This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Awesome article on modern Atheism

#1Dathrowed1Posted 7/9/2014 8:47:27 AM
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/books/2014/07/atheists_the_origin_of_the_species_by_nick_spencer_reviewed.html

It even addresses the frustration of arguing with OW.
---
sig
#2Moorish_IdolPosted 7/9/2014 9:01:45 AM
Thanks for the link. It was a good read.

If religious belief is like belief in the Easter Bunny, as they like to say, shouldn’t they be less proud of themselves for seeing through it?

This part made me chuckle. Good question.
#3mrplainswalkerPosted 7/9/2014 9:10:08 AM
Seems to me like it shares the same misunderstanding, whether intentional or not, of people like Krauss, Dawkins, Harris, etc that all theologian apologetics shares. The article brings up a whole bunch of historical theologians and then says "these people believe both science and religion, so Dawkins' criticism is ill-concieved."

So what if some people believe in both? Dawkins isn't even talking to them. He's talking about the unscientific miasma that religion perpetuates (dogmatism) that causes problems like half the population of the US to disbelieve evolution. The fact that Origen wasn't a YEC doesn't change anything. Here's Dawkins' actual words about the whole NOMA thing:

"it is completely unrealistic to claim, as Gould and many others do, that religion keeps itself away from science's turf, restricting itself to morals and values. A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims."
---
Failure to at least give this show a chance gives anyone you see the right to punch you in the face.
- Spiritclaw on Battlestar Galactica
#4DT2501Posted 7/9/2014 9:34:40 AM(edited)
I think this article explains why it's so important to try to understand people from all backgrounds and beliefs. As the article says, many atheists only ever think about the fundamentalists, Biblical literalists, creationists, etc., but if that's the only way you frame your atheistic beliefs (i.e. as being the exact opposite of that kind of extremism), then you're just as bad as they are. You're just extreme in the opposite direction.

When you open yourself to trying to understand where other people are coming from, it lets you see the full spectrum between the two extremes, and you realize you're probably somewhere in the middle along with most other people.

[edit to address mrplainswalker]

While religion does touch on science in some ways (and where it does, it's uniformly horrible), religion isn't merely an alternative to science. There are other aspects to it as well. What the article is saying, I think, is that many atheists don't seem to realize that atheism has those same "other aspects" as well. Atheism's logic and science may be a counterpoint to religion's aspects that deal with the same issues, but atheism has or needs a counterpoint to the rest as well.

Maybe I can think of a metaphor (we love metaphors on this board!). It's sort of like comparing a first-generation iPhone to the newest iPod Touch. The iPod has better software and better battery life, and it's compatible with more apps, and on and on. But it can't make calls, and that's a key part of the iPhone, so how much better is it, really? Is it even possible to compare the two?
#5JonWood007Posted 7/9/2014 9:51:45 AM
Here's the way I see it, you have fundamentalism on one end, atheism on the other, and most of the guys in between are reconciling their faith with the known universe. This applies well to christianity at least. I think faith and reason are diametrically opposed, but that many christians do not see this contradiction and instead attempt to reconcile the two...which to me is like mixing spaghetti with peanut butter...it's just...ew.

See this article:

http://atheistanalysis.com/understanding-bible-interpretations-and-christian-perspectives-on-the-bible/
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | HD 5850 | 1 TB HDD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HDD | W7 | 1366x768
#6Dathrowed1(Topic Creator)Posted 7/9/2014 9:59:50 AM(edited)
I request a stipulation, if PC makes a post in this topic can you please:

1. Ignore his post for a time until others respond (I don't have a specific number just as many posters as can be: responding to the article itself)
2. If you can't ignore him can you please make another topic about it
---
sig
#7mrplainswalkerPosted 7/9/2014 10:05:07 AM
To continue the analogy, yes I do think it's possible. You can say that the iPhone is better for making calls, clearly. But if has an old buggy app that's no longer supported and the iPad has the same app but it has most of the bugs removed due to continued support, then you should use the iPhone for calls and the iPad for the app.

I would go even further and argue that iPhone is faux in that it's users only believe the phone app works, but it's illusory. For example, if atheism is true then drawing your morals from the bible is really just drawing your morals from iron age savages. If theism is true, then it's just divine commands that may or may not have actually come from a god. You still have to make the subjective choice to abide by the book/god. While not expressly atheist (though most tend to be), humanists attempt to draw morals from the reduction of suffering. Now, whether or not you think reduction of suffering better, or following God's alleged word is better...well that's a subjective choice. But at least the humanists recognize that the app is faux and just all subjectively agree "Well let's go with reduction of suffering." The religious insist that the phone actually works.

And that's the important point that the author is missing. Dawkins is basically saying "Look guys, all that stuff you think your religion does that science can't touch...it doesn't actually do those things."
---
Failure to at least give this show a chance gives anyone you see the right to punch you in the face.
- Spiritclaw on Battlestar Galactica
#8Hustle KongPosted 7/9/2014 10:38:21 AM
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
#9Dathrowed1(Topic Creator)Posted 7/9/2014 10:42:01 AM
Hustle Kong posted...
Terms like "iron age savages" really rankle me. Perhaps part of that is that's the very line of thought that allows people to subjugate currently existing peoples due to them not being as "advanced". **** that attitude. But whatever,


What were your thoughts on the article?
---
sig
#10Hustle KongPosted 7/9/2014 10:45:36 AM
Pretty decent. Downloaded a sample of the referenced book to my Kindle to look over later.

As a former evangelical atheist, a lot of that hit close to home.
---
Shooting Game never die.
It prays that the clover of luck be always in your mind.