Five ways to be better atheists

http://credohouse.org/blog/5-ways-to-be-a-better-atheist-a-guide-for-unbelievers

(Excerpts from the article):

The New Atheists are filled with emotional rage, relying on their personalities for inspiration. I have some advice to help shape them during this volatile time in their history. Ironically, I truly want them to listen and improve. Why? Because I want every worldview to have good representation. It does me no good in my pursuit of truth to have my worldview challenged by an impotent and weakly opponent. Modern atheism can improve in five key areas which I’ll lay out in detail below.

Make More Concessions.

After listening to and reading many of the most popular atheists today, I’ve found that (generally speaking) there’s an incredible lack of intellectual honesty. These volumes are filled with claims that smack of propaganda:

Christianity has no evidence.
Theism is completely irrational.
People believe in God because they are uneducated.
To be a Christian is to commit intellectual suicide.
I wish this was the exception and that most public atheists didn’t speak in such a way, but it’s not, and, they do.
Don’t get me wrong… I understand the atheist who says that the case for theism is not compelling enough or, for them, does not make a sufficient case. But to say that there is no evidence for God or that Christianity requires a lack of education is not only an incredible overstatement it’s intellectually uninformed at best and dishonest at worst.

Kill the “Flying Spaghetti Monster”

The “Flying Spaghetti Monster,” as I am sure you are well aware, is an illustrative tool that has become rather popular in your circles. The basic idea is that there is as much warrant for my belief in God as is your belief (were it present) in a “flying spaghetti monster”. The moment you use this, I think one of two things:

You know better, yet you use this hoping the emotional propaganda will be enough to do the job.
You really think it’s a good illustration.

Be More Open Minded

This whole idea of “free thinking” and “open mindedness” is being claimed by you atheists. You must understand, this doesn’t make sense at all. You’re asking people to abandon one worldview with its beliefs and propositions for another worldview with a different set of beliefs and propositions. How is one open-minded and the other is not? In what way are atheists more “free” than theists?

Stop Trying to Position Atheism as Merely a Lack of Belief

Atheists generally don’t like being called “atheists”. Most will tentatively accept the designation while claiming there’s nothing better and making sure the proper qualifications are in order.

They’ll say, “We don’t believe or claim to know that there are no gods, we simply lack belief in any gods.” They think this keeps the burden of proof off their shoulders. “After all,” they say, “we don’t have to provide evidence for our lack of belief in leprechauns. We are not a-leprechaunist, just as those who don’t believe in Thor are a-thorists.”

Again, this is an attempt to shift (dare we say avoid) the burden of proof. The atheist positions himself as judge declairing arguments to be “convincing” or “not convincing” But this attempt fails in at least two ways:

First, people are not called aleprechaunists or athorists because there is no significant movement in either area which promotes and argues for a belief in such things. Therefore, it is only natural that there be no such formal designations. And until such circumstances warrant investigation in these areas, it will remain this way. If circumstances change, we will take sides that will have formal names.

Second (and most importantly), your belief system is not neutral. Lack a belief in God is only part of a worldview. One’s worldview is produced by asking many questions that include and often depend on belief in God:

Is there such a thing as morality?
Does man have free will?
Why is there something rather than nothing?
What is the basis for rationality?
By answering these questions, you are creating a worldview (your system of presuppositions and beliefs). All of these are issues of transcendence. The atheist has to answer the question, ”Why is there something” according to the atheistic worldview. The atheist has to justify their belief in rationality. The atheist must give reason for the existence of free will. While the word “atheist” may give the impression that it only has to do with a lack of belief in God, the reality is that they are “naturalists” (often materialists) and, as such, must give a positive explanation for the claims of their worldview.

(In other words, don't bother to ask questions that you yourself have no answer for).

....I rarely (if ever) see atheists who are seeking truth more than they are seeking emotional confirmation. Most atheists are fundamentalists with lots of claims to intellectual engagement, but little evidence of it.

 

I like Sam for his general approach to things and appreciate his podcast, but I do agree that he is overly simplistic in his analysis of religious belief.

In your post, you suggest that atheism is similar to religion in that it presupposes a foundation for rationality, which is true. The philosophical foundation of most atheists is scientific materialism, and with that belief comes the idea that reality can be understood in terms of observable or inferable principles. No one really knows why there is something rather than nothing, and I doubt anyone ever will. So we now have two faith-based or unknowable premises that must be assumed before we can begin. What else? That is all.

