Smugism Pages PREV 1 2 | |
Really? What's so smug about it? | |
Just because you hear a lot about NDT doesn't mean he is "more likely to know the truth about the Universe in our era". That kind of attitude is why many journalists ask Brian Cox every little thing that happens in the world in physics despite there being many people more qualified to answer the question. Just because he is in the media spotlight often doesn't mean he is more qualified than anyone else.
Why do vegans feel the need to give themselves a title that says they don't eat meat? Now apply that to religion. | |
I guarantee he's more qualified than anyone who is ever going to take notice of this thread.
It's a good question actually, I've always felt that Vegan "community" was a similarly suspicious modern political invention. | |
That does not mean you can make the claim "I don't think you could find someone more likely to know the truth about the Universe in our era." which is a pretty fucking huge claim.
Fair enough then, I'm not going to argue. I see it understandable to say you are not something when the majority feels otherwise but it's not really a big point. | |
Err....Atheism is not a belief system. Its the personal answer to the question "Do you believe in (some concept of) god?" As far as I know, it makes no exoteric claims whatsoever. What you three seem to refer to as "Atheism" is a certain political construct put on top of this personal philosophic question. While I'd somewhat agree that its possible to call this a religious movement its by no means similar to the original meaning of the word. It strikes me to be the same as using Christian interchangeably with Theist ignoring that Theism also encompasses other monotheistic religions and does not even extend to the social level. And while you three might find me quoting all of you with this objection somewhat alienating, or will disagree with me, I think its a possible important distinction to keep in mind. In fact I'd like to point towards a post of mine in another thread in which I tried to highlight the problem somewhat. [1] I should point out that I'am personally not even happy with that descriptor, as I made clear in another post of mine: I simply don't think that Dawkins is the quintessential Anti-Theist | |
Unfortunately, the slipperiness of belief is what makes your opinion about it irrelevant to CaptainMarvelous's post. You don't know that he's adopting exoteric beliefs. You don't know exactly what sort of beliefs he has. | |
Yeah, actually. Anyone who thought being bald or vegetarian warranted creation of a social community is doing it out of an insecure need to form a political unit.
Because as I said before, it opposes religion while adopting religion-like strategies to make the very same mistakes it complains about religion making. It is utter and complete hypocrisy. | |
Yeah, I know. I'm an atheist. It's a view, and it regards religion (well, gods - a concept which is intertwined with religion, especially in the cultures of most self-described atheists), therefore I think it's fair to call it a "religious view."
"There is not enough reasonable evidence to suggest that any gods exist."
... No. Atheism is about gods, not politics.
I also never called it a movement. | |
And amputees? Is describing oneself or "labeling" really the same thing as "creation of a social community"? That's a rather overwhelming equivocation.
Atheism adopts religion-like strategies to make the mistake of... what, exactly? Holding untenable beliefs about deities? Going to need some evidence for that. | |
as far as i know amputees are not a community, sure they are a group labeled with a medical term, but if you where to ask an amputee what they said they where, it would not be disabled or an amputee. not all religions have deities, bro. nice try though, because surely the only thing separating atheist from from religious people is a belief in deities? you know aside from the tribal tendencies of man. | |
Is describing oneself or "labeling" really the same thing as "creation of a social community"? That's a rather overwhelming equivocation. Also, do you think many atheists will respond "atheist" when asked the open-ended question, with no specific context, "what are you?"
Theism refers to a belief in god(s). Atheism... etc. Captcha: know your rights. Sage advice, captcha. | |
Ehhh..... I think I disagree with this, kinda. Medical illnesses and physically disabilities have a way of forging their own "community". Like going to events for people who are crippled, deaf picnics, stuff like that. It might not be a block of units or a town full of people with disabilities, but I dunno, "community" seems like one of those words where the definition has taken many meanings. I'd tentatively put forward that there would probably be at least some kind of community for people who have had limbs amputated. Don't get me wrong though, I don't think it's a bad thing. | |
Yes, my objection was not about atheism being a religious view but it being one of the "most exoteric" in nature. Your objection tells me that we conceptualize Atheism differently. I would really like to see where this difference lies, therefore would you mind expanding a bit on that exoteric part? Where do you think does it enter and is it always the case? Personally (and that was the root of my objection - somewhat hasty I admit) I see the whole question about atheism or theism first of all as a statement about personal preference whether or not one likes to believe in some concept of a deity - an esoteric statement. If any exoteric claim is actually made by a theist these can be rejected by an argument as above. I don't see this intrinsic to atheism, though. Therefore I do not see any need to charge the concept of Atheism with exoteric claims.
