Schism Among Atheists

119 posts / 0 new
Last post
-=+=-
Schism Among Atheists

The American Atheist movement appears to be splitting along the lines of older "tolerant" atheists and younger "fundamentalist" atheists, according to [url=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113889251]NPR[/url].

Quote:

Last month, atheists marked Blasphemy Day at gatherings around the world, and celebrated the freedom to denigrate and insult religion.

Some offered to trade pornography for Bibles. Others de-baptized people with hair dryers. And in Washington, D.C., an art exhibit opened that shows, among other paintings, one entitled Divine Wine, where Jesus, on the cross, has blood flowing from his wound into a wine bottle.

Another, Jesus Paints His Nails, shows an effeminate Jesus after the crucifixion, applying polish to the nails that attach his hands to the cross.

"I wouldn't want this on my wall," says Stuart Jordan, an atheist who advises the evidence-based group Center for Inquiry on policy issues. The Center for Inquiry hosted the art show.

Jordan says the exhibit created a firestorm from offended believers, and he can understand why. But, he says, the controversy over this exhibit goes way beyond Blasphemy Day. It's about the future of the atheist movement — and whether to adopt the "new atheist" approach — a more aggressive, often belittling posture toward religious believers.

Some call it a schism.

[...]

The more outrageous the message the better, says PZ Myers, who writes an influential blog that calls, among other things, for the end of religion. On Blasphemy Day, Myers drove a rusty nail through a consecrated Communion wafer and posted a photo on his Web site.

"People got very angry," he recalls. "I don't know why. I mean, it's just a cracker, right?"

Myers, who teaches biology at the University of Minnesota, Morris, says he received about 15,000 hate e-mails. He says one reason he favors the provocative approach is that it works, especially for the next generation of atheists.

"Edgy is what young people like," Myers says. "They want to cut through the nonsense right away and want to get to the point. They want to hear the story fast, they want it to be exciting, and they want it to be fun. And I'm sorry, the old school of atheism is really, really boring."

 

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Yes, I am now Atheist Reformed.

Le T Le T's picture

It's always interesting how closely Atheism is tied to a white-boy-poop-on-everything-to-make-my-point mentality. This "new wave" is a good indication that atheism is set to produce the most anoying evangelicals the world has ever seen.

Kaspar Hauser

Le T: Laughing

Snert Snert's picture

It would have been great if, over the years, some kind of detente could have developed whereby the God botherers could pray and wail as they wish, without bothering anyone, and the atheists and agnostics could watch TV or read a book, without bothering anyone.

But the faithful just couldn't leave well enough alone.  Oh, let's return the Lord's Prayer to schools!  Let's refuse birth control pills to women with a prescription for them!  Let's use every possible opportunity to scorn sinners, shoot doctors, teach creationism, blacklist politicians and generally be dicks about it!

I don't blame young atheists for wanting to push back.  Live and let live is a non-starter to the faithful, so why not fight fire with fire?  

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Hey! I actually agree with Snert on something.

Oh-oh. Does that qualify as a miracle?

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Atheism without a humanistic foundation is like a head without a heart. It`s as annoying, and possibly as dangerous, as the most fundamentalist fundamentalism of the religious right.

Deliberately trying to offend people for the entertainment value of it, or dressing up such mean-spiritedness as morally virtuous, just seems like more religious intolerance masquerading as its opposite. Meh.

oldgoat

As an athiest I agree with Le T, which is why I for one would have little to do with such a movement.  Except for a part of my youth, when I believed what I was told by my parents and the nuns about god and Santa Clause, I've been a life long atheist.  I still have an open mind about Santa.  He's actually done more for me.

However, over recent years I've been pulled to the snert point of view.  My inclination is to live and let live, and for the most part, religious persons around me have not made that difficult.  The new strident aggressive evangelism has put me as a secular humanist on the defensive though, and the christan right has been trying to invade my space. 

ennir

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

Hey! I actually agree with Snert on something.

Oh-oh. Does that qualify as a miracle?

Me too. lol

In my case I would say a minor miracle.

Thanks for your comments Snert. 

Caissa

I had a roommate once who refused to describe himself as an atheist because he argued this was letting the theists set the terms of the debate.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Technically, that`s correct. Once religion disappears, there will be no need to struggle against its harmful effects, and people will be obliged to identify what they`re FOR rather than simply what they`re AGAINST.

