The problem with atheists

[l0rca]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSM7BUmx6hY&eurl=

Linked video and its parts draws a number of points against atheism. Firstly, it can be very dogmatic, secondly, like religion it relies on some source for information about the universe, and thirdly it is too much relying on one element of human ability to appreciate the world (for atheists, it is "cold, hard logic").

I find the video interesting. It shows me that the emotions that atheists put behind their ideas can be the same as the religious, and the organization of atheism is quickly and surely seen as just another religion, one where science becomes the figurehead of faith, and therefore science is then seen as just another religion.

It's worth watching, because in this video, atheists do act exactly like religious people, and the way atheism and science is depicted here is convincingly like a religion. This is going to be how we'll be seen in the future, folks.

Is this a correct depiction of us?

[Foster Zygote]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSM7BUmx6hY&eurl=

Linked video and its parts draws a number of points against atheism. Firstly, it can be very dogmatic, secondly, like religion it relies on some source for information about the universe, and thirdly it is too much relying on one element of human ability to appreciate the world (for atheists, it is "cold, hard logic").

I find the video interesting. It shows me that the emotions that atheists put behind their ideas can be the same as the religious, and the organization of atheism is quickly and surely seen as just another religion, one where science becomes the figurehead of faith, and therefore science is then seen as just another religion.

It's worth watching, because in this video, atheists do act exactly like religious people, and the way atheism and science is depicted here is convincingly like a religion. This is going to be how we'll be seen in the future, folks.

Is this a correct depiction of us?

Not really. This video has been discussed before and the most common opinion was that it is propaganda produced by theists to make atheists look bad.

[PixyMisa]

:notm

Damn that cold, hard logic!

[l0rca]

Not really. This video has been discussed before and the most common opinion was that it is propaganda produced by theists to make atheists look bad.

How long ago? I want to see the discussion.

[Foster Zygote]

How long ago? I want to see the discussion.

I've bumped it for you.

[l0rca]

<3

[fuelair]

Believe what you want - I know I don't go to atheist church - (that would be the Church of the Divine Unbeliever).

I am, though, getting bored with believers who want to see us as having lives as messed up as many of theirs are over the things they have been talked into believing against all reason and knowledge.

[billydkid]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSM7BUmx6hY&eurl=

Linked video and its parts draws a number of points against atheism. Firstly, it can be very dogmatic, secondly, like religion it relies on some source for information about the universe, and thirdly it is too much relying on one element of human ability to appreciate the world (for atheists, it is "cold, hard logic").

I find the video interesting. It shows me that the emotions that atheists put behind their ideas can be the same as the religious, and the organization of atheism is quickly and surely seen as just another religion, one where science becomes the figurehead of faith, and therefore science is then seen as just another religion.

It's worth watching, because in this video, atheists do act exactly like religious people, and the way atheism and science is depicted here is convincingly like a religion. This is going to be how we'll be seen in the future, folks.

Is this a correct depiction of us?
It really doesn't matter how people act. What matters is if the position they hold is a rational one. Clearly there is simply no evidence or reason to believe there is a personal God. That is simply not rationally debatable. I simply do not think you can compare holding stubbornly to a position which is not supported by any evidence with insisting that it is just wrong to do so.

By science I would guess you mean the scientific process, which is a way a determine or confirm the truth or falsity of a proposition or theory. It doesn't depend on feelings or opinion or faith. As far as the accumulated knowledge which has been acquired by this approach, well that is constantly up for revision should any evidence present itself which puts it in doubt. It is not as though a scientific approach to the world and a faith based approach are equally valid. The fundamental problem with faith is it merely amounts to whatever you want to believe and all beliefs which are not supported by evidence are equally valid - or invalid.

Faith and science are not equal opposites. One is based on nothing and the other is based on experience and they do not deserve equal respect or consideration. You can not compare standing up vociferously for the truth of things with refusing to consider that your unsupported beliefs are not true. The truth of things is there is absolutely no evidence to support religious faith and there is nothing but evidence to support the determinations of science since the way those determinations are arrived at is through experimental evidence. There are scientific theories which as yet can not be proved or disproved, but nobody claims to know these theories are true.

My personal feeling is that faith is a stupid and invalid approach to the world. It is the domain of people choose not to care about the truth or falseness of things. They simply choose to believe things, I assume because it satisfies some yearning inside of them - just like UFO believers and supernatural believers and believers in psychic phenomena. I don't know, maybe it doesn't matter whether anything is true or not, but can you imagine if all of us took that approach to every aspect of life? It would be a pretty insane world. And yes, the world is pretty insane already. Why is it insane? Because so many people have simply decided to believe arbitrary things on faith.