The difference between religious belief and atheism is often in the quantity and degree of these types of faith-based propositions. Religion makes a huge number of claims about the nature of reality and offers no way of even investigating those claims. I would defer to Occam's Razor at this point and say that atheism takes a far more minimalist approach--what you see is what you get. Any claims beyond the most fundamental are subject to scrutiny. Yes, there are secularists who have created a religion of egalitarianism to replace traditional religion, but pure atheism is pretty legit in terms of its consistency.

I consider myself a grudging atheist who does not want to be one. I hate materialism but cannot escape it. I am hoping that someone will destroy materialism, particularly in studies of consciousness, but it hasn't happened yet. I'm still hoping some crazy guy like Rupert Sheldrake will pull it off, but I'm skeptical.

 

Atheism is not a worldview, that is what so many theists struggle to understand. I simply do not have to justify my lack of a belief in god, like I do not have to justify my lack of belief in the flying spaghetti monster.

 

Christianity has no evidence (aside from the idea that historically some guy with a messiah complex was crucified for it) and doesn't make sense to begin with.
Nope, theism isn't rational... at all.
No people do not believe in god because they are uneducated. There are highly educated people who believe in god.

Not in a general sense, maybe philosophically. One can be intellectual in other ways.

It lacks the historical precedent of Christianity, but I'm not sure if that actually makes Christianity more credible. The notion of pasta being god is pretty ridiculous, but so is the idea of god sending himself in the form of his own son to be tortured and killed so that he can change his own rules... nor does this god's obsession with our ability to believe things without much evidence make much sense.

Maybe in the sense of being open to evidence.... which you suggested exists...?

If you see somebody basing their lives on a lie, and they try to tell other people how to live based upon this lie, and you inform them of the truth, that is freeing them (and all of society) in a sense. Though of course most people don't accept it.

That's what atheism is. It's unfortunate that you feel that makes the argument unfair, but you're the one who believes in magical sky people and I'm not going to do so unless you demonstrate it.

What people believe has no bearing on the merit of an argument unrelated to how popular something is. It's an analogy. You're a leprechaun atheist too, whether you actively disbelieve in them or simply refuse to believe in them unless you're presented with evidence.

No they don't depend on god.

Yes. It is a logical code of behavior that came about evolutionary because it allows cooperative species such as our own to more effectively work together or compete for the advancement of our species or at least our kin.

Sort of. All decisions occur in a context of myriad factors, and some of those factors will include the individual's personality and values.

Theism does not help with this problem. If god explains the universe, then why is there a god instead of no god. How did an omnipotent, human-like, omniscient being come from nothing? The most rational response to this question is we don't know. Why make up solutions when you don't know?

Realistic ideas founded in evidence and/or logic that inform people of the most useful course of action or thought pattern.

Nobody should answer a question for which they have no basis to answer.

Why do you presuppose the existence of free will? I suspect it exists, but then again we might just be complex biological machines.

I suppose the naturalist part is true. But since we haven't observed anything else it's like saying I'm a mathist because I believe in 1+1=2. But as to the worldview thing, I'll again stress that we shouldn't try to answer questions we're not equipped to answer. Just because you pretend to be equipped with the ability to find the answers through magical beings doesn't mean you're doing a better job at solving the problems.

I'm actually usually looking to be refuted because emotionally I'd rather believe what you do, but I can't make myself believe something just because it would make me feel good.

 

I don't "suggest" anything, these are direct quotes from the article, and the words of the author. My only contribution was this: if you can't answer the question yourself don't demand an answer from me. Example: if you (this is the collective "you") can't answer the question as to why there is something rather than nothing, don't demand an answer from me. Many atheists try to assert that all believers say is "God did it" even as they claim that "science did it".

 

Then I don't have to justify my beliefs to you, or "prove" that God exists. Simple, isn't it?

As for the idiotic notion that I somehow shouldn't be allowed to vote my conscience because of my beliefs, that is a con game perpetuated by freedom hating miscreants.

 

I tried to reply to this and the page crashed, we will continue this later, but to your last point: would you rather believe what I do, because I am not at all sure you know what it is that I believe.

 

There’s nothing new in that article. It demonstrates the usual ignorance (or deliberate misrepresentation) of atheism, taking the vocal extremists and presenting them as singular representations of the whole in a way that would (quite rightly) never be accepted for theism. I implies a singular “atheist worldview” and even explicitly states that no atheist should express a simple “lack of belief in gods” while directly attacking the alternative. It presents the false comparison between atheism and religion (specifically Christianity) when atheism is more correctly compared with theism. It contains examples of exactly the kind of attitudes and flaws it accuses atheist of (rightly or not). The author is closer to being an example of the strawman image they’ve created than I will ever be and I’m not telling them what they should think or what they should call themselves.

