Atheist/Anti-theist/Agnostic Troper Group

Hmmmm...... Comes to mind how Jerry Coyne's criticized Al Jazeera's hit piece here. It's a short blog post.

Eugh, I quit reading after he said Islam was more violent than other religions

If you feel so. And yes, I have followed what's been talked last pages.

Now, maybe others feel like saying something about what Jerry Coyne says counter to what Al Jazeera says. I do think the AJ-article referenced by Coyne is being a bit disingenuous like trying to say "shuddup atheists" in a more sophisticated way.

I don't agree with Coyne on everything, but here I'd mostly side with him. At present, Islam does seem more violent than any other religion. I don't know whether that's inherent, but there is a lot of violence exhorted toward infidels from their scriptures. Now of course I realize that not all Muslims are like this nor interpret it in the same way, but enough do. I don't disagree with the Al-Jazeera article that other factors exist for this, but religion is part of that. They claim that ISIS isn't motivated by religion? It can't really be serious. This is an organization that cites the Quran for justifications, and does so openly. Now, it's not the sole motivation I'm sure, but it is one.

There is also a difference between atheists doing violence and this. While it isn't impossible for them to commit violence for atheism in a sense, this doesn't itself prescribe any action. That is very different from Islam and most religions, that prescribe many actions. As for claims of them never criticizing any other religions, it's more than just wrong as Coyne says, but ludicrous. In fact, it seems they can't win here. They criticize Christians, there are then complaints of cowardice as they aren't criticizing Muslims. Criticize Muslims, there are cries of racism and articles like this one or worse.

I'm not defending everything the New Atheists say in this regard, mind you. They go too far in some cases. I notice the article also can't even keep its claims straight. At first they cite suppression of the Falun Gong in China as a crime done in the name of atheism. Then later it says it's not really about that, but due to them being seen as subversives by the government. Make up your mind.

Another Alternet -article from Greta Christina: 'How Can You Be Moral?': Here Are 9 Questions You Don't Need to Ask an Atheist — And Their Answers

I don't find those questions to have any dehumanizition woven into them, most just come with ignorance and a curiosity to learn more about the other person's philosophical beliefs. I'm happy to debate religion/skepticism or politics and dispel myths with anyone whose age difference to mine isn't too big.

I don't think they're always dehumanizing, but they can be. A lot of times it's just more ignorant and tone deaf, when this isn't malicious. I've been told to my face that Hitler, Stalin and Mao were atheists, with the clear implication about myself (either I'm also evil, or can't be good consistently). He wasn't even a mean guy. It's shocking, but this was all said quite casually. A lot of people simply don't view atheists as worthy of respect at all. Since the polls in the US show we're viewed lower than rapists by many, this isn't surprising.

Edited by Fireblood on Nov 3rd 2018 at 10:06:51 AM

I sometimes forget that many tropers live in the US where religion is valued as if it were the light that guides everyone's morality and as if it was other people's business and not a private matter. Thankfully, millenials seem to be against this old paradigm and promoting tolerance.

I've always wondered why the United States is so religious compared to pretty much all of Europe

I've always assumed that the reason is because many of the people who first emigrated there to the colony were the most religious out of the United Kingdom's population, aka the puritans, and those values were then passed on (anti-catholicism did perdure for a long time).

I might have my history completely bungled up here, anyone feel free to correct me.

I think that is partly true. Religious dissidents at the time left Europe to settle in the Thirteen Colonies. Of course, the Puritans didn't believe in religious freedom, just that they should rule things (they got to for a little while in the UK, and it was bad). However another factor was not having a national state church in the US, some claim. This made churches compete more for membership, in a sort of free market. I really do envy you in Europe for having far less religiosity around sometimes.

Yeah, it's somewhat hard for me as an American to meet other atheists in person since I live in a pretty religious country. Obviously, it's easier online.

I’m living in one of the least religious countries in the world. I still see a lot of missionaries in Estonia tho, mostly for Jehovah’s witnesses and Hare Krishna

I had no idea the Hare Krishna movement was still alive in the present (the only reference I had to them was Mad Men). Thought scientology now had the domain on mistifying religious cults in the West.

I didn't either, but apparently that's who those monks that keep chanting and handing out books in the old town are

What are most Estonians, Eastern Orthodox?

Most Estonians are non-religious, but Eastern Orthodox and Lutheran tend to be predominant among the 25% that aren't

Guys, if this is a kind of thing you feel like giving an opinion on now, then please go ahead. I'd be interested to hear. I acknowledge that these questions are mind-boggling, so I don't fault anyone for saying anything like "No thanks", "Don't feel like thinking of that" or even "Not now, maybe later".

A while back I posted a thought in the Christian thread.

So what do you guys think is the Holy Spirit, first of all? What about the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? Is there any secular analogy or explanation to these, so it doesn't go back to just repeating the Bible? Can you give practical examples?

If there's this unforgivable sin, there would seem to be the issue of near-death experiences. They're rare, but still..... I've read these NDEs change the people, who've gone through them. Say someone has committed the unforgivable blasphemy, but later happens to change through a NDE. What would that imply about the original blasphemy that was supposed to be unforgivable? Or is this supposedly unforgivable blasphemy really nigh-impossible to commit in the first place like some Christians seem to believe?

The last part must be silly.

@Xopher: I see. So, out of curiosity, do most of the nonreligious people identify as atheists, in your experience? Or is atheism tainted by association with Communism, as I've heard is the case in other places (the US even)?

@Merry Mikael: I've never been that clear on what the Holy Spirit is. That seems to be the least explicated part of the Trinity. So far as I can tell, it's something like God in the unseen messenger or divine presence form, opposed to creator (Father) or human (Son). Of course, I don't think the Trinity's logically coherent anyway, as a being can't be three in one at the same time. It's precluded by the law of non-contradiction.

I doubt there's any real secular analogue, given that it's an explicitly religious idea. However, many people do think there's unforgivable wrongs, religious or not. So that at least could be secular.

I'm not even sure what blasphemy toward the Holy Spirit is, however I've said the words of denying it before. Without that knowledge, the rest is impossible to answer. You raise some good questions though. Hopefully some Christian tropers over there will give you their thoughts about it.

Edited by Fireblood on Nov 27th 2018 at 10:35:23 AM

On another note, I can now recommend some good books on atheism, if anyone here's interested. Atheism: A Philosophical Justification, by Michael Martin, and The Miracle of Theism by J. L. Mackie.

Honestly the Holy Spirit feels shoehorned in to me.

Like they wanted 3 aspects cos that feels more magic.

"So we've got like God, and Jesus, who is also god..."

"Oh, I know! His power!"

"Is that really a separate thing?"

"I say it is, and I'm wearing the silly hat, so it is."

Hello, Agnostic atheist here and my personal thought on religion is that its ok so long as you don't: A:try and convert me B:use it to justify immoral acts C:claim it's the only way to live

Which sounds like a good person: Someone who does good for fear of punishment or because it's the right thing to do

My policy is that if you try to convert me I'm allowed to try to convert you back. It's only fair.

I feel atheism isn't something you should force on people. I am aware religion has done some good things and it makes a lot of people happy but there are limits and boundaries