You caught that too, huh? Yeah, go figure. All he does is sit around on his toilet throne all day reading his book and making an occasional “astutely profound” remark that gets a bunch of ooo’s and aaah’s. Meanwhile, you and I are down here in the trenches doing all the heavy lifting and getting all covered in dirt and grime, but do WE get any praise and recognition? Noooooo… 
We’re not worthy.
1 Like
What are you talking about? Don’t you see me waving at you?
I’ve run into many theists who just cannot fathom that someone doesn’t believe in god. To them, belief in god is absolutely universal and anyone who claims not to either is in denial or “hates god” for some reason.
Most theists I’ve run into also feel their beliefs should be codified as law. In the US we have a strong contingent of fundamentalist types who’d like nothing better than to see this country as a theocracy (with their own brand of christianity being dominant, of course).
Then, of course, there are entire countries where this is already true (many muslim countries are theocracies with various degrees of sharia law holding sway).
3 Likes
A theocracy would be very bad for everyone. I feel that’s what a lot of the religious idiots in the South would want. Fuck that. I really hope our government upholds The Establishment Clause for Separation of Church and State. Forcibly converting people into practicing Christianity is unconstitutional.
I fucking love this movie, I could probably recite it word for word if I had to. The “cow launching” scene is the best part.
I fart in thy general direction…
There are several issues to address here.
The first of these is covered fairly succinctly by Cognostic above. Namely, that one of the disturbing aspects of mythology fanboyism, is that its adherents make said adherence a central part of their identity, and as a corollary of so doing, treat any dissent from said adherence as some sort of personal affront. One of the elementary concepts that mythology fail to understand, is that you are not your ideas, and you don’t need to have spent time delving into advanced logic textbooks by, for example, Willard van Ormand Quine, in order to recognise this (though doing so helps of course).
Even an elementary student of discourse learns quickly, that ideas are discardable entities. Said student might not recognise this principle explicitly at first, but that principle is central to all properly conducted discourse. Namely, the moment one is provided with reasons to discard an idea as being true, sound or relevant, then discarding that idea is the entirely proper course of action, unless one is interested in pedagogy, and preserves that idea for educational purposes.
The big problem with mythology fanboyism, particularly the Abrahamic variants thereof, is that it rejects this elementary principle of discourse, and instead requires adherents to treat certain ideas (in the form of assertions contained in the requisite mythologies) as purportedly constituting “axioms” about the world, never to be discarded, and indeed, to be protected from any scrutiny by the granting thereto of “sacred” status. Of course, it is fair to mention at this point that the use of axioms has been of value in, for example, pure mathematics, but the treatment thereof in that discipline bears no relation, to the manner in which mythology fanboyism elevates unsupported (and frequently ridiculous) assertions to the status of “axioms”.
It isn’t just mythology fanboyism that engages in this nefarious practice, of course - this practice is seen all too lamentably often in the world of political ideologies as well, and elsewhere I’ve discussed at length the deleterious influence thereof in that sphere, as well as in the sphere of supernaturalist belief. In this vein, I’ve referenced on numerous occasions, the words of Storm Jameson, in her preface to my copy of The Diary of Anne Frank, and I shall reproduce the relevant part below (be prepared for a substantial following dissertation!):
Indeed, the whole doctrine centred world view, which consists of treating certain unsupported assertions as “axioms” about the world, and “sacred” axioms at that, then building an edifice of grandiose fabrications on the basis of those “axioms”, is probably the most pernicious influence upon human affairs that we have to face head on, and drive to extinction. I shall reprise earlier remarks I posted elsewhere to add clarity to the relevant concepts, viz:
A doctrine, defined rigorously, is any world view that relies upon one or more unsupported assertions, presented to potential or actual adherents as if those unsupported assertions constituted axioms about the world.
