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?

[Data]

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?

And the removal of Santa, Tooth fairy, Easter bunny, Aesop's fables, fairy tales, superheroes, science fiction, scientific theory, vaccines, political parties . . .

[TRANSPONDER]

...
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.

What critics of atheism seem unable to comprehend, even when we t...sorry, I....tell them, is that atheism is not a religion, church or Dogma. It is a response to the god - claim .Just that. You might as well say that a rebuttal of Flying saucers, dowsing or flat earth is flawed, unsatisfactory and wrong because it does not solve our social problems.

What it does, and all that it does is clear away a superstition and invalid supernatural claim and we can get on (better) with all the other stuff that makes life worth living.

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.

The difference is the same as the difference between a flying saucer and Bugatti veyron, a ghost and a volcano or a leprechaun and a Marine armed with an assault rife. One is known to be real, the other not. One is an object we have reason to credit, even if it has remarkable qualities and we have never seen one ourselves. The other is legendary beliefs of big invisible humans or other critters or mixtures of them, with supernatural powers. Why do you waste our time with nonsensical semantic diddling that helps neither your argument nor anyone elses'?

I hate the sort of dumbos who make anti -atheist arguments based on Nietzsche into the debate, mainly because I can never spell him, but mostly because Nietzsche is like these other old philosophers - out of date. Nietzsche raised a valid point, sure. Without a god (name your own) where is the moral basis of society going to come from? He did not know what morals were are where they came from. So effectively he was one more philosopher trying to use the rules of philosophy applied to something he didn't understand.

I'm sorry, Dude (or miss - whatever) but this idea that society would collapse without Christianity or indeed without religion is the old flam of religion taking credit for human morals. It fails even to say that religious morals are better than human ones, which are based only on greed, selfishness and fleeting pleasures. Generally that has not been the way of oit, rather religion has been used as a cover for the greed, selfishness and gratification of personal pleasures, by religions, and their leaders.

I can see what I think is the answer. or at least the way forward. Other humanists have and it is making the people better able to think. reason and not be fooled. I know it seems tough, and it may have seemed to fail horribly in the past, but it's the only way. Religions make things worse, not better.

[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.

What critics of atheism seem unable to comprehend, even when we t...sorry, I....tell them, is that atheism is not a religion, church or Dogma. It is a response to the god - claim .Just that. You might as well say that a rebuttal of Flying saucers, dowsing or flat earth is flawed, unsatisfactory and wrong because it does not solve our social problems.

What it does, and all that it does is clear away a superstition and invalid supernatural claim and we can get on (better) with all the other stuff that makes life worth living.

Critics of atheism are unable to comprehend that atheism isn't a religion, church or dogma because it's patently false. But I know how you feel. Atheists don't believe that, even, as remarkable as it may seem, when I tell them.

[Data]

The difference is the same as the difference between a flying saucer and Bugatti veyron, a ghost and a volcano or a leprechaun and a Marine armed with an assault rife. One is known to be real, the other not. Why do you waste our time with nonsensical semantic diddling that helps neither your argument nor anyone elses'?

Pay attention. I asked 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 didn't ask you the difference between the things you mentioned.

I hate the sort of dumbos who make anti -atheist arguments based on Nietzsche into the debate, mainly because I can never spell him, but mostly because Nietzsche is like these other old philosophers - out of date. Nietzsche raised a valid point, sure. Without a god (name your own) where is the moral basis of society going to come from.

I'm sorry, Dude (or miss - whatever) but this idea that society would collapse without Christianity or indeed without religion is the old flam of religion taking credit for human morals.

Oh, god, can't you guys put it away for a second! Why keep harping about "us and them" if the conflict isn't really just about us and them? God has nothing to do with it.

[TRANSPONDER]

...
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.

What critics of atheism seem unable to comprehend, even when we t...sorry, I....tell them, is that atheism is not a religion, church or Dogma. It is a response to the god - claim .Just that. You might as well say that a rebuttal of Flying saucers, dowsing or flat earth is flawed, unsatisfactory and wrong because it does not solve our social problems.

What it does, and all that it does is clear away a superstition and invalid supernatural claim and we can get on (better) with all the other stuff that makes life worth living.

Critics of atheism are unable to comprehend that atheism isn't a religion, church or dogma because it's patently false. But I know how you feel. Atheists don't believe that, even, as remarkable as it may seem, when I tell them.

You will have to better than just Telling us that it's false - you will have to give a sound argument why or you are just expelling so much hot air.

The difference is the same as the difference between a flying saucer and Bugatti veyron, a ghost and a volcano or a leprechaun and a Marine armed with an assault rife. One is known to be real, the other not. Why do you waste our time with nonsensical semantic diddling that helps neither your argument nor anyone elses'?

