Internet Atheism

[olivier renault]

The Internet is a public forum. If you prefer to work in isolation and shelter your beliefs, you're in the wrong place.

 

[Robosapien]

Um, I'd advise actually watching the video next time instead of just Googling, finding a video with the words 'Dawkins' and 'Millitant Athiesm' in and posting it.

If you had have watched the video you would have seen that the term 'militant atheism' is used sarcastically.

“Now it may sound as if I’m going to preach Atheism, and I want to re-assure you that is not what I’m going to do. In an audience as sophisticated as this, that would be preaching to the choir. No, what I want to urge upon you…[pauses as audience laugh as they realise he is doing a parody of Religious preacher who claims they won’t preach but then do], what I want to urge upon you is ‘Militant Atheism’ [audience laugh again and clap the obvious joke as they realise the term is being used tongue in cheek].

But that’s putting it too negatively……..” he then goes on to explain exactly why you don’t need to be ‘militant’ or forceful to get the point across and that evolutionary theory alone is although to dispels the myths of religion.

Oh well, a nice introduction and charming the audience through parody is still exactly that. I'm sure they lapped it up. How persuasive and eloquent. Clever linguistics and conduct utterly irrelevant to any proof.

 

[Amedra]

The Internet is a public forum. If you prefer to work in isolation and shelter your beliefs, you're in the wrong place.

Agree with you.

 

[Robosapien]

I won't go out of my way to start on religious people but if there is a discussion I will make my beliefs known, but I don't think less of religious people as such.

I think that faith can be a positive thing in many people's lives and that many religious people do, if they're honest, know the things their religion states can't be or aren't necessarily 'true' but it's not important and that their faith is their faith.

Now on the one hand I think that's crazy person behaviour but on the other I think it's fair enough.

Personally I have had very very few experiences where someone has tried to push their beliefs on me, and it's never been a friend or an acquaintance, only a person who is actively out to convert strangers.

I don't think it really matters if you're religious or not as long as you conduct yourself like a normal reasonable person and I think these days religious nutters are pretty rare.

I really disagree. There are far better substitutes for religion for making life more positive (education, other community activities, psychological support, etc, hell even other spiritual practices). And it's simply not harmless, even if you conduct yourself as a normal reasonable person you're still supporting an ideology which does massive damage by a select few who abuse their positions of power, not to mention serious continued travesties on the world stage.

 

[Robosapien]

What a load of old tosh! Perhaps you'd like to come and call me mentally ill to my face?

So that you can forgive him?

 

[Westyfield2]

Flame suit engage!

Anyone else noticed that if you're the slightest bit religious on the Internet you're branded as a backward yokel?

This isn't just about OcUK but here here's a good example: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18483435

Now I'm not religious and believe in evolution, but accept that some people don't and think that god may have created everything a few thousand years ago and did it so well as to fool science to this day. Why does the Internet have such a problem with people who have a non-standard opinion on religion?


Note: this isn't a debate about which viewpoint is right on the subject of evolution, but whether the Internet is unfairly rude to those who disagree.

Yep, I've noticed this too. People don't seem able to accept that other people can believe what they want without constantly needing to be ridiculed and told how they're wrong. Whatever happened to "Live and let live"?

With regards to the 'internet if full of clever people, religion is for stupid people' argument that someone earlier in this thread mentioned (though isn't that an exact case in point of the OP!?)... I was in top set for everything at school. Within the top the maths class, the top two guys were Christians and the top two girls were Christians. Yes at four out of a class of thirty they were outnumbered, and yes they had to endure a lot of **** (again; they weren't trying to convert the atheists so why did the atheists feel the need to try to convert them?) but my point is that they weren't exactly thick.

 

[Robosapien]

But according to Christianity I'll be sent to hell for non belief. Free will is therefore pointless.

Maybe in the days of the Old Testament but the last time I checked, Jesus died for our sins and saved us all. Even god fearing Christians.

 

[Robosapien]

Read on and you will find that Jesus himself said that even many who profess him to be Lord will not be entering heaven. If a man is sincere in his repentance he can be forgiven due to the sacrifice of Jesus, but no where have I ever said simple belief in Jesus gets you to heaven.

