Aggresive Atheism and its Public Dimension

[TheAtheist]

Greetings. I haven't posted here in ages, and have probably been forgotten in the process, but if any of you should happen to remember me, then you know what i'm about and i come in good faith in asking the following question.

Most of my atheist colleagues and I were greeted in our emails by a rather amusing little webvideo. Link provided below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjO4d...ture=topvideos

We couldn't stop laughing at the picaresque attitude of the person in question. He obviously feels motivated and definitely belongs to the "New Atheist" crowd, something we "Old Atheists" (When did i become Old? I suppose we should come up with another term less it be construed as derogatory) have a tendency of poking fun at - esp. the high rampant emotionalism/righteousness akin to an evangelical preacher.

But i did have a few questions, something that i can really answer because i'm not religious. And so i must rely upon you all to convey something of your subjective experiences:

1.) Is this what all of you motivated by religious obligations think of when you consider who or what an atheist is? Is this the um, limit of the bandwidth so to speak. Obviously the myopic viewpoint of the gentleman on the video seems to categorize everyone who practices a faith somewhere between Pat Robertson and Osama bin Laden.

2.) If you feel offended by that particular person's message, i should ask simply: why?

Now there's an obvious answer to that, as obvious as a Patriot might feel toward someone burning their country's flag, or a person of Jewish descent might feel toward a Neo-nazi.

But i suppose is should be more precise about this: Is the content? the structure? the means of conveyance?

[InquisitiveCath]

Originally Posted by TheAtheist

1.) Is this what all of you motivated by religious obligations think of when you consider who or what an atheist is? Is this the um, limit of the bandwidth so to speak. Obviously the myopic viewpoint of the gentleman on the video seems to categorize everyone who practices a faith somewhere between Pat Robertson and Osama bin Laden.

No thankfully. Most of my atheist friends are off doing useful things instead of ranting. In fact, they tend to belittle people like this for "being the reason i never got into religion in the first place." I was always curious what they meant by that comment until one sat me down and played a dual recording from a First Baptist and Atheist meeting which amazingly enough pretty much ran the same way, just with different word choices.

His final comment on the matter ran to the effect of, "I don't need no stinkin fuzzy collective affirming the choices i've made in my life. I don't need some grand cause to flatter myself with and tell myself how good of a person I am for going off and doing the "right thing." That's what religious people...err no offense Inquisitive Catholic.

And i'd rather have you as my lab partner or wing-man any day of the week when we hit up South Beach, or go clubbing at Pacha in Manhattan than any of (insert explicative)."

2.) But i suppose is should be more precise about this: Is the content? the structure? the means of conveyance?

Not really, but i think the emotionalism is what's going to get to people. Overly-righteous anything, whether its to save the Whales, end global warming, blah blah, tends to be a big turn off - even when the cause is right.

[kimmielittle]

Originally Posted by InquisitiveCath

No thankfully. Most of my atheist friends are off doing useful things instead of ranting. In fact, they tend to belittle people like this for "being the reason i never got into religion in the first place." I was always curious what they meant by that comment until one sat me down and played a dual recording from a First Baptist and Atheist meeting which amazingly enough pretty much ran the same way, just with different word choices.

His final comment on the matter ran to the effect of, "I don't need no stinkin fuzzy collective affirming the choices i've made in my life. I don't need some grand cause to flatter myself with and tell myself how good of a person I am for going off and doing the "right thing." That's what religious people...err no offense Inquisitive Catholic.

And i'd rather have you as my lab partner or wing-man any day of the week when we hit up South Beach, or go clubbing at Pacha in Manhattan than any of (insert explicative)."




Not really, but i think the emotionalism is what's going to get to people. Overly-righteous anything, whether its to save the Whales, end global warming, blah blah, tends to be a big turn off - even when the cause is right.

[TheAtheist]

Originally Posted by InquisitiveCath

His final comment on the matter ran to the effect of, "I don't need no stinkin fuzzy collective affirming the choices i've made in my life. I don't need some grand cause to flatter myself with and tell myself how good of a person I am for going off and doing the "right thing." That's what religious people...err no offense Inquisitive Catholic.

Wow. Its like he said everything i wanted to say, but with bad grammatical structure. Err, no offense Inquisitive Catholic.

I'm inclined to put you and your friend down as an outlier opinion. I'm not one of them, but i know atheists and religious people who aren't even willing to be friends just because of those opposing views.

