Should atheists declare war on religion as a whole?

[trdsf]

how about a war on spiders altogether? the ones who remain in the wilds can go free, but the ones who come into your home and crawl across your face at night, they shall all perish under our iron toe!

I've been fighting that war for years.  We even have an anthem already!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWpz2OYf1QU

[Mermaid]

I said no because I am fundamentally opposed to people telling other people what to believe and how to live their lives. Yes, religious people do this, and they suck for it. It would be hypocritical of me to do the same thing to them.

[1liesalot]

In End of Faith, Sam Harris argues that moderate God squad people actually enable fundamentalists by failing to adequately challenge the dangers and nonsenses at the heart of the religious right and presenting the idea that the whole thing is not bullshit.

[Unbeliever]

The trouble with many religious people is that not only are they ignorant, which is bad enough, but they believe in false knowledge, which GB Shaw points out is more dangerous than mere ignorance.

"Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance."
George Bernard Shaw

[Baruch]

Pragmatism.  Today's opponents are tomorrow's allies, and today's allies are tomorrow's opponents.  So a "take no prisoners" approach will be self destructive.  While as a theist, I don't find atheists to be threatening (at least since the fall of the Soviet Union) ... I understand that as a minority with an unpopular POV ... atheists living among theists are ... in a different gestalt than I am .  As a theist, I am a minority among theists.

So how in general should one deal with a basically hostile society?  Unless you are a progressive ... I don't see a frontal assault as doing much good.  And I am not a progressive ... in the sense that the general trend of people being more sensible ... seems to be an illusion to me.  America seems to have pretty much reverted back to the 1960s, only with inferior music ;-)  I keep my own profile low, without denying who I am.

And per Unbeliever ... here is a wide disparity regarding "knowledge" between theists and atheists.  That is one of their principle differences IMHO.  Partly this is due to differences in education ... but also that what constitutes knowledge, and how this is obtained ... also differs.  Hence the whole debate concerning gays and global warming.  Even if all the facts are presented ... some of the facts will be denied prima facie, and epistemologically, the research that produced those facts will also be attacked.  Competing forms of skepticism ... against naturalism, and against supernaturalism.  Of course not all are skeptics, most folks are conformists.

[Mike Cl]

Pragmatism.  Today's opponents are tomorrow's allies, and today's allies are tomorrow's opponents.  So a "take no prisoners" approach will be self destructive.  While as a theist, I don't find atheists to be threatening (at least since the fall of the Soviet Union) ... I understand that as a minority with an unpopular POV ... atheists living among theists are ... in a different gestalt than I am .  As a theist, I am a minority among theists.

So how in general should one deal with a basically hostile society?  Unless you are a progressive ... I don't see a frontal assault as doing much good.  And I am not a progressive ... in the sense that the general trend of people being more sensible ... seems to be an illusion to me.  America seems to have pretty much reverted back to the 1960s, only with inferior music ;-)  I keep my own profile low, without denying who I am.

And per Unbeliever ... here is a wide disparity regarding "knowledge" between theists and atheists.  That is one of their principle differences IMHO.  Partly this is due to differences in education ... but also that what constitutes knowledge, and how this is obtained ... also differs.  Hence the whole debate concerning gays and global warming.  Even if all the facts are presented ... some of the facts will be denied prima facie, and epistemologically, the research that produced those facts will also be attacked.  Competing forms of skepticism ... against naturalism, and against supernaturalism.  Of course not all are skeptics, most folks are conformists.

Ha! We do seem to be reverting back to the '60's without the music.  :)  Except I still have my music--the great thing about YouTube. 

[Solitary]

The problem with religion is that they think they have knowledge when all they have is ignorance from religious texts obviously written by people more ignorant than they are, believing it is infallible because it is the word of God that would be impossible to know if He actually is beyond this world, or in another dimension. This world there is always the possibility of it becoming hell, and actually is for many people, not only those in war, and people need a security blanket and false hope to deal with it, because it is pragmatic and works for many, while forgetting when it doesn't, thinking it won't be for them as long as they have faith.

[Hydra009]

Pragmatism.  Today's opponents are tomorrow's allies, and today's allies are tomorrow's opponents.  So a "take no prisoners" approach will be self destructive.

Well, one of the more "radical" notions among atheists right now is conversational intolerance, simply demanding the same sorts of standards for theistic claims that we would demand from any other sorts of claims, and stopping automatic deference to people's deeply-held beliefs simply because they are deeply-held.  We're not exactly burning the fields and salting the earth.

