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]

I was going to decline this but - theist apologists will be tempted to claim that as a win.

Oh, you're too late, buddy. All us theists got together and decided it was an astounding victory, we'll be celebrating later this afternoon and I believe they're going to cover it tonight in a made for TV CNN special.

Oh, wait a second. I didn't say anything. There is nothing there to win or lose. Our exchange was, for all practical purposes, blah, blah, blah.

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.

Now, see?! There's where I was remiss. I hadn't realized that your opinion had been published in any of the respectable scientific journals. I thought, foolishly, that you were just giving your anecdotal (at best) opinion. Why didn't you tell me you silly goose.

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.

Of course! Otherwise, you would have to actually make an argument. I wouldn't do that to my ol' buddy.

The rest about propaganda, ideology and opinion applies to the theist side with the extra slap' 'Projection'.

Ah, the trusty old "extra slap' 'Projection.' This must be very tiring for you esteemed men of "science."

Idiotic remark about understanding atheism is agreeing with me. The atheists are the ones who get to say what atheism is, not their opponents.

Hear! Hear! Who did that? Fiddly sticks and poppycock! No more of this Tom foolery, no more ballyhoo.

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.

Oh! I just get so darn mad! Those Anti Science buffoons! Take up thy soapbox and squawk! Ludicrous, I say! [pounds fist] Absolutely ludicrous! Questioning the inability of science to test the supernatural! Should have kept it's mouth shut.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah . . . . . . say, you aren't by any chance a politician, are you?

[TRANSPONDER]

I was going to decline this but - theist apologists will be tempted to claim that as a win.

Oh, you're too late, buddy. All us theists got together and decided it was an astounding victory, we'll be celebrating later this afternoon and I believe they're going to cover it tonight in a made for TV CNN special.

Oh, wait a second. I didn't say anything. There is nothing there to win or lose. Our exchange was, for all practical purposes, blah, blah, blah.

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.

Now, see?! There's where I was remiss. I hadn't realized that your opinion had been published in any of the respectable scientific journals. I thought, foolishly, that you were just giving your anecdotal (at best) opinion. Why didn't you tell me you silly goose.

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.

Of course! Otherwise, you would have to actually make an argument. I wouldn't do that to my ol' buddy.

The rest about propaganda, ideology and opinion applies to the theist side with the extra slap' 'Projection'.

Ah, the trusty old "extra slap' 'Projection.' This must be very tiring for you esteemed men of "science."

Idiotic remark about understanding atheism is agreeing with me. The atheists are the ones who get to say what atheism is, not their opponents.

Hear! Hear! Who did that? Fiddly sticks and poppycock! No more of this Tom foolery, no more ballyhoo.

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.

Oh! I just get so darn mad! Those Anti Science buffoons! Take up thy soapbox and squawk! Ludicrous, I say! [pounds fist] Absolutely ludicrous! Questioning the inability of science to test the supernatural! Should have kept it's mouth shut.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah . . . . . . say, you aren't by any chance a politician, are you?

You and you buddies can do what you like and tell yourselves what you like.And you may think it's all Blah Blah or having fun, but the result is that others will look in and see that you have nothing to say.

My 'opinion' as you say will have been published, considered and accepted. This is the science database we all rely on every day. Even you. What else do you use even in your wildest speculations? The rest is sniping so far as i can see. Good just of making your own case (whatever it was) look bad.

It doesn't matter, really . Whether the Theist side puts up a good argument or a poor one, generally atheists win by argument or just by pointing at the stuff you posted above.

[1213]

...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.

I don't say atheism is wrong because it doesn't fix problems. I say, atheism has itself nothing that could improve world.

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.

By what I see, atheism seems to increase all kind of superstitious stuff. And on the other hand, Bible is against superstition.

[1213]

....
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?

If it would be true and if it would remove only the bad or wrong things.

[Data]

....
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?

If it would be true and if it would remove only the bad or wrong things.

I like it when you respond to me because it so often is in one way or another, surprisingly good. I'm not sure about this because grammatically it doesn't seem right. Being not so good at grammar myself and it not being a primary concern of mine, that only becomes problematic when I'm not sure how to take it. I personally often have horrible posts in that regard. Part of that is due to poor editing but also because I have too many thoughts to type out. So, I can be verbose. Like now.

To me your response here brings to my attention that the Jews, with Jehovah among them, and the early Christian disciples with Jesus physically among them, were far from perfect. "Show me a completely smooth operation and I'll show you someone who's covering mistakes. Real boats rock." (Frank Herbert; Chapterhouse Dune)

[Data]

It doesn't matter, really .

Perhaps you've noticed you and I agree more often than not?

