Atheism is lame (according to atheists)

[historia]

Consider these recent comments from various figures of the New Atheist movement.

Sarah Haider, former head of Ex-Muslims of North America:

You think you leave religion and you have landed upon a better shore, a more enlightened shore. And here are people who seem to care a lot about what is true in the world. They seem to care about rationalism and free inquiry. They make all the right noises. And it seems that for a time that that is true.

But then suddenly there's an issue in which their political sympathies don't align with free inquiry and rationalism and science. And suddenly things get distored so, so quickly.

Michael Shermer, founder of Skeptic magazine:

My wife went to an all-girls Catholic school in Cologne, Germany. And we were thinking, even though we're both atheists, we'd rather have a Catholic school for our [boy] than one of these crazy woke schools where he's told he's not a boy, he's a girl, or whatever craziness will be going on.

Peter Boghossian, author of A Manual for Creating Atheists (2013):

I will admit to a kind of Pollyanna view that if we [atheists] could just defeat some of these [religious] beliefs, then it would open up a kind of new age of flourishing or a new age of englightenment . . . .

[Now] I think without any question whatsoever -- and I've spoken to many people about this -- we are far, far better off with a society that has a benevolent form of Christianity than we are with a society that has adopted the fundamental tenents of wokeism or critical social justice. There's just no question about it.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, author of Infidel (2007), in her recent article, "Why I am now a Christian":

Russell and other activist atheists believed that with the rejection of God we would enter an age of reason and intelligent humanism. But the "God hole" —- the void left by the retreat of the church —- has merely been filled by a jumble of irrational quasi-religious dogma.

The result is a world where modern cults prey on the dislocated masses, offering them spurious reasons for being and action — mostly by engaging in virtue-signalling theatre on behalf of a victimised minority or our supposedly doomed planet.

The line often attributed to G.K. Chesterton has turned into a prophecy: "When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything."

David Silverman, former head of American Atheists:

Would I rather have my child be a moderate Christian or a woke atheist? Moderate Christian.

And that's a disgusting place to be. We live in a bizzaro world that's crazy, and you made me say that. It's wrong. It's true, though!

Questions for debate: Why are an increasing number of one-time atheist advocates now saying they were naive in thinking the New Atheist movement would bring about a more rational world? Why are some even going so far as to say moderate Christianity would be better for society?

[TRANSPONDER]

I'd say there is a misperception here - the same one that says atheism is bad because Stalin and Mao were atheists. The problem is the ideology, not the atheism.

I'm not going get into the ideology here - this is not the politics forum. I'll just say that the original ideals were ok, and there are signs that people are getting wise to how it is getting ridiculous and damaging because of virtue - signalling haters and extremists. And that's from an atheist.

[alexxcJRO]

Consider these recent comments from various figures of the New Atheist movement.

Sarah Haider, former head of Ex-Muslims of North America:

You think you leave religion and you have landed upon a better shore, a more enlightened shore. And here are people who seem to care a lot about what is true in the world. They seem to care about rationalism and free inquiry. They make all the right noises. And it seems that for a time that that is true.

But then suddenly there's an issue in which their political sympathies don't align with free inquiry and rationalism and science. And suddenly things get distored so, so quickly.

Michael Shermer, founder of Skeptic magazine:

My wife went to an all-girls Catholic school in Cologne, Germany. And we were thinking, even though we're both atheists, we'd rather have a Catholic school for our [boy] than one of these crazy woke schools where he's told he's not a boy, he's a girl, or whatever craziness will be going on.

Peter Boghossian, author of A Manual for Creating Atheists (2013):

I will admit to a kind of Pollyanna view that if we [atheists] could just defeat some of these [religious] beliefs, then it would open up a kind of new age of flourishing or a new age of englightenment . . . .