Whilst it should be obvious from reading the above, how religion falls into this category, there are other world views that fall into the same category. Orthodox Marxism being a prime example, which is why Marxism has frequently been categorised as being a ‘secular theology’. Indeed, the correspondence between secular ideologies such as Marxism, and religions, goes further than the base definition, and a survey of doctrines (as defined above) reveals that as well as the existence of unsupported assertions presented as axioms, a great many doctrines contain a number of other features that appear to arise as a natural corollary of the presence of those unsupported assertions and their presentation as axioms. These other features are:
[1] The existence of a central text upon which the doctrine is founded (which can be characterised even in the case of the secular ideologies falling into the remit of this analysis as a ‘holy book’, because of the manner in which it is regarded as a supposed central authority with respect to the view of “truth” within the doctrine);
[2] The development of a partitioning of humanity into two classes, one class containing those who conform to doctrine, and who are therefore considered part of the self-appointed “elect”, and those who fail to conform to doctrine, and who are therefore considered to be “inferior” and “in need” of “measures” to deal with this failure to conform;
[3] A teleological “end view” of history.
Now, the first of these features arises as the initial exponent(s) of the doctrine in question seek to promote that doctrine among a wider audience. This initial source of the doctrine, the one or more individuals responsible for fabricating the doctrine, constitute(s) a self-appointed über-élite, who make the claim when promulgating the doctrine, that the doctrine being thus promulgated constitutes privileged ‘knowledge’ about the workings of the world, and that consequently those advancing the doctrine have a right and a duty to pass on that alleged ‘knowledge’. However, this quickly transforms from merely disseminating this purported ‘knowledge’ to enforcing adherence to the doctrine. It is at this point that the second of these features comes into play. Because a natural corollary of assuming that one’s doctrine is necessarily right (as the self-appointed élite promulgating the doctrine claims it to be) is that any other world view is necessarily wrong, and must therefore be eradicated. Once the doctrine takes hold in the mind, and the adherent becomes convinced of its necessary rightness, a vision of human history and human affairs as being merely a contest of doctrines, with the adherent’s supposed ‘right’ doctrine deserving to win that contest, forms as a direct result of becoming convinced that the doctrine holds all the answers. The very dark flip side of this particular coin, of course, is that those who are outside the doctrinal pale, those who do not accept the purported ‘validity’ of the doctrine, are in need of ‘education’ with respect thereto, with increasingly stern and brutal measures becoming, in the minds of the enforcers thereof, another ‘necessity’. It follows from this that those who are resistant to indoctrination are considered not merely as being ‘wrong’: the prevailing view moves on to considering those resistant to indoctrination as somehow ‘conspiring’ against the doctrine, and therefore being ‘evil’, an ethical and ontological elision which quickly allows the enforcers of doctrine to justify whatever means are available to deal with that ‘problem’.
Now, whilst it is entirely possible for the authoritarian mindset (as delineated in Altmeyer’s work on the subject) to operate in the absence of a prevailing doctrine, and indeed dictatorships have existed whose sole manifest purpose was the naked pursuit of power by the leaders, a doctrine provides a framework within which authoritarian leaders can justify their naked pursuit of power to authoritarian followers. The mindset of authoritarian followers is typified by the need to conform, and a doctrine provides the framework within which said need to conform becomes emotionally satisfied, at least in the short term.
Of course, the problem that lies at the source of all of this arises from the very nature of doctrine itself: the simple fact that it is founded upon those purported ‘axioms’ that are nothing more than unsupported assertions. As a result, not only is correspondence of the doctrine to reality assumed, but the process is thrown into reverse: instead of requiring the doctrine to be demonstrated to be in accord with reality, reality is required to be in accord with the doctrine.
This inversion of the proper approach to ideas, arises as a natural and venomous corollary from the core process lying at the heart of doctrine centred world views, which I have elsewhere termed “assertionism”, namely, the treatment of unsupported assertions as “axioms” as described above. A proper approach to ideas, of course, as exemplified by science when this activity is conducted properly and competently, consists of modifying our ideas whenever relevant data informs us that this is necessary. But this is anathema to the adherents of doctrine centred world views, as it clashes violently with the entire doctrine centred approach, which consists of defining “truth” as that which conforms to the doctrine, and “lies” as that which doesn’t conform to the doctrine. Mythology fanboys frequently adopt this approach to a florid extent.
