Why Atheism Will Also Fail.

Because like every other ideology prior to it – humans are involved. Humans like to label things this or that way, define something this and that way, narrow the scope of something this or that way…it’s just another trend in the ideological cycle.

I like atheism, I also hate atheism. In the same vein, I like Christianity, I also hate Christianity.

Nothing is really living at it’s ‘ideal’ – everything has been corrupted by the human need to control it. I have met lots of great atheists in my time, I have also met my fair share of people that ruin it for everyone else.

Atheism is going to enjoy some of it’s ‘heyday’ right now and maybe for the next 15 to 20 years. But like everything else it will also fall – mistakes will be made to taint what seems like such a bright endeavour. So that when it’s finger that wags at people unlike it will reveal there are 4 others pointing at its-self. Such is life.

Atheists believe there is no God, it doesn’t mean they don’t believe in something else.

Advertisements

24 thoughts on “Why Atheism Will Also Fail.

  1. I have also met my fair share of people that ruin it (atheism) for everyone else.

    Wonder who that might be? Hint (your previous post)

    What happens when people get head strong about something they believe in, they lose the vital ability to relate to someone else’s line of reasoning. I think we all do this to various degrees, usually more so when its something we really care about.
    The contention by tildeb that none of the billions of religious people on earth could reasonably believe what they believe really isn’t tenable. Everyone uses reason when they decide what to trust in. It’s just not always the best reasoning. It’s a much better conversation when the debaters discuss the reasons they hold to rather than simply saying the other has no reason to believe such a thing.
    It’s funny, I have a few annoying “friends” on Facebook who put up the most degrading posts about anyone who disagrees with them. One second cousin, who I maybe met once, friended me, then goes on several times a day about how all Christians are a-holes. Go figure.
    Keep up the good debate moderation, amigo.

  2. Thanks for misrepresenting me again, Jim. It adds spice to one’s presumed life.

    It is not that many people don’t believe what they say they believe based on reasonableness; it’s that they do believe what they believe based unreasonableness. I use that word to me sound reasons, reasons that are logical and coherent, reasons that are supported and justified by evidence and fact, reasons that can be validated to be shown as probably true, probably accurate, probably correct. Based on this understanding of what defines reasonableness, religious belief fails. It fails because it is not based on what is reasonable but what is acceptable in spite of its lack of reasonableness. And that’s why it’s called faith.

    Now how can I make such an assertion about religious faith?

    Unlike what (appears to me to be) a majority of people hold to be true, I think a great many people actually can be taken very seriously when they espouse brutal and simplistic notions based on the Iron Age morality of illiterate goat herders and think that’s the best moral code of conduct god has to offer humanity. Let’s take a very quick peak behind the monotheistic religious curtain, shall we, and see if any of these few ring any bells for familiarity.

    People really do believe in demons. They really do believe in angels. They really do believe women are property. They really do believe blasphemy deserves death. They really do believe enlightenment values are the work of the devil. And so on. None of these beliefs is based on good reasoning – what I call reasonableness – but based entirely on an incoherent set of religious beliefs made up of bad reasoning and superstition that I call unreasonableness.

    Am I wrong? Are these kinds of religiously inspired beliefs held only by some small lunatic fringe? How many of the billions of people you claim to be religious think all these beliefs I have listed are unreasonable? Put another way, on what reasonable basis are any of these beliefs upheld?

    You see the problem? When you are willing to grant respect to religious beliefs because they are religious rather than judging them by their <i.reasonableness, you are committing an act of intellectual capitulation. I happen to think that’s not a reasonable trade-off because truth really does matter. If there is a central principle held to be paramount and unifying for gnu atheists, it is this: what’s true matters.

    So you want a nicer tone from those with the intellectual courage to call into question that which is batshit crazy, that carries with it actions committed in the name of god that causes significant ongoing harm and degradation not only to real people at this moment but to the very idea that what is probably true is less important than defending the intellectual integrity of religious belief that is unreasonable. As far as I can tell, that makes you part of the problem of achieving fairness and equity and human rights and personal dignity for all. You care less about all of these enlightenment values than you do for accommodating unreasonable religious belief.

    @ societyvs, your post declares non belief to be an ideology. Oh really?

    Let’s see: you are a non believer of every god believed in by the world’s population past and present, with the exception of an acceptable few presumably… or perhaps only one. That means you, too, maintain an ‘ideology’ of atheism in regards to all the others, an atheism that apparently is going to fail fairly soon because your non belief apparently cycles.

    Does this make any coherent sense to you? It surely doesn’t make any coherent sense to me.

