Atheist "know-it-alls"

[Silent3]

It seems to be a common reaction among those who aren't happy with vocal atheists, atheists who are openly critical of religion, that these atheists act like "know-it-alls". In a different thread one poster accused atheists of trying to banish mystery and of "creating a world of binary opposites, where everything is knowable and predictable."

As an atheist myself, one who thinks I can fairly say shares a lot of philosophical common ground with many other atheists, this comes across as a bizarre accusation, and a strange misunderstanding. I will state right now, very strongly, that many things are unknown, possibly unknowable, and I'm quite adverse to excessively binary thinking. I embrace mystery in the true sense of the word "mystery" -- as meaning truly unknown, not as meaning collections of supernatural notions used to try to fill the gaps in our knowledge.

Basic atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in deities. In order to talk more broadly about atheists in general, however, I'll list what I think are fairly common attributes of the atheists I typically encounter:

• They are skeptics about all or nearly all claims of the supernatural and paranormal.
  
• They don't categorically, absolutely deny 100% that deities might exist, or other religious and spiritual claims about the supernatural or paranormal, but they do tend to rate the likelihood and/or explanatory value of such things as very, very low. This is often functionally equivalent to simply denying such things, but most of us atheists do consider the gap we leave open for other possibilities an important philosophical point, even if others often ignore or gloss over the subtle but important distinction.
  
• They are often agnostics to some degree. While in common usages the word "agnostic" is often used as if it were a less-intense atheism, or a half-way point between being a believer or an unbeliever, true agnosticism is a stance on the knowability of the existence of deities, as opposed to a stance on that existence itself. What this means in my own case is that I consider many religious and spiritual claims are not merely unlikely stances on things that aren't really known by anyone, but stances on things that could well be unknowable by anyone.
  
• They use logic and reason, and may tend to be impatient with illogic, fuzzy thinking, and slippery word usage by others.
  
• They understand that logic and reason are NOT the antithesis of emotions or of "being human", a point many people sadly do not understand.
  
• Many atheists are well-educated. A number of studies have shown that as education increases, especially education in the sciences, belief in deities and other supernatural concepts decreases.
  
• They are highly aware of the human tendency towards self deception, and bring that awareness into discussions where supernatural claims are being made. This often leads believers to be offended when their own "personal experiences" are subjected to scrutiny under this kind of light.

Based on all of this, where does the "know-it-all" impression come from?

Part of it probably stems from the strong anti-intellectual streak in our culture. As Democrats we should all be wary of this. We'd have been safely outside of the Florida recount madness in 2000, with a clear win for Gore, if more Americans actually liked the idea of their President being a smart man, instead of preferring that he be a "reg'lar guy" they'd want to have a beer with.

Atheists are not claiming to "know everything" -- far from it, in fact -- but the intellectual process necessary to make a clear case for atheism, and to argue against religion, probably strikes a lot of people as stemming from the same personality type they've come to associate with the kind of person they dismiss as a "know-it-all".

The person who claims there is a God is making a much stronger claim on special knowledge than a person who lacks such a belief. An extraordinary claim is not a 50/50 equal to the denial of that claim.

Being bold enough to talk about one's lack of belief, and further having the temerity to question someone else's belief and suggest that they are probably wrong, however, might create a "know-it-all" impression with some people. Perhaps the thinking is something like this: "How can you tell me I'm wrong unless you're claiming to know better than I do, therefore claiming to know MORE than I do?"

Recommending doubt and disbelief, however, are not claims on knowledge. Such recommendations might inherently be denials that someone else possesses special knowledge, but they certainly aren't claims on possessing more knowledge.

Suppose I claim that tomorrow night thousands of zebras will rain from the skies in Chicago. Which is the greater claim on special knowledge? That it will happen, or that it won't happen?

It might take an argument that sounds very knowledgeable to convince me why my claim is very, very unlikely. If I'm clinging strongly to my claim, you might have to bring up all sorts of things about gravity, precipitation, zebra populations, lack of natural mechanisms for raising zebras into the sky, lack of any good reason for anyone to waste the time, expense, and risk of prosecution by artificially gathering thousands of zebras and dropping them from airplanes -- but would that make you a "know-it-all" for daring to challenge my claim of an upcoming striped equine deluge? Might I not get upset with you and angrily ask, "Who are you to tell me I'm wrong!? Think you're some kind of know-it-all!?"

[jgraz]

1. I'll take them over Religionist "believe-it-alls"

[DS1]

2. Amen!

:evilgrin:

[roguevalley]

8. I'll take neither. they are both the extremes at either end of the

spectrum and they do DAMAGE to their cause with others because of their behavior. I personally don't give a damn what anyone thinks. I know what I believe and how it has changed and is changing. Extremely big mouthed aethists are no different from extremely big mouthed religionists. The content of their words may be different but their methods and attitudes are identical.

They harm both their positions. Aethists don't get a pass on this. And in the end, neither side has a lock on the truth. Only death can supply that.

[trotsky]

21. What buildings have atheists crashed planes into?

Which medical clinics have they bombed because they didn't like what went on inside?

These are contemporary issues, occurring in the here and now, and the worst these "extreme atheists" can offer up is a book and a lecture tour in which the nastiest thing they say is that religious believers may be deluded. Is that really equivalent to a Muslim honor killing, or systematically sexually abusing children at a fundamentalist polygamist compound? Really?

You are trying to pull the old triangulation ploy - painting atheists who merely speak up about their atheism as some kind of extremist, so you can place yourself comfortably in the sensible middle.

[roguevalley]

24. oh please. mao was an atheist. he forbid religion. look at what he

did. don't tell me he doesn't apply. he does. we will never agree so let it rest. there is extremism in each position and that is true whether you agree to it or not. only death is going to tell which side is right.

[trotsky]

27. Did you want to answer my question then?

You're railing on today's "extreme" atheists, yet you have to reach back 50 years to the opposite side of the world for justification. What exactly are today's atheists doing that compares to what today's radical theists are?

