A challenge to Statler Waldorf

[Anomalocaris]

NO SILLY!!! MAMMAL LIKE REPTILE!!!!

Uhem. Modern phylogenetic classification excludes primitive members of mammalian clad from reptiles altogether. So what was formerly called mammal like reptiles in obsolete classification schemes are now simply stem mammals in the cladistic system.

[thesummerqueen]

NO SILLY!!! MAMMAL LIKE REPTILE!!!!

I get it, I get it - you're a warm blooded creature that likes to do naughty things with lizards, all right already!

Its an atheist forum..its bound to be popular

How do you know I wasn't referring to the age of its members?

---

PS gorgonopsid - Welcome! [sweet smile]

[Statler Waldorf]

---

reverendjeremiah, you really annoy me. Such strong language is needed and does not add to the merits of any discussion. You come across as a rather young person who has not practiced debating a lot (yet) in the way you type your posts.

Now on to Statler: I think that the problem with how you try to define new atheism is that it is really hard to point out who 'belongs' to it and who does not. Other believes indeed have their 'folk tales' which they believe in, with each religion having their own folklore. The trick, so to speak, is that each folklore is specific to a certain religion. The Qu'ran is something for Muslims, for example. You could identify believers why the central tennets that they follow. There might be exceptions, but I don't know of exceptions yet.

The difference is that 'the origins of life' is not something 'just for' new atheists. Plenty of people believe that things happened as described in these scientific theories. You try to make a destinction in the role that these sciences have in the lives of a person, instead in whether they study/believe it, or not. But where is the line? There are plenty of people who would call themselves 'new atheists' but not take a 'rabid' stance on such sciences, and leave plenty room for doubt (as it should be with science). There are plenty people who are willing to admit that scientists can make mistakes, and have indeed done so in the past (btw, I do avoid the line 'science makes a mistake'. Science is a method, methods do not make mistakes, its practioners do).
So if new atheism would be considered a religion, how do you define who is a follower?

Also on the note that the scientic theories about the origins are 'events that nobody observed' and thus 'have a folk tale fare to them', I think that is more a personal thing. What makes something a folk tale fare for you?

So far it seems kind of 'it kind of looks like religion, and this kind of looks like a central dogma, and that kind of looks like a central tennet'...but kinda looking like the deal does not make it the actual deal. I think that making atheism a religion, even with science as a central aspect of it, stretches 'religion' too far.

---

Hey G-Sprite,

Yeah I kind of figured the personal attacks would dwindle after a few months but they seem to never go away. My favorite today was the guy calling religious people dumb but then he doesn't know how to spell "spaghetti" correctly. You get a few gems now and again that keep you going haha.

Ok, so onto your post. Yes it can be difficult to classify who is in the new atheism and who is out, but I feel sometimes it can be hard to classify who is "in" Christianity and who is out as well. So I kind of classify it as this new wave of atheism led by primarily authors (i.e. Dawkins and Hitchens). Unlike atheists in the past though they are very preoccupied with attacking people of faith and the tenants of other religions and are also very concerned with making atheists out of others. They play off of emotionalism rather than logical thinking, which sadly can be very effective even though it should never be. It is far more organized than atheistic movements in the past, and I think their close ties with the scientific community helps them stay structured and organized. If someone really didn't follow the teachings of these leaders and didn’t attend the "Freedom from Religion" conference every year but was still atheistic I would say they probably were not part of "the New Atheism".

As for the origin of life story, I don't think the fact that a few other people also believe the story makes it somehow not a central tenant of atheism. Special Creation is a tenant of Christianity but is also believed by Jews and Muslims. I just think it would be very very difficult to find an atheist who didn't believe life arose from non-living matter by natural processes some 3 billion years ago. Maybe you know a few, but I have not met any.

As to the folk tale thing. If you talk to many atheists about certain stories about the origin of life that they believe whether it be chemical evolution or the RNA World Hypothesis and you try and point out some of the huge scientific problems with these theories you will find out exactly what I mean. You may be different but most will react very similar to a child who has been told Santa is not real. They get very emotional and often aggressive. So you begin to feel like you are talking to a Mormon about Joseph Smith or a Muslim about Muhammad. When we are really just talking about origins sciences which is hardly inerrant. So that's what I meant by that, they are events that were never observed, but they are held onto by most atheists with a religious ferocity. I want to hear your thoughts.

[Shell B]

So you begin to feel like you are talking to a Mormon about Joseph Smith or a Muslim about Muhammad.