That and if i may make a conjecture, I'm assuming that your an East Coaster, are a little higher on the tax bracket than most, and have an active social life. Those are traits that point to a more practical and cosmopolitan perspective on the world - something that's not generally shared by those who normally debate these things on the internet.

Not really, but i think the emotionalism is what's going to get to people. Overly-righteous anything, whether its to save the Whales, end global warming, blah blah, tends to be a big turn off - even when the cause is right.

Yeah, New Atheism tends to have a general lack of practicality and marketing. Running around screaming "I HAVE THE TRUTH AND THEREFORE I AM JUSTIFIED TO ACT LIKE THIS!!" just doesn't really pass the mustard in the real world, something i'm sure the evangelicals also partake in and can't figure out why everyone hasn't converted to the Love of Jesus Christ even though they've personally told you, me, your mom, my postal worker, his dog, etc. about it.

Thanks for your reply Inquisitive, but until given proof otherwise, i'm gonna have to shift your comment into the Exception to the Rule category.

[kimmielittle]

Hiyas

IMHO; Poison is poison, no matter the source.
"The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance."
—Albert Einstein

[Melissa]

1) No. While I have encountered other "evangelical atheists" (example, a young man who, when a group was discussing "what's your favorite type of music?" one party said "Gospel music" to which the rabid evangelical atheist began ranting on "how dare you cram religion down my throat?" while I believe sane atheists can acknowledge that "Gospel music" is a legit category which may be legitimately the favorite type of music for some people and not mentioned merely to annoy the atheist in the group), there is also my direct supervisor who is an atheist who volunteers to work on Christmas so that the others at his level (there are a total of four team leaders) who are Christian can take the day off and *says* flat out that he will work on Christmas because he's an atheist and doesn't care about the day (he just gets some other day off, depending on how Christmas & his usual days off fall). I do think that more atheists are like my supervisor than the chap in the video (which I couldn't watch fully because I found him very grating to listen to).

2) I'm not offended, but as I said, the man was very annoying to listen to--I think just voice quality aspects and cadence. If I were reading a transcript (so as to just get to the content), I still don't think I'd be offended, but rather a bit amused ... fundamentalist evangelical atheists are nothing more than the flip side of fundamentalist evangelical Christians (and quite possibly any other religious group, but I haven't had personal exposure). It's something like I read in a novel once 'the opposite of love isn't hate, it's indifference'. (The novel in question was Calico Palace by Gwen Bristow--I'm sure the expression wasn't originally hers, but I was a young teen when I read that thus the association.)

I do think that more atheists are like my supervisor than the rabid evangelical type, which is to say that an atheist and an observant Catholic (or member of another faith, whatever that faith might be) can have pretty normal conversations (and even acknowledge major religious events as something important to a friend/co-worker/acquaintance without needing to go into a diatribe about why IWouldNeverDoAnythingLikeThat!--Oh,AndYouShouldn'tEither![YouBrainwashedSheeple]).

[InquisitiveCath]

Originally Posted by TheAtheist

That and if i may make a conjecture, I'm assuming that your an East Coaster, are a little higher on the tax bracket than most, and have an active social life. Those are traits that point to a more practical and cosmopolitan perspective on the world - something that's not generally shared by those who normally debate these things on the internet.

Well, your right on two counts. I'm probably on the lower end of the money pile. Have you seen what tuition costs these days?

Yeah, New Atheism tends to have a general lack of practicality and marketing. Running around screaming "I HAVE THE TRUTH AND THEREFORE I AM JUSTIFIED TO ACT LIKE THIS!!" just doesn't really pass the mustard in the real world, something i'm sure the evangelicals also partake in and can't figure out why everyone hasn't converted to the Love of Jesus Christ even though they've personally told you, me, your mom, my postal worker, his dog, etc. about it.

The answer is obvious. My Church is the Whore of Babylon, i don't love Christ enough because i'm not talking about him 26/7. Yes, 26/7, because if you REALLY loved Christ enough you can squeeze two extra hours out of the 24 hour day. I'm obviously on the road to burn in the fiery pit.

Oh and i hate to inform you, but that funny feeling you get in the middle of the night. That's the Devil, he's slowly sucking your soul out of you. So, do me a favor when you get down to Hell, can you make some room for me since your an ok joe and i'd like to share the same cauldron of burning oil with you.