[Now] I think without any question whatsoever -- and I've spoken to many people about this -- we are far, far better off with a society that has a benevolent form of Christianity than we are with a society that has adopted the fundamental tenents of wokeism or critical social justice. There's just no question about it.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, author of Infidel (2007), in her recent article, "Why I am now a Christian":

Russell and other activist atheists believed that with the rejection of God we would enter an age of reason and intelligent humanism. But the "God hole" —- the void left by the retreat of the church —- has merely been filled by a jumble of irrational quasi-religious dogma.

The result is a world where modern cults prey on the dislocated masses, offering them spurious reasons for being and action — mostly by engaging in virtue-signalling theatre on behalf of a victimised minority or our supposedly doomed planet.

The line often attributed to G.K. Chesterton has turned into a prophecy: "When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything."

David Silverman, former head of American Atheists:

Would I rather have my child be a moderate Christian or a woke atheist? Moderate Christian.

And that's a disgusting place to be. We live in a bizzaro world that's crazy, and you made me say that. It's wrong. It's true, though!

Questions for debate: Why are an increasing number of one-time atheist advocates now saying they were naive in thinking the New Atheist movement would bring about a more rational world? Why are some even going so far as to say moderate Christianity would be better for society?

The problem is not with the idea of being atheist. Being atheist is a very rational position considering our reality if one cares about truth and not deluding himself.
The problem are humans. Most are such weaklings that they cannot handle reality and truth.

If all the humans on the planet would suddenly have my knowledge and understand at my level: that most likely there are no god or gods, that our existence is most likely meaningless, the we are just evolved worms, that we would probably destroy ourself, that we will probably go extinct like 90% of species that ever existed, that we most likely do not have free will, the world would probably come to an end.
Having some delusions is preferable to having none.
Truth hurts more then a comfortable lie.

[TRANSPONDER]

It is easy to point to converts - I did a check decades ago, true, but found about equal numbers of converts going online - Christian to Muslim, Muslim to Jewish, Jewish to atheist, atheist to Christian.

But the thing was that the reasons for conversion for atheist to Christian were - as you pointed to - never because of a better argument that Christianity was true, but for social reasons - either it offered cozy community or it was socio - political reasons. I won't try to unravel the reasoning of the convert that claimed that atheism was ineffective against Islam But in fact Atheism makes a far better case against Islam that Christianity which hardly debates it at all but appears to rely on sheer numbers to win. The only initiatives seems to be appeals to outbreed the Muslims and stop them entering the country.


The reason atheists are ineffective is because we get no assistance because in the end Christians would stand with Muslims against atheists. "Better a different religion than no religion."

[Data]

The comments you have selected are representative of what I call fundamentalist militant atheism, which is only a small percentage of atheism. Raised in an atheist-political/irreligious-apolitical family brought me at a very early age (6-8 years old) to the conclusion that the sociopolitical and the socioreligious were exactly the same with the exception of what is generally the current concept of theism in occidental cultures. It is, put simply, sociopolitical ideological fixation. Class struggles. Theism uses a transmogrified ideology as a tool for their world view. If you talk to a theist and you know their brand of theology, it isn't really anything to do with God/Allah, it's to do with control of their world. It's a world view. Anecdotally, in my opinion, most theists are atheists. They only use a quasi-god concept to justify that. Etymologically speaking, an atheist is someone without gods. That isn't realistic, and is only true in the sense of the commonly misunderstood idiomatic expression. The majority of non-militant atheists aren't socially or politically motivated. They just don't have what is commonly referred to as gods; supernatural beings directing their decisions and life. They don't care if "In God We Trust" is on the money, or the nativity scene is on the courthouse lawn, or if there is prayer in school.

In Muslim countries this is most obvious, though, the Quran is sort of an early incarnation of the principle of theocratic class struggle; the Quran basically is a treatise that, at least in that sense, rightly, rejects the apostacy of Judaism and Christianity. But the atheist you quoted would have an altogether different sociopolitical ideology if they lived in those countries. It isn't about God, the Bible, or the Quran, it's politics.