Science and faith are simply not comparable. There are literally infinite numbers of things that people could choose to believe for which there is no evidence. What gives religion anymore legitimacy than any of those things. What does atheism really mean? It means refusing to believe something for which there is simply no reason to believe. Nobody asks than anyone take science on faith. All faith is arbitrary.

[qayak]

It has been my experience that addicts see addiction everywhere they look. Religious addicts are no better. They see atheism as a religion not because it is but because that is the only way they can see it. For the same reason, they think science is a religion.

Remember, these are people who do not need a shred of evidence to believe in the most outrageous things. They want to believe, they are conditioned to believe, they are told to believe, and they believe.

They are masters at ignoring evidence and logic if it gets in the way of what they want to believe so, they ignore the simple fact that religions by definition; believe in, worship or obey supernatural beings. This specifically rules out atheism and science being religions.

As atheists and scientists we have watched this before. Remember Creationism? When believers couldn't make that turd float they changed it to Intelligent Design. Scientists recognized the smell of the old turd but believers thought it was a new and important idea. (They eat that sh** up!)

Believers have tried for years to vilify atheism and science. Believers couldn't make this turd float either, so they changed tactics. Now they try to say science and atheism are religions. Smells like the same turd to me and they are eating it up again.

Believers live the old adage: "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story" or in their case: "Never let a turd get in the way of a good meal."

[ImaginalDisc]

Oy.

There is no doctrine of atheism. A theist might say that "The Origin of Species" is a doctrine of atheism, but atheists do not defer to "the text" when dealing with issues of morality or of fact. No one says "less than one man in a hundred has the eye to be a breeder of animals, so sayeth Dariwm!"

There is no atheist authority. Whatever theists might say about Dr. Dawkins, Dr. Dennet, Randi, or even Penn and Teller, prominent atheists never claim to speak on behalf of all atheists, and almost universally, atheists think for themselves on issues that effect them.

There is no magic in atheism. I'm sure there are self-identified new agey atheists who believe in the tarot, or any manner of nonsense, but atheism is an explicit rejection of supernatural forces. The rejections of god(s) as an explanation of reality is sufficient to be an atheist. Atheists, as a group, do not engage in any sort of religious rituals.

So what is left that makes atheists sound like religious people? Loudmouthism, and consistency. Most theists who talk to atheists have the unmitigated gall to disagree! What's worse is that these impertinent atheists do not put forth alternative unfalsifiable magical explanations, which polite people have learned to respect. No, atheists consistently say things like, "I don't believe that, and you have no evidence." The chutzpah! Wait, maybe this "evidence" is what they worship. Yes, despite the fact that atheism bears no resemblance to religion, and the fact that atheism is defined as being without religion, we shall call it that! Victory for Thor!

[Upchurch]

Not really. This video has been discussed before ....
here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70825&highlight=Trouble+Atheism)

We've talked about it, but this was the first opportunity I've had to actually watch it. It's a worse piece of garbage than I thought it was.

[MichelQC]

Oy.

There is no doctrine of atheism. A theist might say that "The Origin of Species" is a doctrine of atheism, but atheists do not defer to "the text" when dealing with issues of morality or of fact. No one says "less than one man in a hundred has the eye to be a breeder of animals, so sayeth Dariwm!"

There is no atheist authority. Whatever theists might say about Dr. Dawkins, Dr. Dennet, Randi, or even Penn and Teller, prominent atheists never claim to speak on behalf of all atheists, and almost universally, atheists think for themselves on issues that effect them.

There is no magic in atheism. I'm sure there are self-identified new agey atheists who believe in the tarot, or any manner of nonsense, but atheism is an explicit rejection of supernatural forces. The rejections of god(s) as an explanation of reality is sufficient to be an atheist. Atheists, as a group, do not engage in any sort of religious rituals.

So what is left that makes atheists sound like religious people? Loudmouthism, and consistency. Most theists who talk to atheists have the unmitigated gall to disagree! What's worse is that these impertinent atheists do not put forth alternative unfalsifiable magical explanations, which polite people have learned to respect. No, atheists consistently say things like, "I don't believe that, and you have no evidence." The chutzpah! Wait, maybe this "evidence" is what they worship. Yes, despite the fact that atheism bears no resemblance to religion, and the fact that atheism is defined as being without religion, we shall call it that! Victory for Thor!

Very well put :)