3 ms·

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

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

>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.