Point taken. It just seems to me that too many people conflate those definitions when speaking of Atheism. | |
Fine. Fine. You're more than entitled to that opinion. But, moving on, when you say :
...would you care to qualify the word "insecure"? I'm not disagreeing with you about group-forming, heck, people tend to form social groups that they have at least something in common with. There probably is a desire for the company of likeminded people. But unless you're psychic, or confident about making a sweeping statement about the motivations of hundreds of thousands of people worldwide, why include this silly and unfounded pejorative? In fact, I think you may be breaking one of your own cardinal rules here; making sweeping judgements about a group based on a limited experience of a few members of that group. | |
Equality! :D | |
But baldness or vegetarianism aren't really a significant trait to have "in common". Being bald says nothing about who you are as a person. It's just a funny trick of a whole bunch of factors, most of them likely linked to male genetics. It doesn't influence your personality, it doesn't influence your beliefs, your attitudes, your social standing. Hell, we might even say it doesn't really even limit your appearance much because there are so many different ways to deal with being bald- some guys shave it all off at the first sign, some guys shave it down to a tiny buzz, some guys just keep their hairstyle as it was and watch as more and more ends up in the shower drain, some guys get toupees or implants or other tricks to hide it. And I've known enough women who think bald is sexy to know that it doesn't even need to be seen as a weakness. So being bald doesn't say anything about who you are. If someone formed an internet discussion group to talk about being bald, share scalp care tips or distribute information about new hair regrowth technologies, that would be one thing. But to form a group where baldness becomes an identity, yes, I would say that can only come out of deep insecurity. Because that would mean that one's not having hair, a natural biological process most men go through at some point in their lives, says more about who they are than any other aspect of their identity. That personality and background and culture don't matter, what matters to you is your smooth head. You may as well form a political group based around pooping habits. And the insecurity would become obvious if these bald people did as so many Atheists these days do, and trawled the internet insulting anyone who expressed a fondness for having a full head of hair. I see vegetarianism in much the same light as for those vegetarians who treat it as a political issue (not necessarily the majority of vegetarians by the way), it's an entirely manufactured one. Again, I see nothing wrong with forming small scale groups to share recipes and maybe even forming a very low-level political group when several vegetarians are in a confined community without access to vegetarian food, like say university students dependent on a cafeteria that doesn't offer vegetarian-friendly options. But to take it a step further and decide it's an aspect of your identity and then to go even further and decide that that aspect of your identity makes you have more in common with other vegetarians than anything else in your identity, that's where I have to believe that insecurity is leaking in. And again, to get enjoyment out of trawling the Internet and attacking anyone who isn't part of your group, that can only be motivated out of deep insecurity.
But being bald, vegetarian, or atheist doesn't make anyone like-minded. It's just one of thousands of aspects of your identity. And incidentally, I believe the exact same standard applies to religious people. If you want to go to church with religious people and end up making friends with people there, that's fine. But the moment you start thinking you have to form a voting block to promote your church or that your church participation is more important than anything else in your life, I smell insecurity. I once was part of a lecture led by a woman who produces artwork for use in church services. It was not a lecture about religion, and the woman didn't ever attempt to persuade us to adopt her religious beliefs. The topic was just learning about a professional artist who makes their living serving a very specific niche in the community. But toward the end of the Q&A, some woman in the back row tentatively raised her hand and announced that she mostly likes Christian music but sometimes she listens to secular music and she felt guilty about it. So she wanted to know if liking secular music in addition to Christian music made her a bad person. I hope we can all agree, that's pretty damn insecure. To be so afraid of having to think for yourself and having any aspect of your personality not be locked in with the identity of the group you're a part of, to the degree you think it might be a sin... that's tremendous insecurity. It's the same insecurity that drove Focus on the Family's Plugged in Magazine to declare Disney's Mu Lan a bad movie for children to see because it depicts Chinese ancestor worship and does not find a way to shoehorn a superficially Christian message into an ancient Chinese story. It's the same insecurity that drives some religious people to go around the Internet claiming that atheists are incapable of morality. | |
The proverbial low-hanging fruit right about now would be to point out that many religious people do define themselves by their religion, form social and friendship groups around this commonality, and let their faith inform their politics (either capital-P politics, or personal politics). Are they all pathetic, insecure wretches who deserve scorn and derision, too? Sure, you gave the usual caveats suggesting that anything in excess is a bad thing, but I think that's a false equivalence. The little old ladies who get together for weekly Bible study over some tea and biscuits, or the socially-stunted freshman who goes to their campus Chaplaincy Centre to enjoy the unconditional acceptance of similarly virginal teetotallers, are using their affiliation as an entry-point or a social crutch to an incomparably higher degree than the average "New Atheist". Even Richard Dawkins would be seen as lazy and lacking any real zeal if we used real-time video editing to dress him up in a cassock and replace everything that comes out of his mouth with an equivalent pro-theistic statement. It's testament to the pervasion and normalisation of religion in society that the religious can say and do so much before anybody considers asking them to reign it in, while atheists need do so little to be branded proto-religious zealots. I've given plenty of reasons in the past about why atheists might legitimately wish to