Thanks for your reply Inquisitive, but until given proof otherwise, i'm gonna have to shift your comment into the Exception to the Rule category.

You might want to rethink that. Consider what Melissa just wrote as well.

I tend think the whole thing is blown out of proportion. Just like in the news, whomever screams the loudest gets the most attention.

Yes there are Evangeligcal idiots who are trying to block the teaching of evolution. Yes its annoying as hell, and yes i'm probably the first one to arm wrestle them on that point. But do you honestly think they are going to gain any traction whatsoever in altering the way biology is taught at the higher levels of education?

Even if they get their beliefs taught in school, its not like Evolution is banned from the internet. Furthermore, if worse comes to worse we can use it as a filtering mechanism. You believe in the Discovery Institute's theories without any backing? Congratulations - you can go the Philosophy department, not the Biology department.

But in the end, they can't really do anything. Part of the reason is i won't let them. I'll protest for that if i have to.

Same with the New Atheists. yes they are all huffy, yes they are all "tough" and "in your face." So what? I'm sure someone has interpreted this as the "Sign of the Endtimes." But you just pointed it the issue yourself. These people are generally confined to the internet and they can all be self-patronizing to each other with the evangelicals in the same corner.

Because didn't you know The Atheist, the fate of the world rests on their shoulders. Not say, Wall Street or Washington. No no, the world revolves around their concerns only.

Now, back in Reality, i think i've got a pretty good example on the truth of the matter. I once did an informal poll with a few hundred people about who would they love to have dinner with:

1.) Richard Dawkins
2.) The Pope
3.) Oprah

Take a wild guess who won. The numbers get even higher when I swapped Oprah out for Lady GaGa.

The scientist and sadly my pontiff also lost against the Dalai Lama by a clear margin.

Hmm, maybe i should have made it Oprah, Lady Gaga, and the Dalai Lama.

[Areopagite]

Originally Posted by TheAtheist

1.) Is this what all of you motivated by religious obligations think of when you consider who or what an atheist is? Is this the um, limit of the bandwidth so to speak. Obviously the myopic viewpoint of the gentleman on the video seems to categorize everyone who practices a faith somewhere between Pat Robertson and Osama bin Laden.

No, I don't think all atheists are like this. Don't worry.

Originally Posted by TheAtheist

2.) If you feel offended by that particular person's message, i should ask simply: why?

First of all, I agreed with a lot of what he said, particularly: how he says that tolerance is not necessarily a good thing (that intolerance toward anti-semitism and sexism is a good thing, for example). I also enjoyed his vitriolic comments against Islam. It was, frankly, music to my ears. I've enjoyed Dawkins rants against Islam too. Beautiful.

Was I offended though? Well, I'm not sure what people mean now by "offense" anymore. I will say that he seemed to suggest that all people who subscribed to some kind of faith were automatically ignorant and immoral. He almost outright says this. So ... I guess you could say that I was offended by this.

He also says, "[Religion has] no substance ... it's had thousands of years to make its case ... and all it's produced is sophistry, violence, and a raft of morals that would shame a rattle snake. And no amount of wind-bagery and flim-flam from clergy can any longer disguise the simple, bald fact that there is nothing there. The only true thing about religion is that it's false."

Here, of course, he is professing some kind of gnostic atheism, I think, which is quite foolish. His comments about religion only producing "sophistry and violence" is pretty silly. Perhaps you can say that about Islam, but certainly not Christianity. I mean, come on ... Mother Theresa? Hello? There's something there. I found this comment of his to be quite ignorant ... and yes, offensive. I guess.

[AlbertBall]

Originally Posted by TheAtheist

2.) If you feel offended by that particular person's message, i should ask simply: why?

It seems some are offended, this person illustrates the point perfectly..........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUDhbgb2ZO8

[Touchstone]

Originally Posted by TheAtheist

But i suppose is should be more precise about this: Is the content? the structure? the means of conveyance?

I'm still not sure who qualifies as "New Atheists" beyond the Four Horsemen, but if it is a general category, it seems to be as "atheists who speak up and defend their views, sometimes audibly". Atheist have forever been the "cultural nigg*r" in American society, despite getting things off to a very decent, secular start with the rationalist/deist dispositions of the likes of Jefferson, Paine, Adams, Madison, et al. Things have improved earlier overseas, but here, the culture, including Catholic culture, I have been surprised to find, is steeped in religious fundamentalism.