 

However, religion, stubbornly, shows no sign of disappearing any time soon. :)

oldgoat

Caissa, that actually makes good sense.  An atheist by name, defines him/herself by what they are not, at once conceding a broader context which assumes the opposite.

Unionist

Caissa wrote:

I had a roommate once who refused to describe himself as an atheist because he argued this was letting the theists set the terms of the debate.

You retorted, of course, that being "anti-racist" or "anti-war" didn't mean ceding the agenda to racists and warmongers - didn't you?

N.Beltov wrote:

Once religion disappears, there will be no need to struggle against its harmful effects, and people will be obliged to identify what they`re FOR rather than simply what they`re AGAINST.

Not at all. Ignorance, immorality, infighting, and intolerance will always be threats, no matter now minuscule - and they will always be worth fighting AGAINST, even by people who may agree on little else. Likewise with religion.

Quote:
However, religion, stubbornly, shows no sign of disappearing any time soon. :)

Neither does disease nor climate change nor war - but they are all worth fighting just the same.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Well, Caissa`s ex-roommate is still correct. It`s like the difference between Ludwig Feuerbach and Karl Marx.

 

NOt that Caissa`s ex-roommate was Karl Marx, etc.

Caissa

My ex-roommate was a New Democrat but that's not a protected species...

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Some NDP folks have been great Anglican clergy: Dan Heap and Dennis Drainville, for example. And Bill Blaikie is a United Church minister, ain't he?

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Stop confusing the issue with facts. :)

hsfreethinkers hsfreethinkers's picture

The "New Atheists" have a role to play in the public discourse, and overall I see that as a positive thing. Nobody can claim to speak for atheists generally, and the New Atheists don't.

The original post contrasts older "tolerant" atheists with younger "fundamentalist" atheists, though I question whether there is such a difference in attitudes amongst older and younger atheists. Indeed, the most prominent New Atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Christoper Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, A.C. Grayling, et cetera aren't exactly young.

 

Unionist

Boom Boom wrote:

Some NDP folks have been great Anglican clergy: Dan Heap and Dennis Drainville, for example. And Bill Blaikie is a United Church minister, ain't he?

And I have a really nice neighbour who voted for the ADQ two elections ago.

Just goes to show that all in all, human beings are better than human-made ideologies.

 

Unionist

N.Beltov wrote:

Well, Caissa`s ex-roommate is still correct.

Not really. He wasn't content to be AGAINST religion. He wanted to be defined by something he BELIEVED IN. By seeking after faith, he risked becoming one of the faithful.

We genuine atheists (People's Front of Atheism, not the Atheist People's Front) are happy to oppose human failure, wrongdoing, and ignorance. If humanity spent more time ridding itself of those, and less time building "paradises", it might have avoided some of the notorious missteps of socialist experiments of the past, for example.

 

Krago

Life Imitates Art (well, South Park anyway)

 

"Meanwhile, it is learned that Richard Dawkins and his wife Mrs. Garrison were destined to become the co-founders of worldwide atheism. But whether because of Garrison's mean-spirited influence on Dawkins, or simply due to a human instinct for fighting, atheism has split into three hostile denominations at perpetual war over the so-called "Great Question": the super-intelligent otters of the AAA (Allied Atheist Alliance), the humans of the UAA (United Atheist Alliance), and a rival human faction, the UAL (Unified Atheist League).

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

It seems like you're only succeeding in mocking yourself with this Pythonesque reference to PFA and APF. Either that or you're far too clever for me to understand.

Unionist

N.Beltov wrote:

It seems like you're only succeeding in mocking yourself with this Pythonesque reference to PFA and APF.

See, that's something that some deeply religious folk aren't free to do. They have difficulty when it comes to mocking their own faith, even though they often have few qualms about mocking others. That's one of the greatest sins that religion engenders. Atheists, however, are free to doubt everything, including themselves. O we of little faith...

Quote:
Either that or you're far too clever for me to understand.

Far be it from me to pick option #2.

ETA: Anyway, N.Beltov, if you want to have a serious discussion (and I don't mind), what do you think of my insight:

Quote:
If humanity spent more time ridding itself of those [i.e. human failure, wrongdoing, and ignorance], and less time building "paradises", it might have avoided some of the notorious missteps of socialist experiments of the past, for example.