While as a theist, I don't find atheists to be threatening (at least since the fall of the Soviet Union)

  Thanks, I guess?

And per Unbeliever ... here is a wide disparity regarding "knowledge" between theists and atheists.  That is one of their principle differences IMHO.  Partly this is due to differences in education ... but also that what constitutes knowledge, and how this is obtained ... also differs.  Hence the whole debate concerning gays and global warming.  Even if all the facts are presented ... some of the facts will be denied prima facie, and epistemologically, the research that produced those facts will also be attacked.  Competing forms of skepticism ... against naturalism, and against supernaturalism.  Of course not all are skeptics, most folks are conformists.

That is true, one's epistemology is the primary difference.  There certainly is no shortage of self-declared skeptics, though there clearly are huge differences in how they operate.  For global warming "skeptics" in particular, the charge of pseudoskepticism seems to much more accurately depict their methodology than skepticism.

[Baruch]

Pseudo-skeptic ... love your coinage.  I think one could certainly develop a whole PhD in Theology (see other string) concerning that one.  If one is skeptical, doesn't that undermine any criteria for deciding between real and false?  Doesn't nihilism or solipsism result?  Ouroboros eats his tail.

It is hard to tolerate, let alone admire, people who one despises.  Brights vs Dims.  This is an ethical problem, not an epistemological problem.  Is there any conversation possible under those conditions?  Not blaming atheists here ... the theists have been pulling this crap for millennia.  But on another string, it was suggested that defensive war be waged, not conversation.  And then there is the problem of demanding standards ... the "who's demanding" part and the "whose standards" part is a political problem.  At least the political entanglement for atheists is temporarily suspended vis a vis communism.  Yes, the entanglement wasn't "essential" but "opportunistic" ... but it did tremendous harm to atheism.

If I was certain to die, and I certainly will ... it may be your choice to not take advantage of a false security blanket ... but I see that as a personal choice, not as a public health issue.  Dead is dead.  Death is not the reason why I am a theist ... life is ... nasty, brutish and short ... but enough about my Ex ;-)  As a freethinker, I share much of the same skepticism as the posters here.  It is not inevitable that we will arrive at the same conclusions.  Yes, the revolution will not be televised, but it will be Youtube ;-))

[Mike Cl]

Pseudo-skeptic ... love your coinage.  I think one could certainly develop a whole PhD in Theology (see other string) concerning that one.  If one is skeptical, doesn't that undermine any criteria for deciding between real and false?  Doesn't nihilism or solipsism result?  Ouroboros eats his tail.

Baruch, I think it depends upon your definition of 'skeptic'.  I like to think of myself as a bit of a skeptic.  And from all angles.  When I look closely at a topic, I like to approach that topic from all points of view, including the ones I find most difficult to understand or to like.  I like to think that I'm skeptical--not blind.  For some reason, about 20 or so years ago, I decided to come to a personal decision about the historicity of Jesus.  Over the course of time, I read about Jesus from all points of view--from the most fundamental to the most skeptical.  I reach a decision--personally, I think he is a myth.  When I discuss the subject, I defend the position that he was a myth.  But that does not mean my mind is closed--the skeptic in me makes me keep looking at the subject from the position of those who believe he was a real person.  So, skeptic, for me, does not mean blind, but a search for as close to the actual facts as we can get.  I also like to think I am a freethinker.  I really use the two terms, 'skeptic' and 'freethinker' as almost interchangeable.   Even tho, you don't claim it, I see you as a bit of a skeptic and freethinker as well.

[Baruch]

Eh what?  Don't claim it?  Well I have already said here, at other points, that I am a freethinker, and that while a theist, I don't fit in with most other theists, maybe with no other theist.  The problem with being ahead of my time, is that I am as lonely as a Maytag repairman ;-)  And I agree, that some skepticism is necessary to be a freethinker.  If one is rigid, one can't change.  If you can't change, then you are dead.  So like water, skepticism is necessary, just not too much of it.

Yes, the whole "historicity of Jesus" is fascinating ... because real or not, the "Jesus character" is extremely influential.  I am afraid the Mel Brooks will never catch on as a messiah ;-)  One will interpret the "story of Jesus" differently if you see him as a comic character, like in Life Of Brian.  Jewish comics have been dying on stage for millennia!

