch:
 
Give no mercy to your fear.



Dark Lightning

  • Was God's Anointed But Took a Shower
  • *
  • Posts: 230
  • Gender: Male
  • Curmudgeon
Re: Name calling and blaming. Atheism v theism.
« Reply #10 on: August 18, 2018, 10:53:52 PM »
Oh, snap. I thought I had found a new source of invective. I am disappoint! J/K, the people who make claims about Stalin and Pol Pot are just mushy thinkers who are most likely just vomiting up what they've already swallowed from their "godly leader's" rhetoric. Personally, I can't see how someone can stand to go on diatribes that vilify so many people. It makes me sick just to hear some of it.

Dave

  • Formerly known as Gloucester
  • Don't Pray in My School, and I Won't Think in Your Church
  • *****
  • Posts: 7105
  • Gender: Male
Re: Name calling and blaming. Atheism v theism.
« Reply #11 on: August 19, 2018, 07:26:00 AM »
Oh, snap. I thought I had found a new source of invective. I am disappoint! J/K, the people who make claims about Stalin and Pol Pot are just mushy thinkers who are most likely just vomiting up what they've already swallowed from their "godly leader's" rhetoric. Personally, I can't see how someone can stand to go on diatribes that vilify so many people. It makes me sick just to hear some of it.

Of course, we never indulge in diatribes  :)

Well, in a responsive rather than attacking mode in most cases. Though there are some pretty good attack mode vilifiers amongst atheists on Youtube.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Dark Lightning

  • Was God's Anointed But Took a Shower
  • *
  • Posts: 230
  • Gender: Male
  • Curmudgeon
Re: Name calling and blaming. Atheism v theism.
« Reply #12 on: September 22, 2018, 03:57:10 AM »
Oh, snap. I thought I had found a new source of invective. I am disappoint! J/K, the people who make claims about Stalin and Pol Pot are just mushy thinkers who are most likely just vomiting up what they've already swallowed from their "godly leader's" rhetoric. Personally, I can't see how someone can stand to go on diatribes that vilify so many people. It makes me sick just to hear some of it.

Of course, we never indulge in diatribes  :)

Well, in a responsive rather than attacking mode in most cases. Though there are some pretty good attack mode vilifiers amongst atheists on Youtube.

One of the aspects of this place that I enjoy is the lack of vitriol. Then again, I don't really spend a lot of time in the "religious" sections. My life is too short to sit here going 'round and 'round with people and their beliefs. I've done it in the past, and consider it right up there with teaching a pig to sing- a complete waste of time. I applaud people who care enough to argue with the religious ad infinitum. Maybe something will come of it. I'm not expecting much, though.

hermes2015

  • Not Defeated by the Dark Night of the Soul
  • ****
  • Posts: 1666
  • Gender: Male
Re: Name calling and blaming. Atheism v theism.
« Reply #13 on: September 22, 2018, 05:01:59 AM »
Oh, snap. I thought I had found a new source of invective. I am disappoint! J/K, the people who make claims about Stalin and Pol Pot are just mushy thinkers who are most likely just vomiting up what they've already swallowed from their "godly leader's" rhetoric. Personally, I can't see how someone can stand to go on diatribes that vilify so many people. It makes me sick just to hear some of it.

Of course, we never indulge in diatribes  :)

Well, in a responsive rather than attacking mode in most cases. Though there are some pretty good attack mode vilifiers amongst atheists on Youtube.

One of the aspects of this place that I enjoy is the lack of vitriol. Then again, I don't really spend a lot of time in the "religious" sections. My life is too short to sit here going 'round and 'round with people and their beliefs. I've done it in the past, and consider it right up there with teaching a pig to sing- a complete waste of time. I applaud people who care enough to argue with the religious ad infinitum. Maybe something will come of it. I'm not expecting much, though.

That about sums up my position as well. I read those debates with interest, but restrict my interactions with HAF to those topics that deal with my quite narrow range of interests.