As an (evangelical Protestant) Christian, I wasn't a "hater", that wasn't the message, at least on a personal level (hating the Democratic, baby-killing *party* was OK... but that's a different thread). I was immersed in a thoroughly toxic hostility and disgust for homosexuals ("hate the sin, love the sinner" and that folly). It was really only atheists who were open game, routinely and loudly denounced, the source of Satan's work in the world, etc.

And as terrified as Christianity is of homosexuality, that's nothin' compared to The Big Fear, the gnawing fear that never goes away, and informs Christian practice from one end to the other so as to sustain sufficient faith that GOD IS NOT THERE.

Thus atheism as a taboo ranking somewhere near pedophilia and cannibalism makes good sense. As a "faith", a faith which aggressively deploys reason against it's basic assumptions (at least in some quarters), but which stands naked and impotent to defend itself in terms of reason and evidence for its basic starting points, there's little means of combatting the atheist. The atheist is unwelcome, and should be, in faith circles, because she is a stinging, constant reminder of the weakness of the Christian faith in terms of reason and disciplined thinking, and, to the extent the atheist is NOT a cannibal or a pedophile, a reminder also that one *can* be a healthy, productive, happy atheist in modern society.

That second one is important to New Atheism, as I understand the movement, as one of the primary goals of New Atheism is to debunk the rampant and bogus mythologies that have (had) a kind of cultural hegemony in America. When I press Catholics or other Christians on their faith, I usually get one of four broad responses:

1. Christianity really is true by the evidence!
2. Everything we belief is faith, and no belief is really empirically better than another, so Christianity is one that appeals to me.
3. Christianity is necessary for man to moral and good.
4. I couldn't be a atheist -- I need morals and ethics.

3) and 4) are mirror images of the same answer of course, and it is in this idea, the myth of Christianity as some kind of predicate for morality, that New Atheism finds a kind of evangelistic vigor, in perhaps the same way Catholic missionaries were eager to spread a little good news and civilization to the barbarians in remote jungles long ago. It's an idolatrous, utterly vain mindset, the "Christianity puts the good in morals and ethics".

So why not just be a "quiet atheist"? Nothing wrong with that, per se, of course, but like the plight of blacks, and women, and homosexuals, good arguments and clear thinking are necessary but not sufficient to reform the culture, to counter the self-serving taboos and cultural prejudices that compensate for and enable wickedness.

It's important for those that are able, by position or talent (or otherwise) to stand up and say "The Emperor indeed has no clothes!". And loudly. And to the shame and embarrassment of all the Courtiers and Cowards who've made a cultural industry out of "faith that perserveres only in the absence of critique", religion that sustains its hegemony through the demonization of unbelief and unbelievers.

We need this message represented in the mix, in a prominent and articulate way. People are free to believe whatever they want -- the world is filled with believers in astrology in 2009, for cryin' out loud -- but one reason atheism fares so poorly in the public square historically (there are other important reasons too, but that's another discussion) is that atheist's often just capitulate to the prejudices against them, and keep their mouths shut.

I don't begrudge "old atheists" (?) keeping mum, or just confining their defenses of atheism to times when they are asked, but it's a problem for me when I hear complaints about "New Atheism", and the rancor it causes. It sounds like intimidated black folk back in the bay agreeing about the problem of the "uppity negroes" wanting to ride in the front of the bus.

I recommend civility and reasoned discourse, but not weaseling or cowardice. The Emperor has no clothes. There is no reasoned foundation for belief in a God or god, but only our passions. Passions are fine, but let this be a more honest, less infantile culture please and describe those beliefs for what they are -- choices of passion that are, the more you look and look hard, disjunct from real world evidence and rigorous thinking.

It's a bit of an epiphany [sic] to engage in such "New Atheism" discussions. It becomes all too clear not only that the Emperor has no clothes, but more importantly, that the basis of this belief is instinctual/passionate, but also, largely predicated on a culture of belief that subsists by avoiding having to defend and justify itself. It doesn't persist because its grounded, because the Emperor *has* some fashionable new clothes, but because of man's tendency to indulge his fears and questions in group-think, anodyne folly and social sycophancy.

-TS

[AlbertBall]

Very good post......

"constant reminder of the weakness of the Christian faith in terms of reason and disciplined thinking"

......for me this hits the nail in the head. I see no logical way one can arrive at a belief in the supernatural.