Of course, the partitioning of humans given in [2] above follows as another venomous corollary from the assertionist process at the heart of doctrine centred world views, and leads in turn to the wilful slandering and dehumanisation of critics on the part of doctrinal adherents. The diligent will not take long to find examples of this, wherever mythology fanboys have gatecrashed atheist websites for the purpose of peddling their various brands of nonsense, and indeed, the whole “You’re being misled by Satan” garbage that is frequently deployed by the usual suspects, is merely a particularly irritating and infantile instance thereof.
Indeed, the need to assert that critics purportedly possess a wide range of cognitive and ethical defects, arises precisely from the fact that the doctrines of various adherents are gigantic mansions of cards, sitting precariously on the foundation of unsupported assertions that in some cases are frankly risible. The sleazy brands of ad hominem arising from this need on the part of the usual suspects, frequently betray that the perpetrators thereof are the ones with the cognitive and ethical defects, which are projected by them onto us in an exercise of “pot calling the kettle black” that is deserving of withering scorn and derision.
One maxim that I presented elsewhere, arising from the proper conduct of discourse, is that bad ideas exist to be destroyed (or at least, quarantined for pedagogical purposes), and as long as the usual suspects present bad ideas, those bad ideas should be subject to the usual discoursive ordnance in the interest not only of honesty and integrity, but frequently in the interest of ensuring that those bad ideas do not persist long enough to be the cause of the destruction of good people. History sadly presents us with many precedents for this.
Perhaps the most disastrous failing on the part of doctrinal adherents, is their complete failure even to be capable of imagining the existence of a view of the world that is not reliant upon doctrinal “axioms”. This, of course, is why atheism, in its rigorous formulation, is so confounding for them, because the reality thereof destroys the smug, complacent assumptions of the usual suspects wholesale.
It’s the reason why mythology fanboys erect fatuous strawman caricatures of scientific postulates, then wilfully and duplicitously misattribute said strawman caricatures to “atheism”. The idea that those of us who paid attention in class, turn to other disciplines that were specifically constructed to address key classes of question, when seeking answers thereto, is an elementary concept that many mythology fanboys either fail to understand altogether, or mendaciously pretend is not the case when peddling the usual sleazy apologetic fabrications.
But of course, when one’s view of the world is a doctrinal castle in the air (a standing joke being that the psychotic is one who takes up residence therein), lying on behalf of the “sacred” doctrine and its assertions becomes not merely necessary, but compulsive.
In short, the “arrogance” assertion on the part of mythology fanboys, is frequently nothing more than a toddler strop, to the effect “Waaah, how dare you not treat my favourite mythology as fact”.
2 Likes
Is that a 1952 British Edition?
Think it’s a 1970s vintage edition. I’ll have to dive into the attic and check. 
Nice Post, I think we need to add to this… “Militant Atheism.” I am personally confoundced at the ignorance of those atheists who waltz in and begin Christian smashing, making blind assertions, and pretending to be a higher quality human being based on nothing but unfounded assertions’. I put them on par with the zealots. While we can agree in much of what has been posted, and certainly your clarity and preciseness of language help to frame the issue, we should not miss the fact that members of our own ilk, especially those who assume there is such a thing as an atheist ilk, are equally constrained by their inability to separate ideas from who they are as a person.
2 Likes
One of the problems I have with the phrase “militant atheism”, is that I’ve spent the best part of a decade and a half, watching the usual suspects among the mythology fanboys deploy this as a mendacious means of shutting down debate, through yet more well-poisoning ad hominem. While of course hoping no one will notice that far more venomous levels of genuine militancy are associated with the requisite brands of mythology fanboyism, which in the past was expressed in homicidal manner. the usual suspects deploying this trope regard any questioning of their ideas as purportedly being “militant”, while of course, in typical manner involving complete absence of self-awareness, they consider it not merely legitimate to coerce others into conforming to their doctrines, but elevate this level of hypocrisy to the status of a “holy mission”.