Joey Ramone

I've always said that there's nothing an agnostic can't do if he really doesn't know whether he believes in something or not.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

I think you're right, Unionist, to link Utopian (call it 'magical', if you like) thinking to religion, since that was one of the most compelling places utopia found its voice. Utopia, however, is a human, not religious impulse. You need only look at the bit of magical thinking Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. buy into: that if we eliminate religion, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will likewise disappear.

Now, personally, I don't have anything against utopia. That's how we move forward. Ridding ourselves of "human failure" is a fasttrack to tyranny.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

 

Unionist wrote:
If humanity spent more time ridding itself of those [i.e. human failure, wrongdoing, and ignorance], and less time building "paradises", it might have avoided some of the notorious missteps of socialist experiments of the past, for example.

Some of this discussion relating to "ridding the world of" religion reminds me of the so-called "War on Terror". It's a conflict aimed at an abstract noun and seems, well, wrong-headed from the start.

IN any case, what you seem to be addressing is the ideological nature of all politics. The idea that ideology could be removed from politics, that somehow if we were successful in doing so then politics would be better, also seems wrong-headed. From a Marxist perspective it's wrong-headed because it presumes the change that is aimed at.

There's a good piece on utopianism from a Marxist perspective by Bertell Ollman in a back issue of Monthly Review.

Ollman quotes Oscar Wilde: "Any map that doesn't have utopia on it is not worth looking at."

Have a look at Ollman's essay and, if you find fault with it, have at it. (I probably agree with Ollman anyway. ) If the link doesn't work then I can get you an MR password for the month.

-=+=-

Snert wrote:

[...]

But the faithful just couldn't leave well enough alone.  Oh, let's return the Lord's Prayer to schools!  Let's refuse birth control pills to women with a prescription for them!  Let's use every possible opportunity to scorn sinners, shoot doctors, teach creationism, blacklist politicians and generally be dicks about it!

[...]

This isn't a convincing argument in favour of atheist or atheist activism.  It is essentially Dawkins' current line:  As soon as someone says "Yeah, there probably is a God," -- it is only a short time before they are flying planes into buildings.  When you make an argument built like this on a caricature of the other side, it might make you feel good, but it will fail to convert anyone.  (Same with a circus like Blasphemy Day).

The other flaw in this approach is that it discounts the huge gains in social justice achieved by devout activists.  For example, Martin Luther King, Jr., Gandhi, Tommy Douglas, and most recently the Toronto Metropolitan Church (in regards to SSM).

Also, it seems to play into society's worst stereotypes of atheists:  "Yeah, I'm an uptight asshole, so what?"  Queue mob of howling atheists (as usually show up at the Hitchens lectures).

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Speaking of ridiculous stereotypes:

-=+=- wrote:

Queue mob of howling atheists (as usually show up at the Hitchens lectures).

hsfreethinkers hsfreethinkers's picture

One doesn't need an argument or reason to be an atheist. It's the default position really. If one is going to assert the existence of a god, the onus is on that person to justify that assertion with some evidence. Dawkins has been tackling religion, because it is interfering with his work as a scientist by reducing public acceptance of Darwin's theory.

Polly B Polly B's picture

Snert wrote:

But the faithful just couldn't leave well enough alone.  Oh, let's return the Lord's Prayer to schools!  Let's refuse birth control pills to women with a prescription for them!  Let's use every possible opportunity to scorn sinners, shoot doctors, teach creationism, blacklist politicians and generally be dicks about it!

 

Snert!  I didn't realize you were from Alberta too.

Le T Le T's picture

Reading through this thread and the OP has given me the idea that Atheists have actually chosen the wrong name for their belief stucture. They should really be called anti-theist-based-relgionists (ATBaRs?). Most of the energy and thrust of their arguments are tied into challeging "religion"- a category that they reserve only for certain religions while excluding others like Positivism. It's not theism that they've got a problem with it's the social organizations that have risen around some theologies.

Fotheringay-Phipps

Unionist wrote:

 

We genuine atheists (People's Front of Atheism, not the Atheist People's Front) are happy to oppose human failure, wrongdoing, and ignorance. If humanity spent more time ridding itself of those, and less time building "paradises", it might have avoided some of the notorious missteps of socialist experiments of the past, for example.

