9 ms·

Because you found him to be off-putting? Or you found his arguments to be weak? What about your religious views would you say are "radical"?

by d23 4y ago

AlexandrB 4y ago
One way to read excessive snakiness and meanness is as insecurity in the validity of your ideas. I can definitely see someone having this reading of Dawkins and some of the other voices in "New Atheism". One other problem I've seen with some of the most outspoken atheists is that they fundamentally seem to misunderstand the role that religion plays in many people's lives. Biblical literalists like Answers in Genesis are really a side show - they're easy to mock, but don't represent what religion is to most adherents. Most people don't look to religion for scientific answers but for community, a scaffolding to build their lives around, and for relief from existential dread. "New Atheism" often had no alternative answer to these functions.
- antibasilisk 4y ago
  >One other problem I've seen with some of the most outspoken atheists is that they fundamentally seem to misunderstand the role that religion plays in many people's lives. One interpretation of this apparent misunderstanding, is that it is simply easier and more profitable to create humorous or rage-baiting content around obviously absurd claims that cater to a pre-existing views, than it is to watch an extensive lecture going over particular arguments.
- epups 4y ago
  > Most people don't look to religion for scientific answers but for community, a scaffolding to build their lives around, and for relief from existential dread. I don't think this is true at all, particularly when you consider the world at large and not just the West. Also, you can find these functions elsewhere. You don't need to believe in God or in miracles to have any of that. Also, biblical literalists are the reason many rights are eroding in the West. Confronting them is a necessity, even if you're a religious person.
  - mistermann 4y ago
    > You don't need to believe in God or in miracles to have any of that. You don't actually know this, but you were raised in a culture where clairvoyance is considered acceptable so it doesn't seem weird. Faith-based thinking seems to be a core part of the human experience.
    - epups 4y ago
      > Faith-based thinking seems to be a core part of the human experience. Weird how me and hundreds of millions of people can do without it then. I have no idea what you meant about clairvoyance.
      - pwinnski 4y ago
        [flagged]
      - mistermann 4y ago
        > Weird how me and hundreds of millions of people can do without it then. Weird how you can't realize that the actual truth value of that perception is a function of the truth value of the accusation itself. > I have no idea what you meant about clairvoyance. The truth value of "You don't need to believe in God or in miracles to have any of that" (or, "me and hundreds of millions of people can do without it") is a function of the experiences of the individual human beings in the referenced set. You do not actually have access to that, so your mind whipped up a virtual proxy of reality to stand in for reality itself. In your culture, this supernatural practice is considered normal, so no one even bats an eye at it. In my experience, most people consider it ~crazy to not do this.
- mr_toad 4y ago
  > "New Atheism" often had no alternative answer to these functions. Nor should it. Wishing for something to be true doesn’t make it true. Your arguing for something to be a belief system, when it’s precisely the opposite.
antibasilisk 4y ago
>Because you found him to be off-putting? Or you found his arguments to be weak? It was the juxtaposition of the hubiris against the weakness of the arguments. I'm generally put off by people who think they're much smarter or stronger than they really are, and who use it to bully others. >What about your religious views would you say are "radical"? To give one example, I now believe non-Abrahamic religions (or a lack thereof) should be entirely illegal. I did not hold any beliefs even remotely as fringe back before discovering Mr. Repzion, Richard Dawkins, Jackyln Glenn and The Amazing Atheist, Onision as a kid back in ~2011. After that my impression of atheists gradually soured and I began to observe that in some sense, their attitude was not restricted merely to speech despite what they might dishonestly claim, and that their positions and the demand for that content reflected society's general attitude towards religious people. I began to understand that this is natural for all groups, tribes etc, so it would be naive for me to allow myself to be on the backfoot.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- hydrok9 4y ago
  You believe being non-religious should be illegal?
  - antibasilisk 4y ago
    Yes
    - hydrok9 4y ago
      Bizarre. From your list of Athiestic influences I'd say you spent way too much time online!
      - antibasilisk 4y ago
        >From your list of Athiestic influences I'd say you spent way too much time online! That's an accurate observation, but being a zoomer, it's also pretty standard.