 

Every movement needs their Martin Luther King Jr and their Malcumb X.

 

Ever consider we are Materialists because that is the world we live in and therefore can study and the realm of magic juju Deists live in can't, so Atheists follow the default and sensible world view.

 

Trying to live by the Golden Rule is moral, and as Karen Armstrong says, Equally important is the negative version, "Don't do to others what you don't want done to you."

http://www.ted.com/talks/karen_armstrong_let_s_revive_the_golden_rule

 

God is the Sun of the sky so if you want to be an atheist and not a devil or a killer or a secret agent, altogether with your theoretic lessons you must run a lot, every time you must shake your soft-blood and let your body re stabilize it with your new knowledge! After that you must find yourself to admire it, the one, you maybe will find it and not be surprised! But if your intention is to be a devil, those are secret schools, from generation to generation away from the god secret service(GSS) and I dont know any such practice.

 

The article gets this part right: "We don’t believe or claim to know that there are no gods, we simply lack belief in any gods." But not this part: "this is an attempt to shift the burden of proof."

There is no burden of proof on a philosophy that makes no claims. That must frustrate theists with the impossible task of defending their own extraordinary claims, but that is the path they chose.

The rest of the article is made of straw.

 

I think it is very rare that anyone is in a position that they have to justify their belief in a god, what they are called upon is to justify an action that stems from that belief.

I struggle to think of a law an atheist would impose on anyone because of their lack of belief in god, where as there are plenty of examples of laws imposed because of someones belief in a god.

 

No, I'm sorry, that's simply not shifting or avoiding the burden of proof, no matter how much the author insists that it is.

Odd that you would complain about emotions in other posters, and then resort to posting intellectual dishonesty such as this.

Oh, hold on. Not that odd at all.

 

Then you don't see many atheists.


I do not believe in a god or gods. PERIOD. That doesn't mean I DO believe in something else or I like lemonade .



The burden of proof belongs on those that make the claim...those that say there is, or are, a god or gods.

THEY make the claim, the burden of proof is on them. I make NO claim because they have to prove there's a god first!

Do I care if they can't prove there's a god? NO?

Do I ignore their alleged "proof" ?

Yes, unless they try to shove it down my throat with laws based on religion.

 

Quite all right, I don't believe in you, either.

So, are you another one of those anti freedom, anti democratic miscreants who thinks I don't have a right to vote?

 

I pretty much stopped engaging in these types of discussions a long time ago...except for a few snipes here and there. Because frankly, the discussion has run it's course and it did so millenia ago, and it keeps repeating the cycle to settle itself over and over again.

Atheism is not a belief system. If you look carefully at what you presented above, the bolded sentences (that you yourself emboldened) insert God into the premise. You are literally making a declaration of God and then blame the atheist for having a counter position for not accepting your premise. Cool story, bro. All of those questions are irrelevant anyway. Changing the answer to them won't change the way we act because those questions don't get to the fundamentals of what we do and why we do it.

 

Well....from the senseless reasonings/view points of new atheists - definitely, they're far from being the Martin Luther King
and the Malcomb X of New Atheism.

 

Of course I am, ALL atheists according to you are """those anti freedom, anti democratic miscreants who thinks I don't have a right to vote""""

....You left out the part where ALL Atheists drive Fords, wear designer, clothes, like long walks on the beach, have a degree in engineering, and relish a good beer and like the color blue and are cat people.....and all the other things YOU think makes us atheists ....



Your definition of atheist is really broad and totally inaccurate but a lot of christians are confused....

 

Basically "radical atheist" at this point is defined by the Christian Far Right as...

"Anybody who objects to us turning America into a theocracy."



BTW, it's "Malcolm X"....not "Malcomb X"

 

Well, that makes about as much sense as anything else you post.

 

So you can't address it.....

""but a lot of christians are confused....""

Sorry if I contributed to your confusion......maybe someday you'll learn that being an atheist only means one thing and we are not clones.

And atheists are under no obligation to be "better atheists"

 

No

Definition of Christian who insists on Constitutional rights: "Turning America into a theocracy."

- - - Updated - - -

Your off topic rants have never made sense.

 

Has anyone demanded any such answers from you unprompted? No-one has ever done so to me.

If you present a definitive answer to those questions though, regardless of what it is, people are going to ask you to support that answer, especially if your answer comes with statements about what we should all believe, how we should live our lives and eternal punishments for failing to do so.