 

 

A good thought Unionist, though ridding the world of "human failure, wrongdoing, and ignorance" is a pretty Utopian project in itself. I think the key is not to believe in imminent total success, but just to attack the next injustice. In any case, you might be interested in John Gray's book. Black Mass: Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia. It's a sustained argument against the temptation to build utopias of any variety. And Gray believes everything from Jacobinism to Nazism has Christian DNA. But he also thinks that it's futile and probably dangerous to get rid of religion (another Utopian project). Gray is a fascinating guy, who has been a fan of Margaret Thatcher, then a NuLabour supporter, and is now understandably a bit disillusioned. Not a read to confirm anyone's beliefs, but unsettling in the best sort of way.

Jingles

We're all atheist. It's just that some people believe in a few more gods than do others.

Even keel

I would prescribe more to agnosticism since it's much less fundamentalist than atheism. Atheism is after all is a leap of faith -- we don't really know if there is or isn't a god, there's no scientific evidence to suggest there isn't.

I'm also not one of those who make fun of religion or religious people (to their faces), but I do think this was one of the best videos of the year:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmHN3JtyUXg

This woman is my god.

Polly B Polly B's picture

I don't have a problem with god.  It's his fan club I can't stand.

Unionist

Fotheringay-Phipps wrote:

Unionist wrote:

 

We genuine atheists (People's Front of Atheism, not the Atheist People's Front) are happy to oppose human failure, wrongdoing, and ignorance. If humanity spent more time ridding itself of those, and less time building "paradises", it might have avoided some of the notorious missteps of socialist experiments of the past, for example.

 

 

A good thought Unionist, though ridding the world of "human failure, wrongdoing, and ignorance" is a pretty Utopian project in itself. I think the key is not to believe in imminent total success, but just to attack the next injustice.

I'm sorry - where, exactly, in my quote, did you see something different from what you just said? I tried to single space to make it more difficult to inadvertently read between my lines. Did I say "ridding the world", as some grand project? Didn't I post to oppose the building of some Utopia as a project? Oh well.

Quote:
But he also thinks that it's futile and probably dangerous to get rid of religion (another Utopian project).

I believe that religion will die out of its own wretched accord, but that in the meantime, we should make efforts to limit the horrendous damage it does (as handservant of oppression and exploitation of all kinds) to human well-being. "Getting rid of religion" seems pretty scary to me, given that we cherish and defend freedom of conscience.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Le T wrote:

Reading through this thread and the OP has given me the idea that Atheists have actually chosen the wrong name for their belief stucture. They should really be called anti-theist-based-relgionists (ATBaRs?). Most of the energy and thrust of their arguments are tied into challeging "religion"- a category that they reserve only for certain religions while excluding others like Positivism. It's not theism that they've got a problem with it's the social organizations that have risen around some theologies.

Everyone, including you, was born an atheist. It is the default state of all living creatures. Belief in supernatural beings is a meme that is taught, and is unique to our species.

Like Richard Dawkins, I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.

If atheism is a religion, then health is a disease.

 

Unionist

For God so hated the world that He sent His only begotten Son to His death, upon learning that He was human.

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Quote:

The judge wrote on and then he folded the ledger shut and laid it to one side and pressed his hands together and passed them down over his nose and mouth and placed them palm down on his knees.

Whatever exists, he said. Whatever in creation exists without my knowledge exists without my consent.

He looked about at the dark forest in which they were bivouacked. He nodded toward the specimens he’d collected. These anonymous creatures, he said, may seem little or nothing in the world. Yet the smallest crumb can devour us. Any smallest thing beneath yon rock out of men’s knowing. Only nature can enslave man and only when the existence of each last entity is routed out and made to stand naked before him will he be properly suzerain of the earth.

What’s a suzerain?

A keeper. A keeper or overlord.

Why not say keeper then?

Because he is a special kind of keeper. A suzerain rules even where there are other rulers. His authority countermands local judgements.

Toadvine spat.

The judge placed his hands on the ground. He looked at his inquisitor. This is my claim, he said. And yet everywhere upon it are pockets of autonomous life. Autonomous. In order for it to be mine nothing must be permitted to occur upon it save by my dispensation.

Toadvine sat with his boots crossed before the fire. No man can acquaint himself with everthing on earth, he said.

The judge tilted his great head. The man who believes that the secrets of the world are forever hidden lives in mystery and fear. Superstition will drag him down. The rain will erode the deeds of his life. But the man who sets himself the task of singling out the thread of order from the tapestry will by the decision alone have taken charge of the world and it is only by such taking charge that he will effect a way to dictate the terms of his own fate.