I’m also minded to note, that much of the ill-considered rhetoric arising from some quarters, is grounded either in lack of educational opportunity, or the after effects of psychological damage inflicted upon the commentators in question by enforcers of conformity to doctrine. Those enduring the latter, of course, are very strongly motivated to make their pain felt, and can be forgiven even more for some of their outbursts than those who endured the former.
I suspect I may be fortunate in this respect, but I haven’t encountered anyone among the atheists I’ve corresponded with, who simply post inflammatory comments out of sheer spite, while instances thereof from the mythology fanboys have been numerous. I’ve seen ill-informed comments, but the authors thereof have, in the main, been willing to acquire better knowledge to avoid this, once given appropriate notification. Again, I may have been fortunate in my choice of correspondents, but this might also be partly the product of my seeking wherever possible to take something resembling a pedagogical approach.
On the other hand, I’m aware that a good deal of inflammatory comment aimed at the usual suspects, arises from exasperation therewith on the part of those enduring the obnoxiousness thereof on a daily basis. When you’re surrounded by spiteful, entitlement-riddled and bigoted mythology fanboys, opportunities to lash back at them become welcome and emotionally satisfying.
However, diligent concern about not replicating their vices, does not mean that one is in any way constrained with respect to the matter of satire. The ridiculous is best exposed as such when its absurdities are brought into sharp relief, and satire has been a particularly effective piece of discoursive ordnance for pricking the pomposity of the incompetently or mendaciously powerful. It has also been an effective tool for winnowing bad ideas into the chaff bin of history, so that we may savour with greater relish the fertile grains remaining.
Meanwhile, swerving back on course to the continent of the topic at hand, after a detour exploration of some interesting islands, I’ve had the “militant atheist” trope thrown at me on numerous occasions in the past, along with the usual tiresome bloviating about my “hating god” and all the rest of it. Several years of dealing with the specimens who take this approach has, as might be expected, made me more combative when encountering new specimens of the ilk, but I take the view that “firing for effect” with properly functioning and efficient ordnance is the way forward. Which means, of course, paying proper attention to rigour.
In short, absurdities and iniquities are best dealt with, by combining proper analysis with carefully crafted satirical imagery.
1 Like
LOL… Every now and again one rears its ugly head on this site. They just don’t last very long. Everyone on the site is quick to point out that any assertion they make will be held to the same standard as any Theist making an assertion. POOF They pull the very same magic act as the theists. They just vanish.
LOL… Or an occasional 'Poo Fling."
I enjoyed reading Calilasseia’s post and this brings me a little closer to the answer in my mind. The three axioms of ideologies is a brilliant observation that applies beyond just the ideology of religion.
It leads me to think of a possible answer to the arrogance question I originally asked. Unfortunately, I oversimplify things in my quest to be more like Feynman, but here’s what I see from the believer… and occasionally the atheist:
-You haven’t synchronized your position/belief with my mine.
-That makes me believe you think you understand and/or know better than me.
-That makes me perceive that you think you are smarter than me.
-The position that you think you are smarter than me is arrogant.
Do you guys think this train of thought makes sense?
OOPS ----
***That makes me believe you think you understand ***???
How about; "That makes me believe you are ignorant and don’t understand. It makes me believe your mind is closed to the amazing possibility of a God. After all, “The fool hath said in his heart, “there is no God.”” You don’t know better than me because you can not prove God is not real.
-
Obviously I am smarter than you. God has blinded the non-believer and he can not see. That’s in the Bible.
-
The fact that you think you are on some sort of level footing with me is arrogant. You are a filthy unforgiven sinner who is going to burn in hell unless you change your ways and beg God for forgivness. The only thing keeping you from recognizing God as your savior and creator is your arrogance.
I think you are on the right track, but your language is not near strong enough.
Matthew: 10: 14-15 Gen: 19:24 - 1. Cities that neither “receive” the disciples nor “hear” their words will be destroyed by God. It will be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah. And you know what God supposedly did to those poor folks.