self-identify in a public way, and even to try to secure some kind of lobbying power. The usual reasons: the status quo discriminates against them, or gives the religious an undeserved privilege; the desire to be governed by secular principles, not "God given" ones; a desire to raise the profile of atheism in countries where the word is synonymous with "depraved" or "immoral". Sure, some small groups of atheists have anti-theist tendencies and their words and deeds imply they favour revolution rather than reconciliation (and in parts of the US, could you blame them?). But, to take objection to a few examples of political antitheism/atheism[1] or to tone-troll the more uncompromising parts of a Dawkins or Hitchens speech, certainly doesn't justify brushing aside all kinds of pro-secular, atheist or anti-theist community, speaking or publicity as "insecure" or "banner waving" or "crude tribalism" or all the rest. It beggars belief that you'd happily make that kind of oversimplified, unsubstantiated and vaguely insulting proclaimment, especially as you've almost made it your raison d'etre on this forum to question people who make similar statements about religion-as-a-hivemind. [1] Silly road unblessing rituals to counter equally silly blessing rituals, organising trips to the Creationist History Museum for the express purpose of pointing and laughing, you know the kind of thing | |
You don't adopt atheism as if it were an ideology. It really only frees you up to discover things other ways. Atheism can't teach you anything, but it does rip down the barrier to discovering wonderful things about the universe. However, I will never encourage atheism. I encourage scientific literacy, use of reason, and a willingness to be open to argument. But this paragraph alerted me to a mistake many people make with atheism. They think it should give some answers as if it were a substitute for religion. It isn't, and to treat in such a way demonstrates a misunderstanding of it. Cheers though, good luck with your new religion. | |
Your view of atheism seems (to me) to be the outlier. Most of the atheists I know/see in the media treat it not as a matter of what makes one feel good but as an issue of what is demonstrably true. In fact I'd be willing to make the statement that many atheists would find the concept of a god (maybe not the Christian god, but some god) or afterlife paradise very comforting. I know I would. The sticking point for the vast majority of atheists is that there's just no good evidence or compelling reason to exoterically believe any of that. For me (and, from what I've seen of the community, most atheists), objective truth trumps subjective feelings every time. Atheism is defined entirely by your answer to the question "do one or more gods exist?" It has nothing to do with "how do you feel about god(s)?" | |
I think the Christian = Conservative (false) correlation is pretty much it. the Right-Wing in this country think they've got the copyright on Jesus, and they like to act like everything they do is dictated straight out of the Bible, which produces MAJOR antipathy from folks who think religion is an evil brainwashing scheme designed to keep the underclasses subservient. Also, if you DON'T think an All-Powerful God will destroy cities in retribution for Gayness, what's the incentive to keep oppressing gays? "I think buttsex is icky" just isn't good enough for some people. Similar lines of reasoning result in a lot of Liberal positions; if you don't expect Jesus or the Space Brothers to jump in, wanting to save the ecology is just common sense. If you think this life is all we get, you're likely to favor medical research. If you don't care about the eternal souls of blastocysts, abortion doesn't seem so bad. If you don't have any Holy Writ demanding female subservience, feminism is perfectly reasonable. And so on... | |
... The entire idea is one of smug condescension so you kind of failed at that.
You also seem to be getting the idea wrong since people don't generally claim moral superiority besides some particularly crazy people. Also your whole reasoning is completely illogical. People are making claims about what is true and you're accepting or rejecting them based on how you feel about the people... | |
Interesting and I have to admit I haven't thought about the possibility that people might be inclined to believe but don't simply do because they reject this kind of belief as an exoteric claim. Let me be clear: I don't think belief and the claim of existence are necessarily the same but can (and this is what I could gather from responses by theists) be merely stating personal perception or the values they adhere to. Hence, why I'am not sure if one can conceptualize Atheism purely as a rejection to a claim of existence. Let me put in some perspective: I'am also an atheist and I'd reject any claim of existence made by any theist, as you said, due to a lack of evidence. I personally also never felt the need to believe in any kind of deity or spirit or what-have-you. However this is, as I could gather, the thing that theists intrinsically possess. It strikes me as odd to not address this inherent psychological need/feel within the semantical framework. Then, again, I just might be predisposed because of my own feelings towards this matter. | |
I like to quote Larry David here, and say, "Whatever works." Because there are multiple roads to bliss, but you must choose your own, or make it up... It's sort of what I did... I like the smugism thing though... It works pretty well with anything... | |
Not trying to sound smug, but atheism says no such thing. If that's your impression of atheism you haven't looked very closely at it. Indeed, atheism doesn't say much at all, except that there isn't a God. If you still want answers as an atheist, you must look elsewhere. Science is where some, but not all, get theirs, and science is the farthest thing from saying "Because it did." Science says "Something we don't understand did it, so let's see if we can work it out and come to understand it". | |
| Pages PREV 1 2 | |
Unless, of course, we lived in a world where playing golf was the norm and had been for hundreds of years. In that case, deciding not to play golf would be notable - in fact, the golfers would be the ones who wouldn't need to define themselves by their golf-playing, since they're going along with the status quo.
It's perfectly legitimate to define yourself by an opposition to, or absence of, a feature of the majority. We see people who label hemselves thusly every day: vegetarians, bald people, amputees... are they exhibiting "an insecure need to form a political unit" too?
I'm sure we've had this discussion before, and I just can't fathom why you still react like this to one very specific feature of "organised" atheism; the tendency to self-label.