[ironbark]

35. “50 years” is not ancient history Trotsky

I have lived and worked with Cambodian refugees who lost entire families and villages to the Killing Fields…people who had nails torn out with pliers, skin peeled off and buried alive.
For many it is living/vivid memory….just like 9/11.

Nor is it (evoking any of it) a game of tit for tat.
It is as ‘over determined’ (shallow/simplistic) and fruitless to lay the Killing Fields exclusively at the feet of atheism as it is to lay 9/11 exclusively at the feet of religion.

One may as well attempt to blame Pearl Harbour on Shinto and Bushido while ignoring Commodore Perry and ‘Gunboat Diplomacy’ and the latter pre war oil embargo on Japan.

These events happen in the context of history, politics, recourses, religion, sense of territory and territorial/trade/influence ambition.

As I understand it the majority of academic examination of the origins and motivations of Suicide Bombing (including the US Govt commissioned Pentagon report) found that the most common (global) feature was- ‘turf’.

English soldiers on Irish turf ...American soldiers on Saudi turf…Basque separatists, Tamil Tigers, IRA or Red Brigade….the common message/motivation is “Get off our turf”.
It’s pretty primal.

Will religion be used as a tool in such turf wars?.....sure…but it aint the primary or incendiary factor or feature any more than atheism was for Pol Pot or Stalin.

[trotsky]

37. No, I never said it was.

But the poster is saying that today's vocal atheists are just as bad as the rabid religious fundamentalists.

I just want an example. The only example provided so far was a Communist leader who's been dead for decades. If these nasty atheists are truly such a threat, aren't there even just a few contemporary examples?

[ironbark]

39. "you have to reach back 50 years to the opposite side of the world for justification"

indicates a long and distant reach. As my prior post indicated Killing Fields is living memory/"contemporary example".

"I just want an example."

Then Pol Pot is it.

[trotsky]

41. That is not the same as saying "ancient history", which are the words you put in my mouth.

If you want to blame Pol Pot's actions on atheism, go right ahead. But that's you interjecting yourself into this subthread, erroneously as can be.

[ironbark]

44. If I was “putting words in your mouth”

I would have put "ancient history” in quotation marks…which I did not.
So no, it is a false assertion…no words have been “put in your mouth”.

“If you want to blame Pol Pot's actions on atheism, go right ahead.”

Let’s see if that one stacks up or relates to what I actually said-
“It is as ‘over determined’ (shallow/simplistic) and fruitless to lay the Killing Fields exclusively at the feet of atheism as it is to lay 9/11 exclusively at the feet of religion.”

Nope…no crrelation between what I said and what you percieve

“But that's you interjecting yourself into this subthread,.”

Ah huh….posting a response to a stated pov is “interjecting yourself”…folk don’t do that round here?

“erroneously as can be”

Thus far the only errors are yours. I did not “put words in your mouth” nor did I “want to blame Pol Pot's actions on atheism”

Post 35 sought to take a less than polarised and shallow superficial look at contemporary events and history.
You decline that option and seek the continuance of a tit for tat score card on which side produced the biggest/worst bastards- religion or atheism.

I think that’s a boring, shallow and fruitless pursuit.

[trotsky]

47. It is very difficult to follow your train of thought.

You seem to jump around all over the place. First, atheism and religion aren't responsible. Then you give Pol Pot as an example of atheism going bad. But then you say his atheism wasn't really responsible. Well, which is it?

You decline that option and seek the continuance of a tit for tat score card on which side produced the biggest/worst bastards- religion or atheism.

Nope, I simply asked for a contemporary example that justifies roguevalley's statement:

"Extremely big mouthed aethists (sic) are no different from extremely big mouthed religionists. The content of their words may be different but their methods and attitudes are identical."

If the methods and attitudes are identical, where are the atheists ramming planes into buildings? Where are the atheists bombing things? This person seems to hold atheism and religion responsible for the extremists in each gang - but then while you appear to disagree with that sentiment, you argue with me about it instead. One would wonder if you're really disagreeing with an idea, or just a person regardless of ideas.

[BrklynLib at work]

50. And what about all that has been perpetrated throughout history in the name of religion?

The Inquisition, the Crusades, the murdering of primitive peoples around the world in an attempt to "Bring religion" to them?
Even in current Africa and Middle East, the refusal of aid to suffering people if they will not accept the god that is being supported by those offering the aid.

I will never be able to believe that atheists are responsible for more horrors than fanatical theists.
Your examples are of political extremists, not "atheist" extremists.
History is filled with examples of cruelty and torture done in the name of religion. This only happens when one group is trying to convert another from one "religion" to another. It is not done when one group is trying to dissuade the belief in religion entirely.
As far as I have seen, atheists only want to be left alone and not forced to adhere to the beliefs and practices of those who want religion to be part of their lives. It is only the religious who feel justified in FORCING their beliefs on others...by any means necessary.
I have never heard of torture being used to force someone into admitting they do not believe in any higher power at all. As far as history goes, ti has only been used to force people to recant their own religious beliefs and accept the god of those doing the torturing.

Torture is the tool of the religious fanatic and the political extremist...not of the atheist.
The irony here is that the political fanatics use the religious beliefs of the people to manipulate them into fighting their battles for them. If the religious were not able to be aroused into a violent fury to "protect their religion" by those looking for political gain, there would be a lot less torture and murdering and wars.

[BrklynLib at work]

64. Politics and religion have been intermixed since the beginning of time...

At one time or another, most major religions, under the right circumstances, were open to the use of torture. Their reasons sounded much like the arguments being made today in the USA: Saving souls (spreading democracy) and defeating evil by fighting just wars.

Catholicism accepted and even utilized torture for centuries before taking a more enlightened path. In his book, Torture: Religious Ethics and National Security, Jesuit priest John Perry explains how noble religious values such as Christian charity were used to rationalize not only the Inquisition many hundreds of years ago, but also abuses just decades ago during the military regimes of Argentina and Chile.

'Eliminating weeds'

Perry recounts, for example, the story of Adolfo Scilingo, a former captain in the Argentine navy who threw suspected leftists out of airplanes to their deaths. Scilingo's conscience was assuaged by Catholic military chaplains who assured him that even the Bible "provided for eliminating weeds from the wheat field." Many Argentine bishops remained mute to the torture policy because they regarded the atheism of Communist leftists as a threat to Christian values.