Because you found him to be off-putting? Or you found his arguments to be weak? What about your religious views would you say are "radical"?

by d23 4y ago

Because you found him to be off-putting? Or you found his arguments to be weak? What about your religious views would you say are "radical"?

AlexandrB 4y ago

One way to read excessive snakiness and meanness is as insecurity in the validity of your ideas. I can definitely see someone having this reading of Dawkins and some of the other voices in "New Atheism". One other problem I've seen with some of the most outspoken atheists is that they fundamentally seem to misunderstand the role that religion plays in many people's lives. Biblical literalists like Answers in Genesis are really a side show - they're easy to mock, but don't represent what religion is to most adherents. Most people don't look to religion for scientific answers but for community, a scaffolding to build their lives around, and for relief from existential dread. "New Atheism" often had no alternative answer to these functions.

antibasilisk 4y ago
>One other problem I've seen with some of the most outspoken atheists is that they fundamentally seem to misunderstand the role that religion plays in many people's lives. One interpretation of this apparent misunderstanding, is that it is simply easier and more profitable to create humorous or rage-baiting content around obviously absurd claims that cater to a pre-existing views, than it is to watch an extensive lecture going over particular arguments.
epups 4y ago
> Most people don't look to religion for scientific answers but for community, a scaffolding to build their lives around, and for relief from existential dread. I don't think this is true at all, particularly when you consider the world at large and not just the West. Also, you can find these functions elsewhere. You don't need to believe in God or in miracles to have any of that. Also, biblical literalists are the reason many rights are eroding in the West. Confronting them is a necessity, even if you're a religious person.
- mistermann 4y ago
  > You don't need to believe in God or in miracles to have any of that. You don't actually know this, but you were raised in a culture where clairvoyance is considered acceptable so it doesn't seem weird. Faith-based thinking seems to be a core part of the human experience.
  - epups 4y ago
    > Faith-based thinking seems to be a core part of the human experience. Weird how me and hundreds of millions of people can do without it then. I have no idea what you meant about clairvoyance.
    - pwinnski 4y ago
      [flagged]
    - mistermann 4y ago
      > Weird how me and hundreds of millions of people can do without it then. Weird how you can't realize that the actual truth value of that perception is a function of the truth value of the accusation itself. > I have no idea what you meant about clairvoyance. The truth value of "You don't need to believe in God or in miracles to have any of that" (or, "me and hundreds of millions of people can do without it") is a function of the experiences of the individual human beings in the referenced set. You do not actually have access to that, so your mind whipped up a virtual proxy of reality to stand in for reality itself. In your culture, this supernatural practice is considered normal, so no one even bats an eye at it. In my experience, most people consider it ~crazy to not do this.
mr_toad 4y ago
> "New Atheism" often had no alternative answer to these functions. Nor should it. Wishing for something to be true doesn’t make it true. Your arguing for something to be a belief system, when it’s precisely the opposite.

antibasilisk 4y ago

>Because you found him to be off-putting? Or you found his arguments to be weak? It was the juxtaposition of the hubiris against the weakness of the arguments. I'm generally put off by people who think they're much smarter or stronger than they really are, and who use it to bully others. >What about your religious views would you say are "radical"? To give one example, I now believe non-Abrahamic religions (or a lack thereof) should be entirely illegal. I did not hold any beliefs even remotely as fringe back before discovering Mr. Repzion, Richard Dawkins, Jackyln Glenn and The Amazing Atheist, Onision as a kid back in ~2011. After that my impression of atheists gradually soured and I began to observe that in some sense, their attitude was not restricted merely to speech despite what they might dishonestly claim, and that their positions and the demand for that content reflected society's general attitude towards religious people. I began to understand that this is natural for all groups, tribes etc, so it would be naive for me to allow myself to be on the backfoot.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
hydrok9 4y ago
You believe being non-religious should be illegal?
- antibasilisk 4y ago
  Yes
  - hydrok9 4y ago
    Bizarre. From your list of Athiestic influences I'd say you spent way too much time online!
    - antibasilisk 4y ago
      >From your list of Athiestic influences I'd say you spent way too much time online! That's an accurate observation, but being a zoomer, it's also pretty standard.