God knows the heart of men. If someone goes out and commits a crime and says "well God will just forgive me", then he won't be heading to heaven. God aint no fool.

So commit a crime and just repent it sincerely then.

 

[D.P.]

The problem is rooted in Richard Dawkins who has relatively successfully promoted his brand of militant atheism in best-selling novels such as 'the god dellusion' etc. He doesnt say let it be, he says get out there, challenge people and fight it.

Internet Atheists are the Jehova Witnesses of the modern age, and just as indoctrinated. It would be amusing, except closing the front door is rather final, but people on the internet come back again, and again, and again, and again, and SURPRISE again with the same old tired arguments.

Richard Dawkins has nothing to do with this and it is laughable that you you him a militant atheist. Dawkins merely wants people to learn the truth, for children not to be brain washed by lies and to grow up with an understanding of the universe they live in. A charities that seeks to make the truths of drug abuse or aids or childhood diseases some how military factions because their purpose is to promote information and awaeness?

 

[Jason2]

Richard Dawkins has nothing to do with this and it is laughable that you you him a militant atheist. Dawkins merely wants people to learn the truth, for children not to be brain washed by lies and to grow up with an understanding of the universe they live in. A charities that seeks to make the truths of drug abuse or aids or childhood diseases some how military factions because their purpose is to promote information and awaeness?

Dawkins has made millions of other people's ideology. He's a fraud.

And lets not talk about charities. We all know the corruption involved in them. Which is why you have charity founders driving round in Ferrari's.

 

[tang0]

A lot of people who use the internet are computer savvy sciency people and tend to be a bit smarter than your average religious fundie, hence why all the atheists

 

[estebanrey]

Dawkins has made millions of other people's ideology. He's a fraud.

Unlike the church then?

 

[doofer]

Dawkins has made millions of other people's ideology. He's a fraud.

Your ineptitude knows no bounds. Religions have defrauded TRILLIONS over the centuries. They are EVADING not avoiding BILLIONS in Taxation TODAY FFS.

 

[inogen]

Is that not agnostism?

If an aethist simply doesn't believe, what would you call someone who definitely 100% believes in NO GOD eek.

What's the difference?

I'm an atheist. I believe there is no god. However, I'm quite happy to be proved wrong about that. I wouldn't argue that there is "NO GOD" in the face of incontrovertible evidence. In fact, even within the balance of probabilities I'd prefer to come down on the side of a god, rather than a godless existence.

However, we don't have this do we? There's no evidence at all. None. Nada.

So I either kid myself that there is a "god" despite there being a complete lack of evidence, or face up to the fact that there most probably isn't.

Much like I had to with Father Christmas, the tooth fairy, ghosts, men on the Moon, men on Mars, Old Father Time, decent TV on Channel 5 etc etc etc.

 

[D.P.]

Dawkins has made millions of other people's ideology. He's a fraud.

And lets not talk about charities. We all know the corruption involved in them. Which is why you have charity founders driving round in Ferrari's.

Dawkins made millions by successfully writing and marketing books that people find interesting. he isn't enforcing an ideology, people are free to buy his books or not, interpret what he says as they wish, and can go off and read all the scientific articles used as source material that have objective repeatable evidence to support the hypotheses.

The church however, has made millions (well billions actually) by enforcing (and often violently) a fixed ideology without a shred of evidence.

As for your quip at charities it is laughable. Just because you work at a chartiy doesn't mean you have to be poor. Bill gates is one of the largest charitable donators in the world, does more for charity than most people and dedicates lots of his time to charity work. He also happens to be one of the richest people on the planet. How is hat in anyway corrupt?

 

[StriderX]

The problem was many centuries of religious aggression against non-believers, A-theists (not ANTI-theists, honestly I think the population never understands the difference), it is hard for people with any knowledge of history and being said atheist not to immediately come to an aggressive stance on Religion.

Just blaming it on human nature is a cop out, we all know its human nature and it never suddenly grants world peace when people say it.

Once you have come across your umpteenth zealot, you get tired of debating the constant droll over and over, so you end up just ignoring all religion because you would rather get on with something that brings happiness.

The internet is just an easy way to vent your frustrations and possible hatred of (mostly America) religious interference.

 

[D.P.]