  3. “That means you, too, maintain an ‘ideology’ of atheism in regards to all the others” (tildeb)

    Don’t speak for me Tildeb, thats presumptous.

    I believe there is One God – so does most of the workd. I am not making any claims to exclusivity of that One God (that would be beyond stupid).

    Atheism will fail, this new trend is just what I think it is, another fashion statememt to make a few feel good under the hot lights.

  4. I’m not speaking for you, societyvs; I’m pointing out why your suggestion that atheism is an ideology is absurd and telling you that you can prove this to yourself by looking at yourself. Repeating the absurdity doesn’t make it any more or any less true.

    Two conditions will get rid of atheism: when we collectively stop caring about what is true, or collectively do care about what’s true.

  5. tildeb–I use that word to me sound reasons, reasons that are logical and coherent, reasons that are supported and justified by evidence and fact, reasons that can be validated to be shown as probably true, probably accurate, probably correct.

    OK, tildeb, my faith in Jesus Christ is based on sound reasons, reasons that are logical and coherent, reasons that are supported and justified by evidence and fact, reasons that can be validated to be shown as probably true, probably accurate, probably correct.

    How’s that? 🙂

  6. Enough with the probable. I know for certain Tildeb cant prove there is no type of creator. I also know for certain Jesus Christ hasnt resurfaced any time recently, other than on a slice of toast. Case closed. 🙂

  7. You wrote “Atheists believe there is no God, it doesn’t mean they don’t believe in something else.”

    I don’t “believe” there are no gods. I’m absolutely certain about it, for the same reason I’m certain the Easter Bunny is not real.

    Please try to follow this logic.

    Every god ever invented is a supernatural magician, a creature who performs magic tricks, like for example creating or starting the universe, or creating people out of nothing.

    Magic is a ridiculous childish idea. It’s an idea that’s too bloody stupid to take seriously.

    Therefore there’s no magic in the universe, therefore there are no magical gods.

    I would use the exact same logic for the Easter Bunny, an idea which is not any less childish and insane as the the magic god fairy idea.

    Do I “believe” in something else? Using the usual definition of a belief — believing in something that couldn’t possibly have any evidence — then no, I don’t believe in anything. I accept scientific facts if they have enough evidence, but I don’t believe in those facts, because facts, also known as reality, don’t require faith.

    http://darwin-killed-god.blogspot.com/

  8. the atheist revival is annoying to me. the “new atheists” are a knee-jerk reaction to the fundamentalists. they shut down discourse and misrepresent the fundamentals of the very things they fundamentally believe in. but maybe we need an atheist revival. there are many atheists i love and admire and am friends with that aren’t the annoying type. they get how you can be sciencey and religious. they can name the philosophical ideals they adhere to that aren’t utilitarianism or empiricism. they believe in the BIG points of my faith at least, which is humanism (love your neighbor as yourself), and believing in concepts besides human reason and logic (love of God/higher power).

    • We gnu atheists call those nice folk ‘accommodationists’ – people who excuse denigrating the respect for what’s true on the alter of religious appeasement.

      You are real piece of work. You pretend the big point of your faith is humanism, when it undermines exactly that. Your primary allegiance is to god, not the well-being of people. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous, isn’t it? And to paint gnu atheists as somehow contrary to the comfy agreement of those other nice atheists who support humanism borders on delusion. Sam Harris, one the four horsemen of New Atheism, has just written a book on how science can inform morality for the expressed purpose of maximizing human well-being. According to you, this is just another example of how gnu atheists “shut down discourse and misrepresent the fundamentals of the very things they fundamentally believe in.” That point you make is just crap. It’s a gross misrepresentation of what’s true, both about yourself and those with whom you disagree.

      • I call the accomondationists “polite.” much easier to talk to and understand. they also ask a lot of questions because they know not all Christians are the same and thus they don’t say extremely ignorant things like “Your primary allegiance is to god, not the well-being of people.” because they know Christian history and the social gospel movement, the abolitionist movement, and such.

  9. Darwin was very grounded in his faith and was very sensitive to theological issues that he was overturning, hence he delayed Origin of the Species 20 years. he also started it off with a quote by Francis Bacon (BIG tip of the hat to the religious authorities) plus, if you read his books and journals, there is a wonder and awe at the world that one could only describe as a “magical” one.

  10. You may call the statement ignorant, but it nevertheless is true. And you do not have the luxury of making up your own facts in the name of your beliefs. Your concern for humanity, although perhaps pronounced and heartfelt and meaningful and practiced, still is not equal to humanism because it ranks your allegiance to it below the primary allegiance you hold to god. And that’s true of all religions (except Buddhism, which as far as I know is the only ‘religion’ that has no god). And that’s why your assertion that your religious belief is the same kind of belief as humanism is disingenuous. And that’s why something like liberation theology has been severely rebuked.