In Judaism, ancient Maccabean kings used the sword to convert their neighbors. But already by Roman times, Judaism had decided that one could torture and kill pre-emptively only when a threat was direct, imminent and certain. Melissa Weintraub, writing for Rabbis for Human Rights, says that "Judaism would never permit routine torture." Yet "never" hasn't held up well in Judaism or in the world's other great religions.

<snip>

The times have a funny way of changing religious views on torture, just as the times might influence a government's view of such measures. In Israel, for example, remnants of unjustified torture persisted. Israeli watchdog group B'tselem says torture inIsrael was not unusual before 1999, when Israel's Supreme Court outlawed it under most circumstances. Before the court ruling, the group said, 85% of Palestinian prisoners were physically abused. From 1999 to 2002, the last years for which statistics exist, Israel approved only 90 cases in which interrogators could use "exceptional means of interrogation" because of "ticking bombs" scenarios, the newspaper Haaretz reported.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-02-19-forum-torture_x.htm

[ZombieHorde]

40. Did he do all of those killings in the name of No God?

[ironbark]

45. No, he did many of those tens of thousands of killings

in the name of eliminating those who believed in God.

It was a formal aspect of the Khmer Rouge radical communist agrarian extremist atheistic program to restart the country from ‘Year Zero’.

There was no accidental incorporation of extremist atheism… it was core Khmer Rouge policy- eliminate the religious of all persuasions and denominations.

And once again, as I said to Trotsky- “It is as ‘over determined’ (shallow/simplistic) and fruitless to lay the Killing Fields exclusively at the feet of atheism as it is to lay 9/11 exclusively at the feet of religion.”

[Anarcho-Socialist]

61. Pol Pot and Khmer Rouge weren't concerned with religion

besides Pol Pot was a devout Roman Catholic. Khmer Rouge were concerned with wiping out any potential poles of authority against its rule, and implementing its cultish and economic agenda.

[BrklynLib at work]

63. Correct. It was political..not religious. The politicians used "religion" as a lever into the

acquisition of power...

[PerpetuallyDazed]

53. Sorry, but I'm gonna hafta invoke Godwin's Law here?!

Hitler was an atheist, too :evilgrin:

[uberllama42]

57. It's very likely that Hitler believed in God

He invoked God in his writings and speeches and said in private conversation that he really believed he was doing God's work. Also, he remained a Catholic until his death.

Further, the Antisemitism of the German people was not fabricated out of whole cloth by the Nazi Party in the late 1930's. It was in large part a legacy of the religious history of Germany. Whether Hitler believed in God or not, many of the people who followed his orders did so in part because of the religious overtones of Nazi ideas. Even within the scope of the "atheist atrocity" meme, Hitler is not a particularly good example because it is not at all clear that he did not believe in God.

[SidDithers]

60. Right...

Sid

[moodforaday]

77. Ever heard

"Gott mit Uns"?

Hitler invoked God in speeches all the time. He may or may not have been religious, but he sure knew how to use religion to smooth the social gears towards a dictatorship and war.

[Hydra]

3. Nail hits head

IMO, believers are bigger know-it-alls. I'm an agnostic, but I could be seen as a binary atheist with little tolerance for mystery for a few reasons:

1. I study chaos theory, and it's clear that if we knew every variable in the universe, that we would understand everything. So, in a sense, there is no mystery- merely places we haven't been yet.

2. Believers have the most absurd assumptions- why would God look/think/act like a human? Why would an omnipotent and omniscient force care what we did in our daily lives and have a place full of fire and brimstone to throw us if he got upset with us? He could just spank us, were he humanlike. Another funny assumption- they say that the mind of God is unknowable...but then they claim to know what he's thinking!

3. I ask questions! How dare you question blind faith! It's sacred, you know!

Even so, I lead a happy life. I see the miracle of life around me every day in the trees, the clouds, the animals, the Earth itself. They're missing out in their need to find something to believe in, IMO.

[damntexdem]

4. Some atheists, atheist fundamentalists, don't just stick to a lack of belief in deities.

They proclaim knowledge of the nonexistence of deities.

They also often dis religious believers who would otherwise be our allies in many progressive causes.

I just thank gods that I'm an agnostic.

[MindPilot]

7. I think you forgot the little sarcasm thingy... n/t

[Hydra]

13. What allies in progressive causes do they alienate?

Because I'm seeing support for progressive causes in the toilet, and no support coming from that direction.

[Silent3]

14. You might find such atheists annoying...

...but you might have to expand your vocabulary for describing annoying behavior, however, if "know-it-all" is the way you describe the annoyance.

A denial of an extraordinary claim is not an equal claim on knowledge as the assertion of the same extraordinary claim. Only if you assert a false 50/50 equivalence between "There is a God" and "There is no God" is the latter a "know-it-all" kind of thing to say. Further, "There is no God" tends to be more limited in scope than "There is a God", since most people claiming to know there is a God bring a whole lot of extra baggage along with that claim, about things that God does, rules that God has for us, rituals that God expects us to perform, etc. etc... all of which entails a much bigger claim to special knowledge than even the most strident atheist brings to the table.

[moodforaday]

78. Thank you, this is exactly right.

The difference between saying "God exists" and "God exists, therefore all of you must..." is the difference between, literally, life and death. Between freedom and oppression.

Throughout history religion has been used as cover for the most horrible crimes and enslavement of people. That's the problem with religion - not as a belief system, but as a tool of social manipulation. The belief in existence of a deity is somehow supposed to instill respect and imbue the believers with power over others, believers and non-believers alike. This is entirely unacceptable. How many people voted for Bush because he's "born again"? How many polls indicate that an atheist candidate would never make it to the Oval Office?

[YOY]

51. As an agnostic I've been attacked for questioning their infinite wisdom on the matter as well

n/t

[TreasonousBastard]

5. The "know-it-all" thing comes from...

those who consider themselves correct and the rest of us wrong.