Whether the Theist side puts up a good argument or a poor one, generally atheists win by argument or just by pointing at the stuff you posted above.

Confirmation bias never loses and never learns, buddy. You can't possibly lose. Your weakness is in your strength. Science isn't rigid, ideology is rigid.

[TRANSPONDER]

...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.

I don't say atheism is wrong because it doesn't fix problems. I say, atheism has itself nothing that could improve world.

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.

By what I see, atheism seems to increase all kind of superstitious stuff. And on the other hand, Bible is against superstition.

Atheism does not need to improve the world; it has only to be correct. But from what I see a lot less religious influence couldn't help but benefit society.

But if you see that atheism increases superstition and the Bible is against it, I can only assume you not only have your own Bible but your own dictionary.

It doesn't matter, really .

Perhaps you've noticed you and I agree more often than not?

Whether the Theist side puts up a good argument or a poor one, generally atheists win by argument or just by pointing at the stuff you posted above.

Confirmation bias never loses and never learns, buddy. You can't possibly lose. Your weakness is in your strength. Science isn't rigid, ideology is rigid.

I sometimes think you are playing games with us, as that was all right, pretty much but supports the atheist case and militates against the theist, but presenting it as you did, looked like a trap to get me denying it thinking it refuted atheism. Was that your plan? Or does it only look like it because you did it wrong?

[historia]

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?

That's just the thing. The atheists I'm quoting in the OP are saying that simply removing belief in God or getting people to reject religion doesn't, in itself, cause people to adopt rational beliefs in place of those prior commitments.

Consider this example from the Amazing Atheist:



What are we to make of that?

[TRANSPONDER]

....
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?

If it would be true and if it would remove only the bad or wrong things.

I like it when you respond to me because it so often is in one way or another, surprisingly good. I'm not sure about this because grammatically it doesn't seem right. Being not so good at grammar myself and it not being a primary concern of mine, that only becomes problematic when I'm not sure how to take it. I personally often have horrible posts in that regard. Part of that is due to poor editing but also because I have too many thoughts to type out. So, I can be verbose. Like now.

To me your response here brings to my attention that the Jews, with Jehovah among them, and the early Christian disciples with Jesus physically among them, were far from perfect. "Show me a completely smooth operation and I'll show you someone who's covering mistakes. Real boats rock." (Frank Herbert; Chapterhouse Dune)

You have surprised me with some of your posts, too, which makes me wonder whether the dreadful arguments are just winding us up. Notably the one above which is actually supporting the atheist case but looks like it doesn't.

I write as I feel, and have a bad habit of playing with words, sentences and grammar. If anything is not clear, I'm happy to clarify. Anyone else who dislikes the way I write can go suck As to English and expression your posts lack nothing. What they seem to lack is sometimes a sensible argument or even sense of what you are arguing,.

Your above is a case in point. On the face of it it seems dumb and irrelevant, but I am sure it isn't but is you having a game to see whether you can wrongfoot atheism (1). Sure the disciples were fallible. The Bible makes it clear. Whether the 'Ananda' method (a second fiddle for the principle to use to make teaching points) to flag up the later perfection of the Apostles or (as I suspect) because as Jews (whom the Greek Christian writers didn't much like) they had to be shown as flawed, failing and foolish.

Apparently irrelevant to atheism unless you are hiding the bacon pill of 'atheism can do great things, despite flaws' in the poison wrap that seems intended to trick me into refusal to swallow it. But atheism doesn't claim to be a cure -all for society Only Theists who cannot get out of a 'rival false religion' mindset keep insisting that atheism must be claiming to cure society's ills or should even if it doesn't. Humanism - yes, it addresses that and atheism is sorta towards the humanist league as atheists tend toward the liberal. But all atheism as such claims, is to be - on evidence - the best response to the god - claim. 'We don't believe it'.

But carry on with the points and queries, real or feigned I am happy to explain yet again for anyone and everyone.

(1) You sure you aren't my old Christian colleague - the one who married a blind girl for Jesus and came to work looking like a scarecrow? He used to toss out polemical caltrops for me, too.

[theophile]

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?

I think that's a good question, and a similar path I hit long ago as a short-lived atheist.

My answer is science and reason, while yielding of fact and truth, in themselves supply no end goal, values, or anything actually worth believing in. They give no deeper meaning to things, and are more just heartless operators you can apply to anything, to better understand or analyze the situation. Thus they leave some deep set concerns unanswered, concerns that religion and theism do directly provide. Hence their enduring attractiveness, even if it all comes couched in a narrative that doesn't sit well with modern beliefs.

(Case in point, if you asked science or reason what the end of the world is, the answer would be a big freeze or something along those lines. But are we not capable of more? Of something worth believing in?)