Is that not agnostism?

If an aethist simply doesn't believe, what would you call someone who definitely 100% believes in NO GOD eek.

I don't believe a giant pink neon rhinoceros is floating around the Andromeda galaxy pooping rainbow coloured sweets as form of propulsion. There is no evidence that such an entity exists and measurable objective-based science dictates that such an entity is not required to explain the universe.

A theist would believe in this giant pink rhino despite there being no evidence.

An Atheist simply has no belief that the pink rhino exists because there is no evidence, he doesn't believe in anything per-se but supports the understanding of the universe through evidence and rigorous proofs. E.g. we can prove the ratio of a circles diameter to its radius (Pi) through pure mathematics, there is no belief needed. If at some point in the future irrefutable proof arose that this pink rhino does indeed exists then the atheist will simply adjust his knowledge and accept that the rhino exists.


Or another analogy. I claim I am holding a tea cup in my left hand while sat in my office. All of OCUK cannot know at all if this is true. The Theists belie 100% adamantly that I am holding the cup of tea in my left hand, despite no evidence. Atheists have no belief in me holding a tea cup in my left hand because there is no evidence for that. In fact, the atheists don't really care because there is no evidence to discuss.

 

[jahujames]

Or another analogy. I claim I am holding a tea cup in my left hand while sat in my office. All of OCUK cannot know at all if this is true. The Theists belie 100% adamantly that I am holding the cup of tea in my left hand, despite no evidence. Atheists have no belief in me holding a tea cup in my left hand because there is no evidence for that. In fact, the atheists don't really care because there is no evidence to discuss.

Gotta be said, whilst I (and probably the rest of the world understand what you're trying to say) you saying you're holding a cup of tea and saying "a theist would believe it" kinda misrepresents what a theist is. I think if you said "I have a cup of tea", I would just choose on the spot whether to believe it or not... I wouldn't have to amass all of my critical thinking to really get to the bottom of 'if I believe you have a cup of tea or not'. This misrepresents the scenario a bit, and paints it as simple as black and white--and as we all know the debate about whether a god exists or not, and the general question of the originations of the universe, is anything but.

But like I say... I get what you're trying to convey, don't get me wrong I just think you chose poorly in your words to construct a viable criticism against theists.

 

[DaleTheWhale]

*Insert Popcorn Gif*

 

[Robosapien]

I don't believe a giant pink neon rhinoceros is floating around the Andromeda galaxy pooping rainbow coloured sweets as form of propulsion. There is no evidence that such an entity exists and measurable objective-based science dictates that such an entity is not required to explain the universe.

Eh?
Firstly, how would such an entity explain the Universe if it just floats around ****ting rainbow coloured sweets out as a form of propulsion?
A theist's beliefs are a little more honed I would say (even if they are accompanied by a load of nonsense, ultimately it is just the belief in some deity greater than us and our perceived reality, not something trivial within our own Universe. If I am wrong, correct me.)

Secondly, how does measurable objective-based science dictate what is required to fully explain the Universe? It's only going provide answers to the 'How' in terms of the observable physical laws, never the 'Why'. Beyond the Big Bang / Singularities physical laws break down so I'd be surprised if it could provide further answers after this. Doesn't mean there isn't something further simply because we can never obtain the information to ascertain what that might be. We don't even know why the standard model is fine-tuned with the constants that need it to work. Add to this that the mathematics used to understand it all is basically limited to what the human mind is capable of understanding, but more importantly perceiving, (unless you are a Platonist and believe mathematics exists in it's own world. Yeah, belief. And even mathematics needs axioms.).

Thirdly, this is all just semantics and the can of worms in relation to it. What you describe sounds more like Agnostic Atheism since it lends itself to indifference (as opposed to "not sure"), along with a qualification that no burden of proof rests with the atheist.
I would argue that indifference and a belief in non-existence are two different things, so my question was what would you call the latter. If there is no difference, then there is no need for the qualifier/explanation, an atheist is both.
Previous poster got closer to answering my question by providing me with the term Antitheist, until I read that you can be a Theist aswell as an Antitheist because an Antitheist may well believe in a deity but believe the religious practices associated with worship of said deity is harmful to society and therefore oppose it.