Unfortunately, that group of patronizing atheists who insist on lecturing or insulting the rest of us tends to be a bit louder on discussion boards than the presumably larger group who simply disbelieve, usually for good reason, and prefer not to be confrontational.

I find someone who haughtily dismisses my "imaginary cloud being" every bit as tiresome as someone who insists I find Jesus. Or Allah.

I also find tiresome the constant moving of the goalposts and refusal of the alleged "rational" atheists to define terms. I try not to discuss certain things around here because even when I've gone to atheist sites and used their own definitions, I'm accused of making stuff up. Ironically, some then use the "No true Scotsman" argument thmselves while accusing me of using it.

"You can't define me!" Well, OK, but you're not defining yourself, so what am I to do? If a recognized atheist organization says "X" is so, why do you argue with me when I agree?

But, so it goes.

[Lerkfish]

6. I'm not sure why paranormal is including with deity in the skepticism

nothing wrong with being skeptical of both, but I"m confused why you would think paranormal is a manifestation of a deity.
I can easily conceive of paranormal activity (ESP, telepathy, etc.) existing as true, even if a deity is false.

unless you just mean atheists are overall skeptics of EVERYTHING they don't understand, whether deity-based or not.

in which case, I think you're defining EMPIRICISTS instead of ATHEISTS, but what do I know.

[Silent3]

10. I was, as I think I clearly stated, listing things which often go along...

...with being an atheist. And most atheists I've known are also skeptics about UFOs, tarot cards, Big Foot, so-called psychics, etc. etc.

[Lerkfish]

18. I guess I'm saying that is describing an empiricist

one who needs irrefutable evidence to accept something as real.

I know what you said, I'm just adding my own point that those things: UFOs, tarot cards, Big Foot, psychics, etc. COULD ALL BE TRUE and proven true eventually, and could be true INDEPENDENT of whether there is a deity or not.

so, I don't see skepticism of those things as being indicative of an atheist, necessarily, but skepticism of all those things IS INDICATIVE of an empiricist.

[Silent3]

19. So, just to make it clear...

...I'm saying that empiricism, while certainly not a necessary characteristic of atheists, is a very common characteristic of many who call themselves atheists, and a big part of where the public impression of atheism comes from.

For myself, and I think many others, I'd soften this a bit: "one who needs irrefutable evidence to accept something as real"

I don't think evidence always needs to be irrefutable. In some cases it would be enough for the truth of a claim marginally more likely than the claim being false. A fairly low level of evidence would suffice for making the recitation of a prayer seem worthwhile. A much higher level of evidence would be needed for deciding to jump of a cliff believing a magical being will save me.

[Lerkfish]

25. ok, I don't think we're really disagreeing, then.

I"m just sort of wondering why paranormal activity, which btw has been documented scientifically, couldn't be in the realm of things believable by an atheist.

[KnaveRupe]

55. It has? Scientifically?

Wow. Could you link to a peer-reviewed journal abstract or something?

'Cause I'd have thought that woulda made the news.

[trotsky]

56. The large and powerful fundamentalist atheist lobby is suppressing it.

Duh. ;-)

[Lerkfish]

70. I don't appreciate your tone.

completely missing my point by yards and yards.

I"m saying why is skepticism of paranormal phenomenon included within atheism? I don't believe it properly belongs there, as paranormal activity, whether real or not, is not related to whether a deity is real or not.

More properly, paranormal activity or skepticism thereof more properly belongs under empiricism.

no need to rude and insulting, thanks.

[trotsky]

72. I will refrain from humor in the future.

So sorry to have angered you with what I thought was an obviously sarcastic statement.

[uberllama42]

58. Furthermore, what are we talking about when we say "the paranormal"?

That term is as broad and potentially inclusive as the word "spiritual." It might refer to ESP, telepathy, Big Foot, alien visitation, witchcraft, transubstantiation, reincarnation, homeopathy, etc. As far as I know, none of those things has been observed or convincingly demonstrated under scientific conditions. But I could be wrong.

[Lerkfish]

67. remote viewing, for example, has been used by the military and studied extensively

:shrug:

[Lerkfish]

69. documented is different than proving, and you're traveling afield from my point

I'm not saying any paranormal activity is proven, in fact the opposite, but I'm saying I don't think it falls under something which proves or disproves a deity, whether it exists or not.

:shrug: not sure why this is a hard concept, nor why I'm being ridiculed for saying so.

[uberllama42]

73. I think the difficulty stems from the fact that

Kerry4Kerry has stated his position explicitly three times, and you seem to have agreed with him each time. Since there doesn't seem to be any disagreement here, I don't know why the conversation is still going on. It all seems like a pointless misunderstanding to me.

[John Gauger]

66. What do you mean by "paranormal?"

Please give us some specifics. "Paranormal" simply means that science has not yet properly explained a phenomenon. Plenty of things could fall under that category.

[Lerkfish]

68. unexplained phenomena, such as remote viewing

twin telepathy, biofeedback, clairvoyance, etc.

my only point is NOT that I conclusively prove this phenomena true, but rather why is this included in atheism, when they are non-religious items that could or could not exist, but could exist INDEPENDENT from whether a deity exists.

[John Gauger]

71. There you're talking about definitions

and not practicalities. A lot of atheists become so through skepticism, so they tend to be skeptical of the paranormal as well. But an atheist by definition is just that - lacking belief in any gods. Paranormal, strictly speaking, has nothing to do with the existence of a deity.

But to my original question, when have any of those things been scientifically documented?

[wryter2000]

9. I'm fine with your version of atheism

It fits me pretty well, although I call myself an agnostic. I wouldn't use the term "know-it-all" for some of the atheists I see here. I'd use the term "rude." "Opiate of the masses," "imaginary friend," "religion is behind all the killing in the world," are symptoms of the underlying rudeness.

[uberllama42]

11. I think the "know-it-all" claim comes in part

from the behavior of atheists who get an emotional fix from deriding the unjustified tenets of believers. I say this because I personally went through a stage in which I was primarily motivated by a desire to debunk all the nonsense I hear from believers. It provides a sense of moral superiority which really has no place in a scholarly discussion.