I don’t see what that has to do with catchin birds.

The freedom of birds is an insult to me. I’d have them all in zoos.

That would be a hell of a zoo.

The judge smiled. Yes, he said. Even so.

—Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian. (1985)

Caissa

To get back to my former roomamtes position. He would have posited that the question was false. ie. Is there a God?

hsfreethinkers hsfreethinkers's picture

Even keel wrote:
I would prescribe more to agnosticism since it's much less fundamentalist than atheism. Atheism is after all is a leap of faith -- we don't really know if there is or isn't a god, there's no scientific evidence to suggest there isn't.

Atheism isn't something one can be fundamentalist about. There is no book of dogma to be fundamentalist about. You either believe there are god(s) or you don't. Consider "Can an atheist be a fundamentalist?" by A.C. Grayling: http://tinyurl.com/yffzsvo

Atheism isn't really a faith position either. Here is an excellent article by philosopher Stephen Law on that point: http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2007/02/atheism-faith-position.html

Unionist

Thanks for that, hsfreethinkers.

I abhor the designation "fundamentalist", whether for atheists or for religious people. Like the label "terrorist", it is more of a swear word, a call to mockery and hatred, than a descriptive term. Essentially, it means little more than "someone whose religious beliefs I find far more abhorrent and extreme than my own". Not useful, and potentially paranoid and inquisitorial. It's the mirror image of "infidel" or "heathen".

Having said that, I find merely amusing the contention that someone who says, "There is no God", is expressing some kind of extreme position, as opposed to saying, "well, I've seen no conclusive evidence one way or the other yet". By that standard, the mildest-mannered United Church congregant who says "I believe in God" would be condemned as a "fundamentalist" if she failed to add: "But of course, I keep an eye on the science and astronomy journals, and I'm entirely open to new evidence coming forward that may indicate that my belief in God is empirically mistaken".

There's a bit of a double standard at work there.

Caissa

In some sense the problems with term "fundamentalist" is with the root. What is "fundamental? As a historian, I have at times thought the term "literalist" was more appropriate but even that falls apart on some levels. The ability to recognize myth and allegory are sometimes at the heart of the debate. As a historian, I have trouble approaching documents without asking (along with many other questions) Who wrote it? when ? and for what purpose?

Snert Snert's picture

There is an unlimited number of things I do not believe in.  Sentient rocks.  Aircraft made of bread.  Elephants with five legs.  Planets that are shaped like cubes and weigh less than a feather.  Etc., etc., etc.

And yet only my disbelief in God earns me a special title.

I've even been told that my disbelief in God is its own special kind of faith (oooo!  the irony!!) but I have to wonder how I even have time to feed myself when I must presumably practice an unlimited number of faiths.  Do I even have the TIME to not believe in smart rocks, doughy planes, pentapedal pachyderms, cubical worlds, AND an all-knowing, all-seeing, omnipotent, invisible being who wants me to worship Him?  Along with an all but infinite list of others as well?  I have to admit, with so much to not believe in, my faith is being stretched to the max! 

Geez.  I just thought of a few hundred other things I don't believe in.  Hold my calls.

contrarianna

It is as a continuing life-long atheist (who as a juvenile also enjoyed shooting Jesus-fish in a barrel) that I consider Grayling's arguments trivial.

Grayling, and many of the so-called "New Atheists", trivially reduce the question of faith, and its more pernicious activities, to a belief or non-belief in God.  It is a kind of reductionist fundamentalism that ignores the underlying pervasive habit of the human mind willing to attach itself to something greater than itself for solace, meaning, and a call to arms. It doesn't need to be God and it often isn't.

The professional atheist Christopher Hitchens  evangelizes for slaughter on a biblical scale with unshakable faith in his own neoconsevativism. God is Not Great-but Wolfowitz Is.