[Areopagite]

Originally Posted by Touchstone

I was immersed in a thoroughly toxic hostility and disgust for homosexuals ("hate the sin, love the sinner" and that folly).

Out of curiosity, do you think that it's impossible to love someone and at the same time hate what they do? If not, I would assume then if you would hate all immoral people, right?

Originally Posted by Touchstone

It was really only atheists who were open game, routinely and loudly denounced, the source of Satan's work in the world, etc.

For what it's worth, I believe most religions in the world are pretty Satanic, especially Islam.

Originally Posted by Touchstone

And as terrified as Christianity is of homosexuality, that's nothin' compared to The Big Fear, the gnawing fear that never goes away, and informs Christian practice from one end to the other so as to sustain sufficient faith that GOD IS NOT THERE.

Telepathy of course is required to make this assertion. I used to think that everyone suffered from this too, but I later figured out it was my own skeptical struggles that I was projecting on everyone. I wasn't just struggling with the belief in God's existence, but the belief in the reliability of the human mind to know any truth whatsoever. That plagued me for awhile. And of course there is no remedy for that except through a mere act of faith. Anyway, thanks to Aquinas (and G.K. Chesterton), I got over all that.

Originally Posted by Touchstone

Thus atheism as a taboo ranking somewhere near pedophilia and cannibalism makes good sense. As a "faith", a faith which aggressively deploys reason against it's basic assumptions (at least in some quarters), but which stands naked and impotent to defend itself in terms of reason and evidence for its basic starting points, there's little means of combatting the atheist. The atheist is unwelcome, and should be, in faith circles, because she is a stinging, constant reminder of the weakness of the Christian faith in terms of reason and disciplined thinking, and, to the extent the atheist is NOT a cannibal or a pedophile, a reminder also that one *can* be a healthy, productive, happy atheist in modern society.

I would say, of course, that atheists (as well as any non-believer or heretic) could be a constant reminder of the weakness of person's faith (but not the faith in general ... i.e. the public revelation). I personally don't think atheists should be avoided.

For the record, I've never met a happy atheist. All the atheists I have met and seen on videos all seem to be perpetually pissed off (though it's sometimes unclear with the atheists on this forum ... so perhaps some of you are happy). I've met non-suicidal ones, but never any one who struck me as joyful or anything like that. Of course, there are a lot of sorrowful-faced Catholics too ... but I have met and know plenty Catholics who definitely are happy.

Atheists can of course be healthy and productive, most like anyone who believes anything.

Originally Posted by Touchstone

That second one is important to New Atheism, as I understand the movement, as one of the primary goals of New Atheism is to debunk the rampant and bogus mythologies that have (had) a kind of cultural hegemony in America.

I am all for debunking religious errors. That is why I take great pleasure in atheistic diatribes against Islam, Protestantism, and the occult. I despise it when some atheists tend to always single out Catholicism. The main reason why there are as many atheists as there are is because of the irrationality held by Islamic and certain Protestant religions. When they said faith and reason could contradict each other, and that God can go against logic, then of course atheism would be a natural reaction ... and irrational religion would also be a natural reaction. It is quite obvious that as atheism abounds, irrational religion abounds ... or rather superstition ... and the occult. As atheism grows, so will superstition, and vice versa. In fact, as more atheists come onto the scene, we are also seeing a HUGE influx of people into witchcraft. But what both have has only be accomplished in balanced measures in Catholicism. I could go into this more ... but perhaps no one cares.

Originally Posted by Touchstone

3) and 4) are mirror images of the same answer of course, and it is in this idea, the myth of Christianity as some kind of predicate for morality, that New Atheism finds a kind of evangelistic vigor, in perhaps the same way Catholic missionaries were eager to spread a little good news and civilization to the barbarians in remote jungles long ago. It's an idolatrous, utterly vain mindset, the "Christianity puts the good in morals and ethics".

For what it's worth, it's fairly obvious the Church never believed this, but held that natural virtue was indeed possible (to some extent) in the pagan cultures (esp. Greek and Romans, obviously). However, the Christian claim is that moral behavior can only be perfected in Christianity. This is because pagan morality is ultimately motivated by mere self-interest, and not selfless love of the good. That's the claim.

Originally Posted by Touchstone

The Emperor has no clothes. There is no reasoned foundation for belief in a God or god, but only our passions.

