Atheism plus and atheism imposters
Posted on: March 15, 2013 - 2:10am
Offline
Atheism plus and atheism imposters
Been a while since I posted. I'm baaaack! Anyways out of sheer stupidity (oh what was I thinking) I decided to comment on an atheist plus forum. The post had something to do with human nature and culture. I stated the following:
"If atheists are to be intellectually honest they need to accept a metaphysical truth. The mind is result of the inner workings of the brain. It is the activity of complex neural networks that ultimately give rise to mind. And it is the interaction of those minds that ultimately give rise to society and culture...."My statement was met with such hostile vitriol and I was accused of supporting outdated reductionist beliefs that historically have been used to oppress women, minorities, homosexuals, etc.. My opposition held the claim that culture is an entity unto itself independent of minds and that there is a bidirectional relation between minds and culture. I have no qualms that there is an ongoing discourse between minds and society but ultimately the cause of culture has to be minds and therefore brains in the first place. This was met with even greater hostility as the moderator reacted by spewing some postmodernist crap. I was then kicked off the thread.The atheism plus is a growing entity and while I admire their commitment to social justice, I find that this often takes the form of a fanatical ideology. And if your thoughts don't jive with theirs you'll face a barrage of hate. What's wrong with these people? I get the impression that their commitment to human suffering blinds them to atheist truths:
1. Our minds are the product of brains2. Genes and environment ultimately shape the mind3. At rock bottom the fundamental laws of physics is the ultimate nature of reality4. There is an objective external reality independent of minds5. There is a hierarchy to reality with some levels more fundamental to others
If an atheist doubts any of these metaphysical materialist claims, then you are in the same camp as the woo peddling theists.
But even if you disagree with all this, None of this in any way denies the existence of or excuses any form of injustice in this world. But the atheism plussers don't buy that. They have sacrificed reason and truth in the name of "social justice". I think these twits are atheist imposters. I think they are subconsciously theist and seem to be getting their day in the sun. I find greater rational thought in Jean Chauvin than this lot.
- Login to post comments
Welcome to the fathomless rabbit-hole of craziness. Thankfully, you are not alone:
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
Atheism plus to me is a failed idea from the get go since it has a US vs THEM mentality and if you don't agree with them on everything then you are one of them and to be treated less than human. You are not allowed to disagree with them from what I have seen and how they acted, it was stated from the get go more or less. I never bothered with them because it merely seems a more fanatical/cult-like acting. To me there is no logic or reasoning, you cannot debate with them, if you are wrong in their eyes, then you are the enemy.
Wow. Someone sneak theists in the back door or something?
Maybe its time for public condemnation of this bullshit cult in training.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
what a load of crude idealist crap. an idea like that makes plato seem thoroughly materialistic.
that being said...
while i suspect most of these positions are indeed the case, and they certainly seem the most useful presuppositions for getting positive empirical results, i doubt i would go so far as to giving them the label "truths" (i stopped throwing that word around anyway once i stopped being a christian).
number 4 especially is one i reserve judgment on. i believe the things we perceive have empirical reality, but if by objective reality you mean that what we perceive is more or less an accurate representation of things that have inherent existence, e.g. the brown wooden coffee table with all its attributes as my senses communicate it is indeed real in the fullest possible sense, then i have to remain agnostic on this.
i find that last sentence unfortunate. i think there's a big logical leap between idealism/nihilism/nominalism/solipsism and theism. i consider the former four perfectly respectable, plausible metaphysical positions, even though i myself lean toward physicalism (on most days).
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Already happening: https://www.facebook.com/groups/436163826435836/ and http://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=266 and several blogs, podcasts, YT videos, etc.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
Also, you may recall this: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/33480#comment-397975
I'm not sure how people can call reductionism 'outdated'... Dennett, Kaufmann et al are still strong proponents, and still bringing forth compelling theories advocating it.
I'm a card carrying reductionist. Hallelujah.
i don't see how any epistemology or ontology can become "outdated," as they are not based on objective circumstances.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
I guess the term outdated in epistemology refers to popularity rather than that it is superseded by something 'more correct'.