Pay attention. I asked 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 didn't ask you the difference between the things you mentioned.

I hate the sort of dumbos who make anti -atheist arguments based on Nietzsche into the debate, mainly because I can never spell him, but mostly because Nietzsche is like these other old philosophers - out of date. Nietzsche raised a valid point, sure. Without a god (name your own) where is the moral basis of society going to come from.

I'm sorry, Dude (or miss - whatever) but this idea that society would collapse without Christianity or indeed without religion is the old flam of religion taking credit for human morals.

Oh, god, can't you guys put it away for a second! Why keep harping about "us and them" if the conflict isn't really just about us and them? God has nothing to do with it.

Don't blame me.Nietzsche was the one fretting because atheism (he thought) had eliminated God. I supposed that Peterson was dumping on atheism because he though God was needed to stop moral and cultural collapse. The only reason we are even having this argument is because God - believers keep dragging the need for religion (true or not) into it.

If you can't see the analogy between the differences I mentioned (between the natural and the supernatural) applies to (and answers) the specific example you mention, you haven't the mental basic to contribute to this discussion. I think you have, but are being craftily denialist about it rather than admit this pivot of your argument (whatever it is) fails.

[TRANSPONDER]

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?

And the removal of Santa, Tooth fairy, Easter bunny, Aesop's fables, fairy tales, superheroes, science fiction, scientific theory, vaccines, political parties . . .

Good grief, yes and no. You are really unable to tell that there is no valid claim for the tooth fairy or Santa and not able to understand the valid case for vaccines ( which have eradicated some of the worst scourges of humankind like plague, measles, smallpox, malaria and polio? You can't distinguish between science fiction and science theory

...
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?

Not if you say they weren't 'Really" Christians and that was done by evil men misled by Satan, but anything that looks good, even curing someone who would have died 200 years ago with medical science - why, credit that to Jesusgod and Christian religion. It's a scam and lie they love to perpetuate.

[Data]

:D You will have to better than just Telling us that it's false - you will have to give a sound argument why or you are just expelling so much hot air.

I will fight hot air with hot air, then. Saying that atheism is just a rejection of the god claim is like saying theism is just a god claim. Just listen to any of the atheists on this forum or any other. It has nothing to do with a god claim.

[TRANSPONDER]

You will have to better than just Telling us that it's false - you will have to give a sound argument why or you are just expelling so much hot air.

I will fight hot air with hot air, then. Saying that atheism is just a rejection of the god claim is like saying theism is just a god claim. Just listen to any of the atheists on this forum or any other. It has nothing to do with a god claim.

Thank you. Just confirms another failure of theism. Not only failure to understand the logic but failure in understanding the evidential basis, and you think it it is just talking opinions against opinions. I really don't think you understand the atheists here, and mistake the logical and evidential discussions that come up here for the basis of atheist position: rejection of the god - claim as valid. Just that. The knock -ons, what follows and what atheists do about it is all peripheral.; not atheism itself. That's why they try to say it's a religion or at least a Dogma or at least a 'Worldview'. They do not understand atheism and still think in terms of an alternative religion, which it is not.

Theists never understand (in your case even seem to dismiss) the validity of science. When the way things (including morals) work do it without a god, it means the basis of the god - claim shrinks. The reason for people to Not credit a god - claim are based on evidence and reason, and the god - claimants have less and less to argue all the time.

Yet as we see, they still think it's a matter of 'my opinion is as good as yours'. This is why they lose the debate, but still could win because they have influence, numbers and money to peddle their tosh.

[Data]

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Just confirms another failure of theism.

Propaganda.

Not only failure to understand the logic but failure to understanding the evidential basis, and you think it it is just talking opinions against opinions.

It is only ever opinions. Especially when the obvious motivation is ideological fixation. That is, the motivation is more obvious. Look at any post you've written here. Almost always 100% opinion. You only have to labor under the illusion that what you suppose and allege is fact, science, evidence, truth, valid, et cetera ad nauseum.

I really don't think you understand the atheists here, and mistake the logical and evidential discussions that come up here for the basis of atheist position: rejection of the god - claim as valid. Just that.

You won't think I understand atheists until I agree with you in the sense that I just repeat the same cheers you do. To the small choir.

The knock -ons, what follows and what atheists do about it is all peripheral.

Knock-ons? Peripheral? The difference between atheism and theism is the evidentiary knock-ons and peripheral in atheism that isn't evidentary in theism?

Not atheism itself. That's why they try to say it's a religion or at least a Dogma or at least a 'Worldview'. They do not understand atheism and think in terms of an alternative religion, which it is not.