And I would say the exact opposite. Atheism, in my experience, seems to be motivated by passion and not clear reason. Atheism, for the most part (with exceptions most likely), seems to spring from emotional discontentment with one's family, especially with one's father. I've noticed this with surprising consistency. Many former atheists have said the same thing.

[Touchstone]

Originally Posted by Areopagite

Out of curiosity, do you think that it's impossible to love someone and at the same time hate what they do? If not, I would assume then if you would hate all immoral people, right?

Sure, it's possible. Happens all the time. The problem with the "love the sinner, hate the sin" is that in one's homosexuality you have not *theft* or some action that we might separate from the actor, but the very identity of the the person themselves. The "sin" of homosexuality *is* the "sinner" at the most fundamental level. Equating, say, contempt for theft (which I share) with one's deepest identity is a barbaric cruelty, a deep offense to those whose very *identity* is criminalized. To declare a homosexual orientation itself sinful or disordered *is* to hate the sinner in a way hating theft is not.

Sorry that wasn't more clear. That was aimed at the backwards and incorrigible thinking of Christianity (er, Paulianity?) on homosexuality. A shameful tradition and legacy that is different from many of the other positive moral insights Christianity has to offer.

For what it's worth, I believe most religions in the world are pretty Satanic, especially Islam.

Yeah, Muslim friends tell me the same things about Christianity and Judaism. It's a common conceit, and "Satanic" becomes a euphemism for "the other guy". That goes double for atheists. At least Muslims just counterfeit the True Faith, rather than denouncing credulity and indulgence as such, which is the cardinal sin of atheism.

Telepathy of course is required to make this assertion. I used to think that everyone suffered from this too, but I later figured out it was my own skeptical struggles that I was projecting on everyone. I wasn't just struggling with the belief in God's existence, but the belief in the reliability of the human mind to know any truth whatsoever. That plagued me for awhile. And of course there is no remedy for that except through a mere act of faith. Anyway, thanks to Aquinas (and G.K. Chesterton), I got over all that.

In that case, Calvin must have been right. You are the 'elect', chosen by the God to be endowed with 'faith' because... well, just because, never mind why. There is no why our puny minds understand. The rest, well, to us, the world looks godless the more we look, the more we think, the more we weave together experience and models and results. Some guys have all the luck!

I would say, of course, that atheists (as well as any non-believer or heretic) could be a constant reminder of the weakness of person's faith (but not the faith in general ... i.e. the public revelation). I personally don't think atheists should be avoided.

Well, it's a problem, and frankly, it's pretty conspicuous here, and anywhere else you go. Whenever the conversation just must be clipped: we have faith.

*blank out*

Full Stop.

I don't doubt that that is acceptable for many. But it's a glaring deficiency for those that are looking for a coherent, rational model of reality.

For the record, I've never met a happy atheist. All the atheists I have met and seen on videos all seem to be perpetually pissed off (though it's sometimes unclear with the atheists on this forum ... so perhaps some of you are happy). I've met non-suicidal ones, but never any one who struck me as joyful or anything like that. Of course, there are a lot of sorrowful-faced Catholics too ... but I have met and know plenty Catholics who definitely are happy.

Yes, this is the kind of hubris that the New Atheism is needed to counter. You can complain about Dawkins all you want, but that is the kind of hillbilly backwardness that only gets over when one isn't even mildly aware of what's going on around him.

You might as well say you never might a smart black man. Yow.

Atheists can of course be healthy and productive, most like anyone who believes anything.

OK. Just not happy, then!

I am all for debunking religious errors. That is why I take great pleasure in atheistic diatribes against Islam, Protestantism, and the occult. I despise it when some atheists tend to always single out Catholicism.

I spend a lot of time arguing with Muslims, too. But I'll grant you this -- my exchanges with my Muslim friends take place on private email loops. One of them is large, but the Muslim culture is so cancerous that open conversations engender threats -- real threats -- from other Muslims. No talking to kufr on their own terms, doncha know. After Ummah.com went supernova, only to be reincarnated as "ummah only" -- no kufr, nowhere I know to take them on like this.

So credit to Catholics where its due. Seriously. There isn't any fundamentalist/evangelical forum, except for Theology Web, which is really an anything/everything site that has the willingness to engage and defend and respond thoughtfully as here.