If you want to see this know-it-allism in action, I would point to the two atheists who started last week's flame wars. This was a beautiful display of the disdain and sense of moral superiority I'm talking about turned on fellow non-believers.

This is not to say that all atheists participate in what I'm talking about. I agree with much of your explanation, and I think the misconceptions you're talking about also have much to do with the "know-it-all" handle. I think if people could get beyond the anti-intellectualism you're talking about, the occasional know-it-all would not lead to believers labeling atheists as such.

[MindPilot]

12. Very eloquently said, but you're beating your head against the wall

Believers are the ones who "know". They KNOW god exists and created the Earth 6000 years ago, all facts be damned.

The atheist simply points out that they believe in stuff for which there is zero evidence, and he somehow becomes the know-it-all.

It's all projection because believers are completely lost when they have to confront the reality that their gods and devils are but myth and legend.

The challenge to any believer is "prove it". You are the one making the claim; prove it.

[Meshuga]

17. Not all believers claim to "know"

and I haven't met any believer in this forum who believes that God created Earth 6000 years ago.

It is tricky to use the word "believer" so loosely because one runs the risk of broadbrushing.

I think the OP was addressing those who have a problem with vocal atheists and, ironically, the people who have been making such a fuss about vocal atheists here in this forum (in the past few days) happened to be atheists.

[uberllama42]

33. I can think of one

He hasn't been here in a while, but I'm almost sure he's a young-earther. Not quite a regular, but he drops in every two or three months.

Very important to avoid broad-brushing, I agree. Not every believer is a fundamentalist, and not all liberal believers buy into the same interpretation of their scripture. I know I've made the mistake of confusing a belief held by some Christians for a sine qua non of Christianity, for instance.

By the same token, as K4K explicitly stated, not everything in the OP is necessarily descriptive of all atheists.

[PerpetuallyDazed]

54. Perhaps in a multiple dimension God created the Earth 6000 years ago

;-)

[Beregond2]

15. I have no problem with most of what you have said here.

And if most of the atheists on this board were as rational and well-spoken, I would have no problem with them either. But they aren't. They think that heaping contempt on an area of life they don't understand somehow makes them superior. Whereas it only reveals them for what they usually are: people who probably had a bad experience with some fundamentalist church in their youth, and so have developed a reaction formation that they are comfortable with.

For an example of what I mean, see the thread above this titled: "Which is the real God?" Ignorant, childish baiting.

I respect atheism, when it is the product of mature reflection and study. In fact, in agreement with Scott Peck, I consider it to be the third level of spiritual development, higher than that of most "churched" people. But I also know that there is a higher level yet, and it is the level that contemporary science is beginning to validate. The Newtonian model has been out-of-date for a century now, and yet most lower-level scientists still cling to it, out of a fear of anything that smacks of mysticism. But the plain fact is that advanced scientific thought is now predicated on a model of reality that is not material, but information-based, and that information is carried in what can only be described as a field of consciousness.

Obviously, this is not a validation of any particular religion. But it certainly points to the correctness of the traditional human intuition that there is more to reality than the material world we perceive through our senses.

Consciousness research is coming to understand that the brain is not the source of consciousness, but more like something of a receiver of it. Particle physics is realizing that, whatever matter is made of, it sure isn't matter. Quantum mechanics is positing that quanta arise out of something called the zero point field, which resmbles nothing so much as a giant mind.

All I ask of atheists is that they continue to follow the dictates of reason and evidence to their limits, and see what wonders are being revealed. They may be surprised to find how much reality is starting to resemble the insights of the myths that arose in the collective unconscious of our ancestors. And then maybe they won't be so quick to deride those for whom those myths are still important ways of exploring and structuring their lives.

[Meshuga]

16. Self Delete

I meant to respond to a different subthread.

[trotsky]

20. This is fascinating.

You rail on "most" atheists because they think they're superior, then you proceed to brag about this "higher level" that you've found, and that you know all the "lower-level" scientists are essentially stupid for not abandoning science as we know it.

By the way, I've found that most atheists DIDN'T grow up in, or have a bad experience with, a fundamentalist church. I, for instance, grew up in the fairly liberal ELCA (Lutheran) church. Which of course only further underscores the irony of your post, bashing atheists when it is you who are judging and insulting.

[Beregond2]

31. Defensive much, Hector Projector?

I said nothing that was condemning of atheism, or suggested that different levels of spiritual understanding are inferior or superior. All are necessary, and none can be skipped over. I only judged those who, like you, refuse to engage in an intelligent, respectful discussion of the topic, and instead fly into a rage at the mere thought of anything that doesn't conform to the mechanistic materialism you subscribe to as your dogma. You are threatened by anything that might make you think, just like fundamentalists of every type.

If you want to deny every bit of science from the past century in order to cling to an outmoded model of reality, that is your affair. Just don't pretend that you are being rational or scientific.

BTW, I grew up in ELCA as well, and I spent many years as an agnostic.

[trotsky]

32. I strongly suggest you read your own post again.

Before you go lecturing OTHERS on "projection."

[muriel_volestrangler]

81. You called it a 'higher' level - which is what 'superior' means

Your words: "I respect atheism, when it is the product of mature reflection and study. In fact, in agreement with Scott Peck, I consider it to be the third level of spiritual development, higher than that of most "churched" people. But I also know that there is a higher level yet, and it is the level that contemporary science is beginning to validate."

You were indeed suggesting atheism was inferior to the spiritual development you say some have; and you also said the spiritual development of 'churched' people was inferior to that of atheists. You've managed to call a lot of people here 'inferior'.

That you phrased this as "I also know that ... " rather than "I think that" or "I consider" says a lot about your own conviction that you are right while the 'inferior' people are wrong.

[HamdenRice]

22. Wow! Talk about convergence of ideas!!!

I was having a similiar conversation in the AA Group that is clarifying a lot of my ideas.

I've come to the conclusion that the problem isn't what I thought it was (fundamentalist atheism) but some sort of discredited materialism:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=263&topic_id=32915&mesg_id=33013

[Evoman]

23. Your wrong. There is a higher level even then your high level of spiritualism.

Third level (low level scientists)----> Fourth Level (Quantum Peddlers---you are here)-->Fifth level (realization that the fourth levels are full of crap and that the third levels are mostly right).

