Purchasing One's Atheism Cheaply

[Whateverist]

Can't say as I recall any golden age of atheism. But religious folks, they've really gone downhill. Used to be some who would read the bible or any other holy book for the underlying wisdom without taking it all literally. Now you never hear any of them say anything about the bible that doesn't sound like a bad lawyer arguing a case. The literal has led to the poor strain of theists we find today. Now don't get me wrong. I don't think all theists are so pathetic. But most of the ones we get through here seem to belief it all in the most infantile way possible.

[Esquilax]

David Bentley Hart's criticism of atheism is as follows:

The principal source of my melancholy, however, is my firm conviction that today’s most obstreperous infidels lack the courage, moral intelligence, and thoughtfulness of their forefathers in faithlessness. What I find chiefly offensive about them is not that they are skeptics or atheists; rather, it is that they are not skeptics at all and have purchased their atheism cheaply, with the sort of boorish arrogance that might make a man believe himself a great strategist because his tanks overwhelmed a town of unarmed peasants, or a great lover because he can afford the price of admission to a brothel. So long as one can choose one’s conquests in advance, taking always the paths of least resistance, one can always imagine oneself a Napoleon or a Casanova (and even better: the one without a Waterloo, the other without the clap).

To begin with, I find it amusing how the main source of contention Hart has seems to be that the theistic responses we atheists have arrayed against us are so weak that there's no challenge to being an atheist.

Well, I agree: unfortunately, the blame hardly lies with atheists that the atheist position is a fleet of tanks and the theist position as squishy and yielding as villager-flesh. If you want the atheist position to be difficult, then you've gotta start mounting a difficult opposition.

Instead, we get pre-suppositional apologetics and nonsense like Kalam.

I have to agree insofar as the "new" atheism rejecting the intellectually rigorous atheism of the old. Modern atheists can't hold a candle to Mackie, Ayer, Flew or Russell. From redefining atheism from the realm of the intellectual rigor into the realm of personal psychology, to forgoing analytical thinking in favor of pusillanimous rhetoric, to rejecting dispassionate examination for emotive expressions.

Do you know what made me an atheist, Vin? It was exposing myself to the arguments of theists. I got to see for myself the dishonesty that was rife in the "science" of creation and intelligent design, the cheap showboating and lies of the famous christians like Hovind and Comfort and Ham, the casual selectiveness of the average christian, and it all drove me in the opposite direction. From there, it was easy: it usually is, when the opposing arguments are so obviously correct.

You complain about how we redefine atheism, but you're ignoring a key point: we might have redefined it into a lack of belief rather than active disbelief, but that doesn't make the theistic arguments any more cogent or valid. You want there to be a burden of proof, you feel it's unfair that we aren't justifying our position? Fine.

The theist arguments are crap, and uniformly rely on logical fallacies to function. That is a satisfied burden of proof, right there: the time to believe in something is when you have a reason to, and all of the reasons theists give us for their beliefs fall flat. Not a one has any real evidence, and their logical proofs.... aren't.

They've been done to death. Debated, solved, put aside, hundreds of times over, in this forum alone. What more do you want?

Atheism has lost the weight of intelligence it used to carry. It has become cheap.

The measure of a man is the quality of his enemies. It isn't our fault that the ones determined to be our enemies are the least fit to do so.

[Heir Apparent]

I love a bargain.

Excuse me sir, do you have a moment to discuss Judaism?

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

David Bentley Hart's criticism of atheism is as follows:

What I find chiefly offensive about them is not that they are skeptics or atheists; rather, it is that they are not skeptics at all and have purchased their atheism cheaply

Well, good for him.

Every atheist I know personally, or have been able to question, claims their atheism is a product of their skepticism. I have no reason to doubt them, since they apply the same method that got them to their atheism to other claims.

My atheism is also a product of my overall skepticism.

An example of my skepticism would be, I do not accept any claim that is not supported by demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument. When I apply this method, I get the following results, I do not accept claims of the existence of bigfoot, alien abductions, astrology, the existence of god(s), homeopathy, Loch Ness monster, crystal healing, etc, etc.

The time to start believing a claim is when it is supported by the above criteria, not a second before.

Please point out the problems with that method.

Atheism has lost the weight of intelligence it used to carry. It has become cheap.

Great, you found an article that agrees with your opinions.

Too bad you are both wrong.

He says they are not skeptics at all.

And what he means is that most atheists are the very opposite of the essence of what _xenu_ describes. There is no intellectual burden for the new atheists to carry. No pensivity. They are hardly ever deep in thought, troubled by one aspect of the world or another.

You see a whole new world of atheism when you read the work of Bertrand Russell, or going even farther back, to Friedrich Nietzsche.

What you see in the atheists of old is pain, sweat, tension. Not because they are in a bad situation, but because they wrestle with the reality of atheism head-on. They are vigorous, in every sense of the word. The phrase intellectual virility comes to mind.