Or a Christian about Jesus. Sanctimonious much, dorf?

[Statler Waldorf]

Hi SW, you never did tell us if any professional anthropologists use Smarts "seven dimensions of religion" to define atheism as a religion.

Until you can I'm afraid your argument is vacuous.

Actually your argument doesn't logically follow, but I do not know if any do or not, if they do it still wouldn't make you admit that it is a religion. In 500 years I am quite sure that anthropologists will consider the "New Atheism" movement of the 20th and 21st century a religious movement. It has all the markings of one.

---

So you begin to feel like you are talking to a Mormon about Joseph Smith or a Muslim about Muhammad.

Or a Christian about Jesus. Sanctimonious much, dorf?

I see you are still having issues keeping up. So you ARE admitting that origin of life tales are defended with the same vigor by atheists as is Christ by Christians? Thanks for that.

[reverendjeremiah]

Yeah I kind of figured the personal attacks would dwindle after a few months but they seem to never go away.

Thats funny, I figured that fool Waldork would have dwindled away after a few months. It seems he just will not go away.

My favorite today was the guy calling religious people dumb but then he doesn't know how to spell "spaghetti" correctly. You get a few gems now and again that keep you going haha.

Yeah..right..I know. People who make spelling mistakes are so fucking stoopid.

Actually your argument doesn't logically floow...

It's "Flow", not "floow" you shiney little gem you.

In 500 years I am quite sure that anthropologists will consider the "New Atheism" movement of the 20th and 21st century a religious movement. It has all the markings of one.

honestly Waldork, you are using child psychology... Child psychology only works on idiots like yourself. So go ahead and keep calling atheists "religious". One day you may convince yourself.

[Zen Badger]

Actually your argument doesn't logically floow, but I do not know if any do or not, if they do it still wouldn't make you admit that it is a religion. In 500 years I am quite sure that anthropologists will consider the "New Atheism" movement of the 20th and 21st century a religious movement. It has all the markings of one.

It's not an arguement, it is a simple question.

Do any anthropologists consider atheism to be a religion based on the 7 dimensions of religion?

Does Mainstream Anthopology consider atheism a religion based o0n the 7 dimensions?

Does ANYBODY (outside of your cretinist buddies) consider atheism to be a religion?

Answer these questions with a simple yes or no or STFU.

[Girlysprite]

reverendjeremiah, you really annoy me. Such strong language is needed and does not add to the merits of any discussion. You come across as a rather young person who has not practiced debating a lot (yet) in the way you type your posts.

Perhaps you can educate me in the art of debate so that I may mature and grow in knowledge?

---

Well, a starter would be that personal attacks are not used. They do not add any valid point to the discussion. When you feel the need to remark to a personal aspect of the poster, try to make clear that it is an opinion of yours and keep it mild. I know I have been threading the grey zone myself there, with my comment against you. However, I did try to keep it as mild as possible.
In a discussion, try not to derail it with insults, but keep to the facts that are discussed.

Another good point to keep in mind is that the human mind tends to confirm its own believes, and is therefor quite hostile of new ideas. That goes for almost every aspect of life - favorite tv programmes, favorite foods, political parties... even many scientists will find themselves tripping up by unconsciously doing research where a 'true' will confirm their idea then an experiment where a 'true' would proove it invalid. And speaking from my experience, I have only witnessed someoine changing his mind on the internet twice. But remember how this part of the human psyche works and try to have a truly open mind - even towards people and points of view that you consider untrue.

Third is that when someone is 'blantently wrong' in your view, don't just stop at saying 'you're wrong'. Add a good explanation of why, and try to find resources supporting your idea, and add them to the discussion.

Four: Sometimes, or often, you will find that no one is going to change his or her mind in a discussion. You don't have to let that stop you. I have been in the RD forums quite a bit when it exsisted in it's old form, and the users had this philosofy: 'Creationists are not going to change their mind. However, we do not debate them to change their minds, but to educate all the onlookers who wish to learn more.'
This was a valuable philosofy. Not only did it encourage the users to explain their ideas in detail, it also made sure that they kept having a good and solid debating style, as you wouldn't want to appear weak by resorting to namecalling in front of an audience.

These tips are far from complete, but it's a nice start.



Back to Waldorf. To be honest, I am giggling to myself now. Not because of you, no no, but I had this funny thought. This thought was that the behavior of some people I witnessed did more to support the idea of atheism as religion more then some of your arguments. I think you know what I mean.