Atheism itself without the sociopolitical conflation, is a completely rational ideology. True theism requires faith. Atheists, since the industrial revolutions, rightly questioned the corrupt - the vile, bloodthirsty, hypocritical, greedy, perverted misrepresentatives of theism and thought, again, rightly that they could do better. It was myopic of them not to recognize that they would only create the same monster with a different face. Didn't have to be that way in either case, theist or atheist but it's hardly surprising it is. The comments you've posted are pretty much recent. It will become more and more obvious as time goes on.

[TRANSPONDER]

That was remarkably good, and I agreed with a whole lot of it. Even the bit about gods for sure existing, if only you applied the term to Nike sneakers, Durian ice cream and pre- Phylloxena french wine. Which nobody but a few irrelevants in the course of the god - debate.

I though Peterson was flogging a dead horse. Mind, I got bored when he started on an exposition of Dostoyevsky, so I guessed where he was going. Correct me if I got it wrong. It's no use blaming science for where evolution ended us up. It is what happened and we have to deal with it. Opting for a human invented god as a hopefully easy way out is no solution. Just so it's no good blaming atheism for not being a quickfire solution to all the world's problems. religion hasn't been much of a cure - either.

[Clownboat]

Questions for debate: Why are an increasing number of one-time atheist advocates now saying they were naive in thinking the New Atheist movement would bring about a more rational world?

Surely you agree that removing, ghosts, gods, demons, angels and the like leads to a more rational world. Right? If not, what is the correct amount and type of each that believing in would lead to a more rational world?

If believing in 1 god is rational, would believing in hundreds be more rational? Follow this line of thinking to its logical conclusion, then do the same for ghosts, demons, angels and the like and then ask yourself about the rationality of it all.

[1213]

...
Questions for debate: Why are an increasing number of one-time atheist advocates now saying they were naive in thinking the New Atheist movement would bring about a more rational world? Why are some even going so far as to say moderate Christianity would be better for society?

It is interesting, if some have though atheism could bring something. It has no doctrine, no teaching, nothing really, it is lack of belief and so basically like emptiness. And when belief in God is removed, it can also remove everything that comes with the belief in God. That is why it should not be any surprise, if atheism doesn't lead anywhere good.

[Data]

That was remarkably good, and I agreed with a whole lot of it. Even the bit about gods for sure existing, if only you applied the term to Nike sneakers, Durian ice cream and pre- Phylloxena french wine. Which nobody but a few irrelevants in the course of the god - debate.

Okay. Tell me what you think the difference between someone who believed in a God invented by superstitious goatherders thousands of years ago and someone who's god was Nike, Durian or wine would be.

I though Peterson was flogging a dead horse. Mind, I got bored when he started on an exposition of Dostoyevsky, so I guessed where he was going. Correct me if I got it wrong. It's no use blaming science for where evolution ended us up. It is what happened and we have to deal with it. Opting for a human invented god as a hopefully easy way out is no solution. Just so it's no good blaming atheism for not being a quickfire solution to all the world's problems. religion hasn't been much of a cure - either.

I'm not sure, so I'll just point out what Peterson was saying. Nitzsche said God is dead, meaning that the god concept - pagan, Abrahamic or otherwise - from which societies were formed upon, was diminishing, and apparently, would therefor crumble. The foundation of society had been destroyed and therefore the structure would collapse. I don't think he meant that this was the fault of science.

[Data]

...
Questions for debate: Why are an increasing number of one-time atheist advocates now saying they were naive in thinking the New Atheist movement would bring about a more rational world? Why are some even going so far as to say moderate Christianity would be better for society?

It is interesting, if some have though atheism could bring something. It has no doctrine, no teaching, nothing really, it is lack of belief and so basically like emptiness. And when belief in God is removed, it can also remove everything that comes with the belief in God. That is why it should not be any surprise, if atheism doesn't lead anywhere good.

Wouldn't it seem that if the alleged belief in God had produced destructive and otherwise detrimental results then it's removal would be an improvement?