Most atheists nowadays call themselves skeptics. But they are not real skeptics. They are not skeptics of their own skepticism. They are not skeptics of atheism, of the beliefs, views and positions they cherish. It doesn't even occur to many people here that skepticism applied consistently involves skepticism of one's own skepticism, and that unless one has a good criteria for their own skepticism.

Skepticism has gone from being a rigorous methodology to a trite label. A self-identifier, along with "vegan", "pro-choice" or "libertarian".

I think that was his point. And I think it will be a difficult one for most atheists here to digest. But I think there's more truth to it than we dare admit.

[Esquilax]

Most atheists nowadays call themselves skeptics. But they are not real skeptics. They are not skeptics of their own skepticism. They are not skeptics of atheism, of the beliefs, views and positions they cherish. It doesn't even occur to many people here that skepticism applied consistently involves skepticism of one's own skepticism, and that unless one has a good criteria for their own skepticism.

Do you know most atheists? More than that, aside from broad, hasty generalizations, you haven't provided any examples of what you claim. You might say, I'm skeptical of your views here.

[downbeatplumb]

David Bentley Hart's criticism of atheism is as follows:

The principal source of my melancholy, however, is my firm conviction that today’s most obstreperous infidels lack the courage, moral intelligence, and thoughtfulness of their forefathers in faithlessness. What I find chiefly offensive about them is not that they are skeptics or atheists; rather, it is that they are not skeptics at all and have purchased their atheism cheaply, with the sort of boorish arrogance that might make a man believe himself a great strategist because his tanks overwhelmed a town of unarmed peasants, or a great lover because he can afford the price of admission to a brothel. So long as one can choose one’s conquests in advance, taking always the paths of least resistance, one can always imagine oneself a Napoleon or a Casanova (and even better: the one without a Waterloo, the other without the clap).

I have to agree insofar as the "new" atheism rejecting the intellectually rigorous atheism of the old. Modern atheists can't hold a candle to Mackie, Ayer, Flew or Russell. From redefining atheism from the realm of the intellectual rigor into the realm of personal psychology, to forgoing analytical thinking in favor of pusillanimous rhetoric, to rejecting dispassionate examination for emotive expressions.

Atheism has lost the weight of intelligence it used to carry. It has become cheap.

I have never pretended to be a great intellect but I am an atheist.
So what?

[pocaracas]

He says they are not skeptics at all.

And what he means is that most atheists are the very opposite of the essence of what _xenu_ describes. There is no intellectual burden for the new atheists to carry. No pensivity. They are hardly ever deep in thought, troubled by one aspect of the world or another.

There is ONE very important aspect that always troubles me... the low value in my bank account.
I guess I could turn professional thinker if that detail of the world was taken for granted...

Most atheists nowadays call themselves skeptics. But they are not real skeptics. They are not skeptics of their own skepticism. They are not skeptics of atheism, of the beliefs, views and positions they cherish. It doesn't even occur to many people here that skepticism applied consistently involves skepticism of one's own skepticism, and that unless one has a good criteria for their own skepticism.

Don't forget skepticism of the skepticism of the skepticism.
And keep in mind the skepticism of the skepticism of the skepticism of the skepticism.
...
skpeticism^∞

Who has the time? You must truncate at some point... most people just apply a first order reasoning on it, because that's enough.

[zebo-the-fat]

I don't understand the argument, I am an atheist simply because I have not seen any convincing evidence of the existence of gods, just the same way I have seen no evidence for pixies, elves or unicorns, that's all there is to it!

[Bucky Ball]

Most atheists nowadays call themselves skeptics. But they are not real skeptics. They are not skeptics of their own skepticism. They are not skeptics of atheism, of the beliefs, views and positions they cherish. It doesn't even occur to many people here that skepticism applied consistently involves skepticism of one's own skepticism, and that unless one has a good criteria for their own skepticism.

Skepticism has gone from being a rigorous methodology to a trite label. A self-identifier, along with "vegan", "pro-choice" or "libertarian".

I think that was his point. And I think it will be a difficult one for most atheists here to digest. But I think there's more truth to it than we dare admit.

Great.
More generalizations about "most atheists", "atheists this", and "atheists that". Got any polling data ? I suspect not.
Buncha whiny crap generalizations I see right up in there.

Why would anyone spend a nanosecond being skeptical about whether there is a 1957 Chevy orbiting Pluto ? Or whether the witches of Salem, really WERE witches, (as there is MORE evidence for that than the resurrection).

The default position is unbelief.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xv_Iklb1V4

[Rahul]

When I entered the military I was a believer. During my time in service I traveled around to various countries including Muslim countries and really started thinking about my beliefs. I spent many a night on watch just thinking on it all. I didn't really discuss it with anyone. I just examined everything I was led to believe.

Since I had been indoctrinated so thoroughly growing up it took me a long time but eventually I reached a point where I simply couldn't believe in it anymore. It just didn't make any sense to me any longer.

It's not that I wanted to stop believing. I just wasn't able to anymore. No matter how much I wanted to.

If that's considered cheap atheism, oh well. But it took me a hell of a lot of deep introspection to reach that point.