Anyways, after reading your last post I went to google and searched for religion definition. I found this on the wikipedia (knowing it's not the alfa and omaga for true information, it's a good start): Religion is a cultural system that creates powerful and long-lasting meaning by establishing symbols that relate humanity to beliefs and values. Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the universe. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature.

Now reading this; Yes, new atheism does quite appear to be so right? Not fully fledged though - but many symbols and ideas have been pushed forward and started to take root. Think of the fishy thing with the legs. And yes, I have found many common ideas and values in this new atheism community. And to be honest, it does worry me sometimes. You see, there are many atheists that tell and show pride of being able to think for themselves and their capability of logical thought. But by the same token there are quite a number of them that do repeat the same lines and arguments word by word. Sometimes for good reason; some arguments have proven themselves to work. Some arguments would deserve more thought, but never got that. Add some dose of personal attacks in the mix, and well...some atheists have a skill of coming across as very religious and even dogmatic persons. But then again, it has been proven that regardless of having a religion or not, people display 'religious behavior' in many aspects of their lives.

So where am I heading to? The facination behavior of humans in general and how quickly we fall into religious behavior. Have you ever read buyology by Martin Lindstrom? If not, you might want to try it. The author also has a blog in which he writes about his experiments that explore how consumer behavior works. The book has one chapter about the 'religious experience' when it comes to products. He scanned the heads of nuns in various ways, while they would relive profound religious experiences from the past, creating the 'religious feeling'. This religious feeling could be identified by certain patterns of brain activity, which could easily be discerned from other emotional and personal experiences. Now for the interesting part: certain consumer groups showed the same activity when viewing certain logos. Like apple users. Yes, apple invokes a religious experience. But just think of it; the shops have been designed in a very particular 'apple' way. There is mr Jobs, the grand leader. There is the enemy, Bill Gates and windows. There are big gatherings when something new comes out, religious gathering when Jobs is presenting something new. People have cheered and cried at presentations. People parrot other mac users and Jobs himself when it comes to mac vs anything else discussions. People get heated and hostile when discussing the merits of the products. And everyone knows how apple rose from a small nobody to the big company it is today. Some people see apple as a lifestyle.

I guess that if New Atheism is a religion, apple is a religion too.

And back to the description. Reading it again, it sums up behaviors, but didn't say 'religion is...'. Another line I found was Religious belief usually relates to the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities and divine involvement in the universe and human life. Alternately, it may also relate to values and practices transmitted by a spiritual leader. In some religions, like the Abrahamic religions, it is held that most of the core beliefs have been divinely revealed.. What I find lacking in atheism that I find in all other religions is the belief in 'the higher power'. By that I mean something that can not be described, observed, and completely understood by mortals. The power is explicitly something above and beyond the naturalistic world, and defies laws of nature. I avoided saying god here, because some religions believe in some higher power, but not a god (Buddhism). Some scientific principles regarding the forces that govern the universe might come across as such a force, but these principles are not beyond the mortal world and nature. They can be observed (or their status is pending until people have found a way to observe them). Because the religious belief in their divine force, there is always a part that is somewhat dogmatic. As these forces can not be observed and completely understood by mortals (according to the religions themselves, mostly) people have created rules and stories about these forces. These stories become a part of the dogma. It also gives cause to various interpetations, that all religions seem to have.

If you would say 'new atheism behaves like a religion', I'm with you. But the lack of belief in the 'something higher and beyond mortals' makes it that it is not a religion.

ps: sorry for the horribly long read.

[Anomalocaris]

Well, a starter would be that personal attacks are not used. ......

Blah, Blah, Blah


..ps: sorry for the horribly long read.

No, you are not.

You need to be mindful of the fact that your direct interaction with this forum up to now appear to consist, in its entirety, of six (6) measly posts. You are talking to people some of whom have nearly a thousand times more experience with the dynamics of this forum and its major contributors than you. So stop preaching.

BTW, you show the truth of your own tagline. One could be a preachy self-absorbed windbag regardless of one's creed, age, gender, volume of experience and caliber of intellect.

[Thor]

They play off of emotionalism rather than logical thinking, which sadly can be very effective even though it should never be.

Unlike religious believers who NEVER appeal to emotions and ALWAYS use "logical thinking".

"You see... there was this guy who was born of a virgin. And the guy grew up and could walk on water.... and heal the sick with a touch of his hand.... and feed a thousand people with a basket of fish.... and he was executed by the Romans , but three days later he rose up from the dead!"