Matthew: 12:30 -“He that is not with me is against me.”
The presuppositional position of the Christian is that you are blind, wrong, a sinner, and deserving of hell. They believe this before you ever open your mouth. They don’t care about your beliefs or whether they are syncronized or not.
3 Likes
How about this for the second bullet:
-That makes me believe you are convinced you’re right and I am wrong
It just dawned on me that the believer is convinced he’s right through group assurance, and the atheist positions that he’s right based on evidence. So, the judgment of right and wrong comes from a difference in standards for accepting what is true: consensus or proof.
Boiled down further… and starting over, the chain looks like this:
We disagree
That makes you think I’m wrong
That makes you think you are smarter than me
You being smarter than me requires greater capability then I have
That makes you arrogant
P.S. The evidence standard’s validity tends to erode the consensus standard’s validity. For example, it is accepted that the Earth is not the center of the solar system: a position once held by the majority by consensus (albeit forced by dogma).
Thoughts?
1 Like
What is the atheist right about? To my knowledge the atheists are not making a whole lot of claims. When they do claim that someone’s pet version of a god does not exist is it usually well grounded in evidence and obvious contradiction. (Like: a god existing in no time and no space. Well what in the hell do you call something that exists for no time and in no space? Non-existant, of course.)
What assertions do you hear atheists making? Mostly I hear them asking the question, “How do you know that?” and “What is your evidence for that claim?” When the evidence is not produced then you get the ole, “Why do you believe shit without good evidence?”
So, where is the “Atheist” right? Based on what evidence?
Now when I am playing “Antitheist” I am right based on the 'lack of evidence." It works this way. If you tell me my house is on fire, I run about and look for flames. When I find no flames, I look for smoke, I smell the air, I check inside and outside, I ask you how you know my house is on fire. When you tell me that it is just a feeling you have or that you know my house is on fire from personal experience and there is no observable evidence supporting your claim, I am well within my rights to call you a fucking nutjob. Absence of evidence is evidence when we would expect evidence to be present. Obviously the house is not on fire. There is no fire. All the evidence supports my claim that the fire is non-existant.
The standards are not different. Due to the expansion of the universe, my understanding is that the Earth is in fact the center of the universe, and so is every other point in the universe.
3 Likes
Well, scientific claims would be a good place to start where atheists making claims, though some scientists are believers. Evolution is a popular claim of atheists. Germ theory is another. Meteorology debunks superstitious claims.
In my experience, medical people with a secular stance have identified addiction as a chronological, neurological disorder where the “believers” say it is a spiritual condition due to character defects and shortcomings.
Atheists are “right” when they make claims based if they have evidence, and if there is a lack of evidence, they reject the claim. My declaring them “right” is my judgment. I will admit a technicality that scientist don’t claim things to be true, rather they only accept what cannot rejected.
I wrote “solar system” but I agree with you about the universe, and if you want to be technical, anywhere can be the center of anything with simply a designation. So, yes, the Earth can not only be the center of the universe, but it can be the center of any “system” if you choose. That’s not the point, but I appreciate your high level knowledge and understanding.
The point is people went with the dogma and/or consensus and did not refer to proof, and in fact in some cases, such as Giordano Bruno, when people demanded proof they were executed.
So, I’m back to my theory that the root of the perceived arrogance is due of a difference in standards for what is true.
-
The believer thinks the atheist is arrogant because he does not believe in accordance with the consensus. The believer does not require knowledge.
-
The atheist thinks the believer is arrogant because he claims knowledge without evidence. The atheist does not require consensus.
So the ideas are parallel with consensus and evidence being the variables.
Please pardon me for stepping in for a moment, but I would like to point out something real quick. For the sake of those lurkers who might be following this discussion, it is important to point out that a vast knowledge of various scientific fields (astronomy, astrophysics, evolution theory, etc.) is NOT necessary to be an atheist. Atheism is strictly a lack of belief in any god(s). Period. There is NO “general consensus” among atheists about anything having to do with scientific theories. One thing has nothing to do with the other.