What distinguishes a freethinker is ... that they thoroughly investigate something, weigh the various opinions, and either agree on their own with an existing opinion, or come up with their own.

I did my own derivative research on the "logia" of Jesus (those red words) ... and came to my own conclusion, at variance with the scholarly opinion.  Namely, that the Gospel of Thomas is the Quelle ... or rather a later version of it.  Because of theological "no go zones", scholarship can't agree with that, because it messes up the scholarly consensus on the Synoptics (which is just a hypothesis, it is unprovable).  Scholarship also ignores the connections with Kabbalah and Indian sources for the material (Jesus may not have lived in Kashmir ... if he wasn't historical, he couldn't have) ... but there is a lot of Kashmiri theology (Mahayana and Vaisnava) theology in the NT.  And let's totally ignore the Dead Sea Scrolls while we are at it!

[Mike Cl]

Eh what?  Don't claim it?  Well I have already said here, at other points, that I am a freethinker, and that while a theist, I don't fit in with most other theists, maybe with no other theist.  The problem with being ahead of my time, is that I am as lonely as a Maytag repairman ;-)  And I agree, that some skepticism is necessary to be a freethinker.  If one is rigid, one can't change.  If you can't change, then you are dead.  So like water, skepticism is necessary, just not too much of it.

Yes, the whole "historicity of Jesus" is fascinating ... because real or not, the "Jesus character" is extremely influential.  I am afraid the Mel Brooks will never catch on as a messiah ;-)  One will interpret the "story of Jesus" differently if you see him as a comic character, like in Life Of Brian.  Jewish comics have been dying on stage for millennia!

What distinguishes a freethinker is ... that they thoroughly investigate something, weigh the various opinions, and either agree on their own with an existing opinion, or come up with their own.

I did my own derivative research on the "logia" of Jesus (those red words) ... and came to my own conclusion, at variance with the scholarly opinion.  Namely, that the Gospel of Thomas is the Quelle ... or rather a later version of it.  Because of theological "no go zones", scholarship can't agree with that, because it messes up the scholarly consensus on the Synoptics (which is just a hypothesis, it is unprovable).  Scholarship also ignores the connections with Kabbalah and Indian sources for the material (Jesus may not have lived in Kashmir ... if he wasn't historical, he couldn't have) ... but there is a lot of Kashmiri theology (Mahayana and Vaisnava) theology in the NT.  And let's totally ignore the Dead Sea Scrolls while we are at it!

So, I think we do use those two terms mostly alike--freethinking and skeptic.  And I agree that one can be so skeptical as to almost go blind--or one's own version of dogmatic. 

As for the Indian connection to Jesus, I have not looked into that enough yet--but I know you have.  And I've read some that suggest Jesus was alive but at a much earlier date.  Some day I'll have to delve deeper in the gnostic theology of Paul--I suspect he did not think Jesus was a real physical person, either.

[Hydra009]

It is hard to tolerate, let alone admire, people who one despises.  Brights vs Dims.

And I opposed that term for exactly that reason - it implies that non-Brights are dim.  Plus, it seemed self-aggrandizing.

Just us atheists and theists in my book.  Whether you're bright or dim is up to you.

[Baruch]

Mike CL and Hydra009 both deserve gold stars here ;-)  Yes, the ego ... reminds me of the Aesop parable about the bull frog.  We see a lot of self-promoting leaders detonate like that.

In comparing people, it is almost hopeless to control for extraneous variables.  For instance an equally intelligent theist and atheist (what about the neutral non-theist?) ... sadly intelligent theists are hard to find ;-))  Atheists also enjoy shooting fish in a barrel.

Yes, Biblical scholarship is really hard, even if you don't attribute historicity to any of it, just as systems of thought.  And yes, there were controversial figures connected to the Dead Sea Scrolls, and itinerant miracle workers too ... that pre-date and post-date Paul.  I find it incredible that Paul would have believed in a historical vs allegorical Christ ... he would have definitely believed in Barnabas however ;-)  But one can take that assumption how one will ... the non-historicity can debunk, but it can also elevate.  The greatest things in the world are ideas, not people ... usually ideas control people, not the other way around.

[Mike Cl]

  But one can take that assumption how one will ... the non-historicity can debunk, but it can also elevate.  The greatest things in the world are ideas, not people ... usually ideas control people, not the other way around.

I like the way you put that.  I agree that ideas drive people and movements.  And it really does not always matter whether the idea or ideal came from history or myth.