Or they say it because it's obviously true. The trouble with your type of infinite argument is that it can easily apply to either side, atheism or theism. It is personal, emotional, speculative, conjectural, hyperbolic, ideological fixation. Pure and simple. I wonder - is this intentional to obfuscate the facts? Would you even know the answer to that question yourself? Take away your religion, atheism, and your opinion from any of your rants, and there isn't anything there to work with. I know, I've tried.

Theists never understand (in your case even seem to dismiss) the validity of science.

Really! Well, who cares about science? Atheism is only a rejection of the god claim, right? No science needed or relevant.

When they way things (including morals) work without a god, means the basis of the god -claim shrinks.

No, it doesn't, it only narrows down the god claim to something which is exactly what it is. The moral issue is only a product of the ideological struggle. Theists wrongly think they are morally superior just as atheists wrongly think they are intellectually superior. But that issue will never be successfully addressed because it's opinion. Ideology.

The reason for people to Not credit a god -claim are based on evidence and reason, and the god -claimants have less and less to argue all the time.

[Laughs] If only that were true.

Yet as we see, they still think it's a matter of 'my opinion is as good as yours'. This is why they lose the debate, but still could win because they have influence, numbers and money to peddle their tosh.

Or, to put it another prejudicial way:

"Stronger than steel,
Hotter than the sun;
Atheists won't stop,
'til they get the job done!"

Yaaaayyyy!

The choir goes wild. All four of them.

[TRANSPONDER]

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Just confirms another failure of theism.

Propaganda.

Not only failure to understand the logic but failure to understanding the evidential basis, and you think it it is just talking opinions against opinions.

It is only ever opinions. Especially when the obvious motivation is ideological fixation. That is, the motivation is more obvious. Look at any post you've written here. Almost always 100% opinion. You only have to labor under the illusion that what you suppose and allege is fact, science, evidence, truth, valid, et cetera ad nauseum.

I really don't think you understand the atheists here, and mistake the logical and evidential discussions that come up here for the basis of atheist position: rejection of the god - claim as valid. Just that.

You won't think I understand atheists until I agree with you in the sense that I just repeat the same cheers you do. To the small choir.

The knock -ons, what follows and what atheists do about it is all peripheral.

Knock-ons? Peripheral? The difference between atheism and theism is the evidentiary knock-ons and peripheral in atheism that isn't evidentary in theism?

Not atheism itself. That's why they try to say it's a religion or at least a Dogma or at least a 'Worldview'. They do not understand atheism and think in terms of an alternative religion, which it is not.

Or they say it because it's obviously true. The trouble with your type of infinite argument is that it can easily apply to either side, atheism or theism. It is personal, emotional, speculative, conjectural, hyperbolic, ideological fixation. Pure and simple. I wonder - is this intentional to obfuscate the facts? Would you even know the answer to that question yourself? Take away your religion, atheism, and your opinion from any of your rants, and there isn't anything there to work with. I know, I've tried.

Theists never understand (in your case even seem to dismiss) the validity of science.

Really! Well, who cares about science? Atheism is only a rejection of the god claim, right? No science needed or relevant.

When they way things (including morals) work without a god, means the basis of the god -claim shrinks.

No, it doesn't, it only narrows down the god claim to something which is exactly what it is. The moral issue is only a product of the ideological struggle. Theists wrongly think they are morally superior just as atheists wrongly think they are intellectually superior. But that issue will never be successfully addressed because it's opinion. Ideology.

The reason for people to Not credit a god -claim are based on evidence and reason, and the god -claimants have less and less to argue all the time.

[Laughs] If only that were true.

Yet as we see, they still think it's a matter of 'my opinion is as good as yours'. This is why they lose the debate, but still could win because they have influence, numbers and money to peddle their tosh.

Or, to put it another prejudicial way:

"Stronger than steel,
Hotter than the sun;
Atheists won't stop,
'til they get the job done!"

Yaaaayyyy!

The choir goes wild. All four of them.

I was going to decline this but - theist apologists will be tempted to claim that as a win. As it is, it is a loss and I'll show why. Dismissal of what I post (which is based on science rather than religion dismissed as opinion. As well as logic, such as showing that the silly semantic fiddle about gods being anything we value pretty much debunks you and your methods at the get -go. The rest about propaganda,ideology and opinion applies to the theist side with the extra slap' 'Projection'.

Idiotic remark about understanding atheism is agreeing with me. The atheists are the ones who get to say what atheism is, not their opponents. The same with your primitive view of morality. All the time you see it as an ideological struggle, you (and other theists) will never understand what morals actually is. This is an example of how theism cannot properly use science and knowledge because it denies it and how the best efforts of theist argument are ludicrously bad.

You haven't tried work with anything I've posted. You've only ever posted your claims and opinions with nothing but denial of knowledge to back it up.

And I'll cut it short there as your post is little more than denial, accusation, rejecttion, projection and abuse and i really have better things to do.