[trotsky]

28. Sheesh you people stuck on the fifth level are so dense.

For those of us who have reached the sixth and final level, the rest of you are like cockroaches. I'd try to describe the sixth level to you, but your limited brain would probably have trouble grasping it. Suffice it to say, all you morons on those lower levels are really arrogant for trying to tell other people they are wrong because YOU are and I'm way too advanced to insult inferior beings like you. ;-)

[TZ]

29. So what you are saying is that scientists

when they don't know the answer to something should say "God did it!"
Also talking about atheism as a level of spiritual development kind of invalidates your entire post there.
Oh and the "childish baiting" you were talking about..Proves something else..You have no sense of humor either..that post was meant in a humorous way. If you cannot distinguish humor from "baiting" then why would I find your belief in the outmoded "scientific method" (which is NOT by the way) credible?

[Beregond2]

34. I said nothing of the kind, as you would know

if you actually read my post. I absolutely support the scientific method, empiricism, and so forth. What I was saying was that those methods are leading to an understanding of reality that is supportive of a view of the universe that is consciousness-based, rather than matter-energy based.

Re "baiting," do you ever see non-atheists here creating posts the only purpose of which is to make atheists look stupid? No. Why? Maybe because they aren't insecure and threatened? I have a great sense of humor, when I see anything clever or funny. Childish mockery is neither.

[trotsky]

38. ...

do you ever see non-atheists here creating posts the only purpose of which is to make atheists look stupid?

Yup, there's one on this very thread - post #15.

[TZ]

52. heh.

You can even find "athiests" posting stuff with the intent of making other atheists look stupid.
And I have never heard about this view of the conciousness based universe, and I'm quite well read in the sciences.
It sounds like one of the fringe movements that is not accepted by the mainstream scientific community/

[uberllama42]

42. Who are these lower-level scientists

who don't believe in Einsteinian physics? The Newtonian model was overturned over a century ago, as you say, but I don't see (1) where any scientists are denying it or (2) how the new model of physics validates this "field of consciousness" you are talking about.

Can you point me to some scientists who are working in this area? Who are they, quantum physicists? Neurologists? What evidence is there of this non-material, "information-based" reality? Can you expand on how the zero-point field resembles a "great mind"?

I've read a good deal about quantum physics, but I've never heard of any of this.

[Silent3]

46. I have to admit, and I'm not ashamed to say...

...that I'm not always gentle and delicate in my criticism of religions and other supernatural claims. I also reject the notion (which you may or may not have been implying) that for atheists religious belief is "an area of life they don't understand". My approach to religion is that while the right to believe as one chooses must be respected, the beliefs themselves are not owed any automatic respect, and that religious and spiritual beliefs don't deserve any special automatic kid-gloves treatment that scientific, political, and philosophical propositions don't get.

As for this: "Consciousness research is coming to understand that the brain is not the source of consciousness, but more like something of a receiver of it. Particle physics is realizing that, whatever matter is made of, it sure isn't matter. Quantum mechanics is positing that quanta arise out of something called the zero point field, which resmbles nothing so much as a giant mind."

I do not agree with that claim. My experience so far -- and I'll happily listen to any evidence you have to the contrary -- is that the idea of science becoming more supportive of religious and spiritual claims comes from really bad "What the Bleep Do We Know?" kinds of distortions of subject matter like quantum mechanics.

[John Gauger]

65. Care to provide evidence for that claim?

"But the plain fact is that advanced scientific thought is now predicated on a model of reality that is not material, but information-based, and that information is carried in what can only be described as a field of consciousness."

So the whole universe is one big consciousness? Are you going to support that claim or are you just going to say that?

[Evoman]

26. Good post.

I especially like your discussion below about the acceptance of many theists of the 50-50 concept (that the chance god exists is 50 50, which is absolute rubbish). It is an important point.

Given everything we have learned from science, I would say that any sort of god seems extremely unlikely.

[knitter4democracy]

30. Most of the time, I don't mind that attitude, actually.

I look at it like a version of how I was after I chose to be a born-again Christian--a bit too convinced of the rightness of my path, a bit too full of myself for having figured it out, and a bit too annoying to those around me whom I tried to convince of the rightness of my path and how they needed to be on it, too.

I think many, perhaps even most, people who choose a specific path of faith/non-faith (or even hobby, such as knitting) go through a time like that and need to spread the word, so to speak. In being convinced of how wonderful their decision is and how amazing that path is, they feel the need to shout it from the rooftops and doggedly defend it to their last breath. That high doesn't last, thankfully, and eventually they return to a state of equilibrium and are more content to let others do the talking/convincing/proselytizing.

I don't mean that atheists are like born-agains, but some atheists sound a lot like some knitters I know--their way is the only way, and everyone else is not only wrong but stupid when the reality is there are many ways (you wouldn't believe the arguments I've seen over acrylic v. wool or continental knit v. American/English style).

[Jim__]

36. Part of the "know-it-all" problem may be statements like ...

They are highly aware of the human tendency towards self deception, and bring that awareness into discussions where supernatural claims are being made. This often leads believers to be offended when their own "personal experiences" are subjected to scrutiny under this kind of light.

I'm an atheist, and I have a lot of discussions with religious people about religion, science, origins, etc. I am aware of the human tendency towards self-deception. However, that awareness is paradoxical. I can't really assume that they are engaged in self-deception and I'm not. Part of being aware of the human tendency towards self-deception is to question whether or not you are deceiving yourself. It is somewhat presumptuous to assume that "they" are deceiving themselves and "I" can point this out to them. How can I possibly do that without presuming that I am somehow superior to them? Somehow they may be engaged in self-deception and I can help them to see this?

[Silent3]

43. Certainly we all have to consider our own vulnerability to self deception.

However, I don't think it's unfair to say that when it comes to avoiding self deception skepticism is a generally safer stance than belief, and to the extent that atheists are quite often skeptics in general (not just about gods), they tend to be better insulated against self-deception than those who profess supernatural beliefs.