  11. i glad you have me figured out so easily.

    point of note: Buddhism isn’t atheistic, there are gods all over the place, and angels, demons, and titans. they just aren’t the point.

    “And that’s why your assertion that your religious belief is the same kind of belief as humanism is disingenuous. ”

    how? how did you get to this conclusion? no walk up, no logical progression, no evidence gathering: just based on what you THINK you know and no observation what’s so ever. taking the “golden rule” as the standard, belief in God/high power and treating others as you’d want to be treated seem incredibly humanistic to me. you’ll have to do some work trying to prove otherwise. as well as some serious investigation esp. on the the whole liberation theology thing. worked for the African American church, working now for indigenous populations in Latin America, it was the driving force behind the abolishion movement and the civil rights movement. rebuked? please.

  12. Yea, liberation theology has hardly been rebuked. It has proponents and opponents. One of the amazing things for me about liberation theology is that it is making “Western” Christianity realize just how unWestern the religion has become. Europe and North America don’t own or control the faith anymore. At best “Western” Christianity is just a couple of voices in a very large choir, and the tune is certainly changing now.

    As to the original post from SVS:
    Some forms of atheism are currently FAILs because they are do not give a full address to the human psychological attraction to meaning.

    The initial reactions by the New Atheists were important but weren’t really anything that hadn’t been already addressed (albeit maybe inadequately and certainly not publicly) in theological colleges 60 years ago. What’s great about things like the new Sam Harris book is that they are actually getting somewhere now, adding to the conversation, and thus embarking on potential paths that may address meaning.

    So, SVS’s point is still worthwhile, in that certainly every generation fails, or gets left behind. And the next one changes. That’s how it works. Even faith and non-faith.

  13. “I’m pointing out why your suggestion that atheism is an ideology is absurd” (tildeb)

    “An ideology is a set of ideas that constitutes one’s goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things (compare worldview), as in common sense (see Ideology in everyday society below) and several philosophical tendencies (see Political ideologies), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society (a “received consciousness” or product of socialization).” (Ideology – Wikipedia)

    “The argument from nonbelief (or the argument from divine hiddenness) is a philosophical argument against the existence of God, specifically, the God of theism.” (Argument from non-belief. Wikipedia)

    “Atheists tend to lean toward skepticism regarding supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence. Atheists have offered several rationales for not believing in any deity. These include the problem of evil, the argument from inconsistent revelations, and the argument from nonbelief. Other arguments for atheism range from the philosophical to the social to the historical. Although some atheists have adopted secular philosophies, there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere” (atheism, Wikipedia)

    Is atheism a ‘worldview’? Does it have some philosophical background in it’s reasoning? Yes and Yes. This is primordial soup for the building of an ideology, one we are seeing before our eyes or as Z1G said ‘new atheism’.

    • But you, my dear boy, are also an atheist! You also possess this same ‘ideology’ that you say colours the world in such an ‘immoral’ light.

      What is absurd is that you utterly fail to recognize yourself in your trivial criticisms of atheism and atheists.

      The irony is delectable!

      • No I haven’t jumped the shark, Z1G.

        Societyvs does not believe in all the god the people of this world have ever produced… save one or a few and neither do you. In regards to all of these, you and he are no more and no less than atheists, with all the same reasons suspended for one or a few you believe in. And that really is deeply ironic.

  14. “But you, my dear boy, are also an atheist!” (tildeb)

    Oddly enough, I am alright with that. It’s blatantly not true (even by definition) but I am alright with being an ‘atheist’.

    • So are you suggesting that belief alone – as long as it incorporates some kind of acceptance of interventionist supernatural agency – is somehow an inoculation against this ‘ideology’ you call atheism?

  15. “So are you suggesting that belief alone – as long as it incorporates some kind of acceptance of interventionist supernatural agency – is somehow an inoculation against this ‘ideology’ you call atheism?” (tildeb)

    I am suggesting simplifying it (the definition).

    You suggest I am an atheist because I don’t believe in the gods of Hinduism or maybe even within Buddhism, and I believe there is only One God. This isn’t atheism.

    Atheism by definition is “Atheism, most inclusively defined, is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist” (Wikipedia – paraphrasing the Oxford dictionary definition).

    I believe ‘a God’ exists meaning I cannot be termed an atheist…which is sensible and honest enough.

    As for this ‘inoculating’ from having some atheist leanings, I would say being a theist does not guarantee that. In fact, I could as simply be an atheist as you are, it’s really just another choice in a plethora of options available to me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s