Down With Atheism!
Posted on: January 16, 2010 - 6:02am
Offline
Down With Atheism!
Another message from our Scottish friend Deek Jackson of The FKN Newz...
- Login to post comments
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.
Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
Offline Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2024.
I'm not about to become an astronomer - space and stars don't really interest me...
Other than that, I largely agree.
I think that we as community put too much emphasis on the result of rational thinking, i.e. that people agree with us on the God issue, rather than the process. I think that rationalism is what we're really fighting for, and we should relax a bit more about the conclusions people come to and instead judge by the process, their attitude to reason and truth. And when I say attitude, I don't mean what they say about valuing reason, it's whether they are actually open minded about arguments that can prove them wrong. Whether they will listen carefully and give the opposing argument good consideration.
Fact is, part of being a rational human means that along the way you're going to accept bad arguments and bad reasoning. None of us get instant results. We're always learning and revising. The question is whether we're listening and learning to recognise our wrongs and ready to make changes. Like Hamby says; God belief isn't the enemy, religion isn't the enemy; bad reasoning is. We commonly criticise faith but I think that faith is just one of many psychological barriers that can inhibit our rationality. What's more, faith has a variety of meanings, and I'm not sure all of them necessarily contradict reason. The definition of faith we like to use in our community, "Belief against Evidence" or "Belief without Reason" doesn't fully represent the full variety of meanings it has in the real world.
I'm going to define a difference between "disagreeing with" and "attacking".
I "disagree with" God belief as I don't think there is a God. If it came up in conversation, I might provide reasons why.
During such a conversation, we'd listen to each others points, naturally consider the reasons and hopefully be influenced accordingly.
"Attacking" something goes further, we go out of our way to say that someone should not be doing that.
We don't simply disagree with them, we say that they must change their minds, the implication being that it's morally wrong to believe as they do.
I think that when we "attack" God belief and faith, at best we're attacking the symptoms of a problem, at worst we're attacking something that isn't necessarily a problem. What we want to attack is irrationality, a refusal to consider opposing views that might change your mind. We need to worry less about people getting perfectly refined ideas in the topic of "God belief" and focus more on their attitude to improving their thought in general.
My 2c anyhow.
In the words of Confucius: It's better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.
I feel very ambivalent about "atheist activism". On one hand, I think we should respect and allow people's private ideas and beliefs - and leave them to it without accusing them of being "wrong" or not "politically correct" in matters that are by and large private and emotional. Who the uck is "right" anyway? There is no such thing.
On the other hand, it is absolutely imperative that all attempts at making superstition and magical mumbo jumbo into relevant issues at a political level must be utterly and completely crushed without any mercy whatsoever. The people who are trying to launch their false teachings as "valid alternatives" to what is mainstream science - i.e. "creationists" and other such scum - must be stopped dead in their tracks with all means. Again, without pity or remorse. The damage these people and others like them have caused to humankind throughout history does not warrant any leniency.
"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)
http://www.kinkspace.com
Yes, but this matter of respect of science is a separate issue to atheism.
There's plenty of theists on "our side" in this issue.
Likewise, I've come across plenty of atheists who go along with climate change denialism.
Please explain this term to me. I do not understand it.
Scepticism requests a strong standard for evidence/proof.
Denialism is when either the evidence is dismissed/ignored, or and impossible standard of proof is demanded.
Denialism is basically the ignoring/dismissing of proper science. You get flat earthers, creationists. In Africa aids denialism caused certain governments to pretend the disease didn't exist. And you get denialists in the area of global warming.