[Jokerman]

48. Very well said. Thank you. K & R

[BrklynLib at work]

49. What a wonderful post! Thank yo so much!

:applause:

[roguevalley]

59. only death is going to tell us who is right. screaming about it at

either end of the belief spectrum doesn't matter. going across the last divide will prove who was right. period.

[Silent3]

62. You keep repeating this thing about proof after death...

...as if it's a given that we get all the answers when we die. And you do it so emphatically. "Period" indeed!

If there is no afterlife, one simply ceases to exist when one dies, learning nothing, proving nothing.

Even if there is an afterlife, some versions have people reborn with no memories, or only deeply hidden memories, of a previous life, and with no special revelations being presented before you're spiritually recycled. You're not going to learn or prove anything that way.

Even without reincarnation in the picture, one can easily imagine an afterlife where one is unaware of one's previous life, or unaware that one's previous life had ended, and never learn or prove anything about the existence or lack thereof of deities.

Even if one has an afterlife, and is aware that one has died and has come back into some new form of existence, that wouldn't prove that gods exist, and you wouldn't necessarily be given any new or special revelations. You assume way too much if you assume that the existence of gods and the existence of an afterlife are necessarily tied together.

Further, the entire idea of "proof" generally implies shared knowledge and evidence, something that can be appreciated in the context of public discourse. Private revelation is not a very satisfactory form of "proof".

Even if I were to grant you your premise that proof comes with death, why does it so annoy you that in the meantime, before we die, some of us might wish to discuss these things and weigh the possibilities as best as we can while we're still sucking air?

[MedleyMisty]

74. I know that personally I have trouble empathizing

because I cannot imagine believing that a myth is real and factual. I just can't.

And the whole semantics/labels thing is also something I don't get, but I recently discovered that I too have a semantic bug up my butt - I tend to assume that when one says one is a member of a religion that is based on a book, one accepts and believes every page of that book as real and true.

So I get confused when people say, oh, it's just a metaphor or just a different path of the same thing or something. Because then why do they identify with the book if they don't actually believe in it? If it is just a metaphor that is open to interpretation then doesn't that make the book just another work of literature?

And I went and looked up the Sermon on the Mount and although this isn't the translation I'm used to it has the same meaning as what I've seen before.

"Remember that as long as heaven and earth last, not the least point nor the smallest detail of the Law will be done away with -- not until the end of all things. 19 So then, whoever disobeys even the least important of the commandments and teaches others to do the same, will be least in the Kingdom of heaven. On the other hand, whoever obeys the Law and teaches others to do the same, will be great in the Kingdom of heaven. 20 I tell you, then, that you will be able to enter the Kingdom of heaven only if you are more faithful than the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees in doing what God requires."

So can that be interpreted as "This is all just a loose metaphor, pick and choose what you like."?

Yes, I do use the "sky daddy" type of phrasing. I don't see it as disrespectful of people, though. People and their beliefs are two different things and while people (and all other living beings) deserve a basic respect just by the fact that they're alive, beliefs and ideas have to earn respect. And religion has not earned my respect.

I think that really it comes down to a difference in personality - this is totally just a generalization and there are exceptions all over the place and of course it's not an absolute, but I think that perhaps people who believe in a religion are more social-centered and people who don't believe are more reason-centered. I would be willing to bet that the religious population reflects the whole human population and is dominated by extroverts while the majority of atheists are introverts. That would also explain the identification of people with their beliefs by religious people and the separation of the two by atheists. Also why religious people feel that atheists are looking down on them - extroverts tend to see hierarchies more than introverts and tend to see social interaction as more about placing yourself on some social ladder than introverts do. So the introvert is happily prattling away about sky daddies, all energized at discussing ideas and not thinking about the people who hold the ideas much if at all, while the extrovert interprets it as a personal insult and as an attempt to say that I am higher than you on the pecking order.

Hmm, maybe that also explains the frequent "Oh no, someone in GD insulted my way of life." threads in the Lounge. The Lounge is definitely dominated by extroverts.

Like when I said that I assumed that if you say you believe in a religion that means that you have read the religion's holy book and agree with and believe everything in it - that is how I would approach choosing a religion. Yes, I know I'm projecting. I'm working on it.

However, in the posts of people who believe, you see references to "what my parents taught me" or "how I was raised" or if they were deciding on a religion, "I was looking for a community". Not "I was looking for an explanation of the universe with internally consistent logic and ethics based in reason that I could personally believe in within myself." but "I wanted a group of friends to hang out with and a group to identify myself with." Or in the former situation of just accepting whatever their parents believed, "I wanted to fit in and be accepted socially."

So I think that believers and atheists (understand that this is a gross generalization and that there are always exceptions and that I realize this brush is wide) come at the idea of religion in completely different ways. The differences cause a lot of misinterpretation.

I am trying my best to bridge those differences from my side. I don't think I could ever empathize because I just can't imagine myself believing in a religion, but I can at least try to understand the differences intellectually.

Actually, the more I think about it - I have read quite a few essays and articles about the social functions of religion and how it's really more of a group identification and cohesion thing than anything else.

Hmm.

[uberllama42]

75. I have been struggling with that tendency for quite some time

I believed the bible was literally true when I was a child, but once I figured out that the Flood was impossible, and start thedinking about how the Creation story(ies) was(were) completely implausible, I couldn't buy into the miracles in the New Testament, either. Once I looked at the bible as a book of parables and metaphors, it just didn't seem to have any impact.

The verses from the Sermon on the Mount talking about strict adherence to the law seem to weigh against a liberal interpretation. At least, that is how I have always read them. If you don't ascribe any divinity to the words, they don't have any force behind them, because the old laws aren't relevant anyway. But without divinity, even the red-letter bits in the bible are a swath of pretty good ethical suggestions and a bunch of nonsense about selling all your stuff and abandoning you family because the Rapture's on its way.

Maybe if I'd ever gotten a "proper" religious education, this would make more sense to me, but to be honest I think I'm better off without it. It's important to understand this kind of thing, though. Being able to empathize with such a vast majority of the population is sort a necessity, when you think about it.