Personally, I am an atheist primarily because the things I was taught as a kid about the bible/god/satan/heaven/hell never made any sense to me. It was only after I got older and better educated and better experienced in life that I was able to explain WHY it never made sense to me. Even then, however, it took me several decades to get past the fear of hell and fully break away from religion. Granted, science in general has always been a fascination of mine, and it did help me come to terms with why the teachings of the bible always seemed so farcical to me. A good knowledge of history and of how religions develop is also handy. However, there are many, many atheists out there who have very little interest in such things, much less any extensive knowledge of them. Yet, they are indeed atheists, nonetheless.
I bring this up because while reading your posts you make it seem as though ALL atheists hold the same understandings within scientific fields. I realize you may not be doing that intentionally. Just wanted to make you aware of it before it ends up biting you in the ass.
2 Likes
Atheism has nothing to do with science. Atheists are people who do not believe in god or gods. The burden of proof is on the theists. No one has to be a scientist or even understand anything about science to be an atheist.
Evolution has nothing to do with atheism. If evolution were proved to be 100% wrong, it would not move us one step closer to the probability of a god existing. There is no connection at all between evolution and the existence of a god.
The “germ theory of disease” is demonstrable. You have an infection, you take a drug, the infection goes away. WTF are you on about? Perhaps you don’t understand how the germ theory works. You need to watch that video I posted for Tin Man.
Addiction is a “chronological” (That can’t be right) (Neurological?) What’s not neurological? I’m not sure that calling anything neurological is saying anything at all. And calling anything neurological has nothing at all to do with the germ theory of disease. You are bouncing around all over the map here. I also reject your division as I am sure there are believers who understand the neuroscience of alcoholism.
Atheists don’t make claims based on anything. When a person makes a claim, it is not based on their 'Atheism." It may be based on their scientific knowledge, their knowledge of psychology, their knowledge of theism, their knowledge of the law, their knowledge of secular morality, but NOT of atheism. Atheism is the absence of god beliefs.
You are confusing secularism with Atheism.
You mean the believer does not require “evidence.” It is a standard of evidence that is different. Not knowledge and not proof. Get rid of all your sciency crap, your evolution, your germ theory, your meteorology, (I don’t know how the weather got into this discussion), your chronological stuff (whatever that is), and just junk it all. Empty your brain of all this shit. It has nothing to do with atheism.
Atheism is a response to the assertion, “God exists.” The atheist says, “I don’t believe your assertion, can you demonstrate it.” Very simply put, “Without sufficient evidence, there is no reason to assume a relationship between this god thing and existence.” This is all there is to atheism. Nothing more. No science. No germ theory. No evolution. No psychology. No psychology. No philosophy. When a person who identifies as an Atheist engages in a Scientific debate he is engaged in a Scientific debate and not an Atheist debate. He is discussing scientific facts and not Atheist facts. When engaged in a Philosophical debate it is a Philosophical discussion and not an Atheist discussion. The atheist needs to take no position against theism at any time. Nor does the atheist need to engage in any scientific, philosophical, theological, meteorological, chronological, or … debate. The atheist only needs to ask for evidence. “Show me your god.” “Demonstrate your god to me in the same way I can demonstrate my hand opening and closing to you.” It’s simple.
The believer is arrogant because they assert things without evidence. Without reason. And then, they threaten the nonbelievers with Hellfire and damnation for not going along with their ploy.
We are seen as arrogant for simply not going along with their ploy. Asking for evidence is enough to be arrogant. Their god thing is not to be questioned.
New American Standard Bible
And Jesus answered and said to him, “It has been stated, ‘YOU SHALL NOT PUT THE LORD YOUR GOD TO THE TEST.’”
-
1 Corinthians 10:9 We should not test Christ, as some of them did and were killed by snakes
-
2 Corinthians 5:7 For we live by faith, not by sight
The Christian god is not to be challenged or tested in any way and to do so, to ask for evidence is enough to warrant his wrath. No one needs science for that. All one need do is ask “Why?”
1 Like