Quote:

“The Atheist Delusion” --John GRay
....
AC Grayling provides an example of the persistence of religious categories in secular thinking in his Towards the Light: The Story of the Struggles for Liberty and Rights That Made the Modern West. As the title indicates, Grayling's book is a type of sermon. Its aim is to reaffirm what he calls "a Whig view of the history of the modern west", the core of which is that "the west displays progress". The Whigs were pious Christians, who believed divine providence arranged history to culminate in English institutions, and Grayling too believes history is "moving in the right direction". No doubt there have been setbacks - he mentions nazism and communism in passing, devoting a few sentences to them. But these disasters were peripheral. They do not reflect on the central tradition of the modern west, which has always been devoted to liberty, and which - Grayling asserts - is inherently antagonistic to religion. "The history of liberty," he writes, "is another chapter - and perhaps the most important of all - in the great quarrel between religion and secularism." The possibility that radical versions of secular thinking may have contributed to the development of nazism and communism is not mentioned. More even than the 18th-century Whigs, who were shaken by French Terror, Grayling has no doubt as to the direction of history.

But the belief that history is a directional process is as faith-based as anything in the Christian catechism. Secular thinkers such as Grayling reject the idea of providence, but they continue to think humankind is moving towards a universal goal - a civilisation based on science that will eventually encompass the entire species. In pre-Christian Europe, human life was understood as a series of cycles; history was seen as tragic or comic rather than redemptive. With the arrival of Christianity, it came to be believed that history had a predetermined goal, which was human salvation. Though they suppress their religious content, secular humanists continue to cling to similar beliefs. One does not want to deny anyone the consolations of a faith, but it is obvious that the idea of progress in history is a myth created by the need for meaning.
....


http://www.investigatingatheism.info/johngray.html

hsfreethinkers hsfreethinkers's picture

A.C. Grayling responded to that article here, "Gray's elegy": http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/18/grayselegy

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Le T wrote:

It's not theism that they've got a problem with it's the social organizations that have risen around some theologies.

In my case, that's very wrong. I have a real "problem" with theism - just as much as with the theist churches.

People who never go to church but nevertheless believe in the supernatural have a problem with the way their brains work - they believe in the existence and power of certain things without evidence. People whose brains work in that way are susceptible to all kinds of harmful fraudsters and purveyors of myths and fallacies, in all kinds of different areas. They can be convinced to vote for politicians who don't represent their interests; they can be persuaded to go along with their government's warmongering based on no evidence at all; they can be made to believe that scientific medicine is a huge conspiracy and that real disease can be cured by placebos, untested folk remedies, drinking plain water (as in homeopathy), or prayer. They can influence their children and others they come into contact with to believe these same pernicious myths, causing a great deal of harm to others and holding back real progress in society.

That's why it is not a matter of indifference to me whether other people believe in a god. It is just as important to me as their political principles.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Those are non sequiters Spector. I doubt there is a person alive who, at some level and in some way, doesn't practice some sort of magical thinking, or believes in things without evidence, etc..  Quite literally, nobody is perfect.

And it's probably a clumsiness on your part but you really should not use the occassion to express your differences by focussing on or describing the way the brains of "other people" work. Believers do no have brains that are wired differently. Children who suffer from FAS or FASD ... yes, their brains are different. But we know of a physiological/physical cause for that.

Unionist

N.Beltov wrote:

Those are non sequiters Spector. I doubt there is a person alive who, at some level and in some way, doesn't practice some sort of magical thinking, or believes in things without evidence, etc..  Quite literally, nobody is perfect.

 

That's a powerful generalization, N.Beltov. I'm not perfect, but I'll have no truck with that magical or non-evidentiary stuff.

I hope, sincerely, we meet sometime and you can explain to me in detail why you have these religious feelings.

 

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

N.Beltov wrote:

And it's probably a clumsiness on your part but you really should not use the occassion to express your differences by focussing on or describing the way the brains of "other people" work. Believers do no have brains that are wired differently.

I didn't talk about brain "wiring". But if you want to do so, you have to acknowledge that each of us has a brain that is "wired" in a unique way.

No, I was referring to the way people use their brains - they train their own minds, or have their minds trained for them by others, into thinking a certain way. This is not something they are born with; as i have noted above, we are all atheists at birth, for example. Nor is it something that is immutable, as there are many atheists who used to be religious, many religious people who used to be atheists, many purveyors of pseudoscience who used to believe in the scientific method, etc. etc. 

  

"If the book [the Bible] and my brain are both the work of the same Infinite God, whose fault is it that the book and my brain do not agree?" - [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G._Ingersoll]Robert G. Ingersoll[/url]

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Well it's a bit of magical thinking to think that if a person belives in God they will vote for a politician that doesn't represent their interest, or that one of those predicates implies the other.

Pages

Topic locked