[MedleyMisty]

76. I didn't want to add this last night

Because of the pecking order misinterpretations, but oh well.

One of my strongly held beliefs is that all life is equally...well, sacred is the best word. I don't think that personality characteristics or abilities or whatever has anything to do with a value of a life. All life is sacred just by the fact of being alive, and no life is worth more or more sacred than another.

So please don't think that I'm trying to place any group in any sort of hierarchy of value here.

But the "know-it-all" thing could also be related to the fact that there is one group of humans where it has been documented that introverts outnumber extroverts three to one - actually the direct inverse of the proportion in the general population.

The majority of intellectually gifted people are introverts.

[knitter4democracy]

80. I chose my church because it mostly closely resembled my personal faith.

I know not everyone does, but most Christians do, I think.

See, I don't think metaphor/myth/mystery automatically means false. I've found many symbols and metaphors of my faith to be very powerful, personally. For example, I don't think God spelled out exactly how He created everything in Genesis because we would've thrown all that physics out and not understood it for thousands of years. Instead, He went with metaphors we could understand to teach lessons we needed. We need rest and shouldn't work every single day without a break. That makes sense to me. Man was created last to show us that our job is to take care of the Earth, not destroy it. Woman was made of bone instead of clay to show that she's stronger and equal to Man in every way (she was taken from his side, not his foot or his head). The Fall shows how easy it is to screw up big-time without knowing all of the consequences and how it's easy to get drawn into believing something wrong that's actually bad for us. We got all of those lessons from the first couple chapters of Genesis, and that's good enough for me. I realize it's not good enough for everyone, and that's fine. Everyone has to choose his/her faith and life-path.

I find the symbolism in baptism and Communion to be powerful--they speak to me and to my soul. I need them, just like I need icons, candles, incense, and the mystery of the Eastern Orthodox Christian faith. Most people don't, judging from our population numbers, and that's fine.

[MedleyMisty]

79. So I've been reading some about development

I was rereading the first paragraph of my first post and felt all silly.

I'm not entirely sure what I think of Ken Wilber's theories yet, but I found this interesting.

http://beliefstagesandgrowth.com/blog/core-articles/religious-developmentfor-dummies

According to that, I had identified anyone who believed in Christianity as stage two.

So how does stage four work logically? I identify with some of it - like the all one, what you do affects everyone else stuff. And I personally don't think I need certainty that much.

But why still use the "label" at that stage?

When I read stuff about Hinduism, I get the feeling that the author knows that the gods are metaphors. I can understand and empathize with that - I quite like the idea of Kali, for example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kali All sorts of useful symbolism and metaphor there.

Hmm.

I always have identified more with Eastern philsophy than Western - just last night at the book store I was looking through the sociology and philsophy sections for something to help me understand but most of it was fluff by people who were way too impressed with themselves and made it a lot more complicated than it needed to be to make themselves sound more intelligent than they were. I gave it up and went to the Eastern thought section and picked up a slim, clear, and simple book about Buddhist philosophy.

And what little I know of Eastern religions is much prettier and more mystical than the Bible's lists of begats and descriptions of massacres and lists of rules about what to eat and what to wear. There are a few good bits - I love the verse in the "Turn, Turn, Turn" song, for instance. But I guess I see the Bible as more of a tribal history with a collection of strict rules that make no sense now than good stories that use metaphors to explain universal timeless concepts and never mistake themselves for reality. When I look at the main event of Christianity, the execution of Jesus and his resurrection, I see no metaphor that I can understand or identify with. Yes, there is the whole "things die in the fall and come back in the spring" thing but, well...I think the rantings about "Jesus died to save you!" destroy even that paltry metaphor for me.

I guess that's why I then assume that people who say they are Christians are at level two and why I don't understand Christianity in particular being seen as just a metaphor, because I personally see no metaphors in it. I guess I can see something about the loss of innocence in the Eden story, but well - that's been poisoned right through by all the sexism. Plus I think that knowledge is a good thing. I mean, I suppose you could say something about the knowledge of good and evil bringing suffering as in the suffering that happens when people decide that one thing is bad and another is good and attach themselves to that dualism, but I guess I don't give credit to the people who wrote the Bible for being able to think that deeply.

And also I just can't get away from the idea that at stage four you wouldn't identify with an organized religion - you might see some value in the religion's metaphors, but why would you say that you still believed in it?

This is very interesting.

http://www.praetrans.com/en/ptf.html

Also this.

http://julianwalkeryoga.gaia.com/blog/2007/1/santa_claus_jesus_wilber_kohut_and_piaget

In this article Wilber lays out the dilemma I'm having, I think.

http://integral-options.blogspot.com/2007/11/ken-wilber-on-new-atheists.html

""The trans-rational stages," Wilber continues, "have almost nothing in common with the pre-rational stages. The trans-rational stages of development have much more to do with awareness and the number of perspectives one can encompass. They have absolutely nothing to do with magic or mythic beliefs or dogmas. The trans-rational forms of spirituality are not really being addressed in this debate, which wastes time telling us that Moses didn't part the Red Sea. Well, duh!"

And see, that's my problem - when you say that you believe in an established religion, I hear "I believe that Moses really did part the Red Sea."

But maybe I'm just not listening well enough?

[knitter4democracy]

82. I've found belief to be more complicated than that.

I can't speak for anyone else, but after reading through those stages, I've been through several of them up and down over and over again. It's not like faith is static and I always believe the same thing all the time, and it's not like I don't doubt from time to time. I seem to need different things from my faith at different times in my life. Sometimes, it's hard to even go to church, what with all the petty humans-in-a-group crap, and sometimes, it's all I can do to light a candle and sit there numb in fear for myself and my family (the week they let me think I only had three years left to live comes to mind)--and yet, that candle helped me center myself again.

As for the Eastern faiths, I've found that the Eastern Orthodox are a good blend. We have repetitive prayer that's to be meditative, incense and candles, and the same tones that we used two thousand years ago. It's the only form of the Christian church I'm comfortable in anymore, since I seem to need more mystery than most Christians.