I think that's part of why Catholics get particularly singled out, paradoxically. Here, for example, are many bright minds I see who can and should rise above the Catholicism they embrace. I have some smart muslim friends too, but the smart ones are all weak/marginal muslims. The devout Muslims seem to deserve the religion they enslave themselves with. If only their religion could be confined to consequences for themselves and not the rest of us.

Same goes for Catholicism, I guess, but in a more subtle way. Catholics don't fly planes into buildings full on office workers, but they *do* preach against condoms in AIDS-ravaged Africa...

-TS

[Touchstone]

Originally Posted by Areopagite

The main reason why there are as many atheists as there are is because of the irrationality held by Islamic and certain Protestant religions. When they said faith and reason could contradict each other, and that God can go against logic, then of course atheism would be a natural reaction ... and irrational religion would also be a natural reaction. It is quite obvious that as atheism abounds, irrational religion abounds ... or rather superstition ... and the occult. As atheism grows, so will superstition, and vice versa. In fact, as more atheists come onto the scene, we are also seeing a HUGE influx of people into witchcraft. But what both have has only be accomplished in balanced measures in Catholicism. I could go into this more ... but perhaps no one cares.

I get that, I just say it's bunk. Catholicism is decidedly more sophisticated than Islam, and Protestantism, which are both markedly more backwards, as you say. Similar to Judaism in its subtlety, with Catholicism being heavily Greek/Platonized, and Judaism remaining essential eastern.

But here's the thing: For all the baroque exquisiteness of the edifice built on top of it's base of sand, it's unthinking, unbridled faith in raw instinct, Catholicism has the very same foundation as Islam and Independent Fundamentalist Baptists do. The edifice is magnificent in Catholicism, by comparison, the façade is indeed impressive. But it's just as fatuous at its base as any of the others. The assumptions you start with have a *huge* effect on where you end up, and while Catholics generally do much better in being thoughtful and disciplined in *developing* things from their starting points, their starting points are as indefensible as the Muslim or the Mormons. You are founded on *exactly* the same "rock".

For what it's worth, it's fairly obvious the Church never believed this, but held that natural virtue was indeed possible (to some extent) in the pagan cultures (esp. Greek and Romans, obviously). However, the Christian claim is that moral behavior can only be perfected in Christianity. This is because pagan morality is ultimately motivated by mere self-interest, and not selfless love of the good. That's the claim.

Yeah, which ends up being a basically *immoral* claim in its own right. Such is the way of human psychology, alas. "Selfless love of the good" as a euphemism for "cosmic totalitarianism". And "inscrutable, irrational totalitarianism" at that. But it's a loving totalitarianism, so that's enough for some.

And I would say the exact opposite. Atheism, in my experience, seems to be motivated by passion and not clear reason. Atheism, for the most part (with exceptions most likely), seems to spring from emotional discontentment with one's family, especially with one's father. I've noticed this with surprising consistency. Many former atheists have said the same thing.

Ahh, back to "redneck psychology" again. Really, it's time for theists of this bent to get over their predilections for such folk/pop psychology. Do you really think you have the "common sense" to just intuit this stuff? That's a *huge* overreach, talking *way* beyond any basis for it. "Seems" justifies just about anything on some level, though.

Again, this is part of what makes New Atheism an imperative -- calling out and exposing just this kind of prejudice and ignorance for what it is. It gets by for the same reason racism used to (more than it does today, anyway) -- it's safe and accountable by its sheer commonality and the cultural antagonism projected against its critique.

But I think the pendulum is swinging the other way on that one. The "pass" those kind of attitudes have always been given I think may be fading into history, slowly, but surely. To be clear, there's nothing wrong with identifying "passions" as distinct from "reason", but the "emotional disscontentment"/father thing... please!

Talk about *telepathy*.

-TS

[Touchstone]

Originally Posted by kimmielittle

Hiyas

IMHO; Poison is poison, no matter the source.
"The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance."
—Albert Einstein

Unfortunately in religion, and Catholicism is conspiciously not an exception to this, we often find find an unusually hospital environment for *both*.

Since Einstein is apparently an authority here:

For any one who is pervaded with the sense of causal law in all that happens, who accepts in real earnest the assumption of causality, the idea of a Being who interferes with the sequence of events in the world is absolutely impossible. Neither the religion of fear nor the social-moral religion can have any hold on him.

Einstein, from Has Science Discovered God? : A Symposium of Modern Scientific Opinion, by Edward H. Cotton, page 101

That Einstein, one arrogant dude.... or was he ignorant?

-TS