Is Dogmatic Atheism Similar To Religion?

[Adam5]

Hi All

 

I am just asking a question here, so please dont go nuts

 

Dogmatic atheism.

 

Hmmm

 

It needs to be said...

 

A-theism means against theist. Technically I know its not a religion.  Its against religion.

 

However "dogmatic atheism" seems akin to an evangelistic religion?

 

With evangelism, one has a mindset that wants to impose dogma on other people,  trying to make everyone else, in the whole world, think exactly as you do.

 

Is this true of atheism today?

 

I have read the God Delusion, and a Letter to a Christian Nation, ... both good reads...

 

However, these books leave you depressed.  These guys have such a bleak worldview.

 

And you end up thinking, what really is the point? And why do you care?

 

There is nothing positive from these people. It is all negative.

 

Dogmatic atheism wants to destroy everyones faith, and is cynical about everything spiritual.  Including eastern religions and new age.  The only thing they believe in is science.

 

I realise this post may upset some .  Many are protective of atheism, in the same way as a religion? Why is this?

 

Freethinking to me is not being dogmatic, neither is science. To be a free thinking means you question everything, including your own opinions and beliefs.

 

Some Atheists say science or evolution explains everything.  They say that naturalism in all that there is.  Sorry, but these seem like dogmas?

 

The internet is awash with evangelical atheism. And having spent time reading many atheist wesbites. Whilst providing a valuable service, they can come across sometimes as know-it-all?

 

I agree religion IS bollocks We here have all woken up.  Organised religion, in the West, is on its way out.

 

There is a lack of evidence of any God or gods. However spiritual things may exist or may be in the imagination. Its a personal opinion and matter for debate.

 

But...

 

how why do former evangelists get all preachy about atheism. Why not let people think what they want?

 

Cheers, Adam

[ExXex]

I reckon just because some people have a faith and others don't it doesn't make them different species - so there's always people who think the world would be better if everyone thought the same thing as them, and I'm suspicious of them all!

 

I wouldn't say religion and atheism are necessarily the same but the attitude when sharing it sometimes is.

[mymistake]

Who is dogmatic in their atheism?  Show me an example.  So far the only time I see dogmatic atheism is in Christian movies.

 

Are you talking about the people who rent billboards and put up anti-Christian messages?  I consider that to be a waste of money.  Messages that show atheism in a positive light have some value simply because so many Christians treat atheists like cannibals and devil worshipers.  Though I'm not sure that the positive message is worth the price of the billboard.

[florduh]

Some Atheists say science or evolution explains everything.

 

I know of none who would say such a ridiculous thing. 

 

Dogmatic atheism wants to destroy everyones faith, and is cynical about everything spiritual.  Including eastern religions and new age.  The only thing they believe in is science.

 

Many skeptical people employ critical thinking and simple logic when it comes to extraordinary claims. What's wrong with that? Blindly accepting anything without any evidence makes no sense to me. In the entire history of mankind, the only advances we've made in knowledge and improving the human condition have been due to science, not chanting or praying. Obviously we don't have all the answers and probably never will, but investigating and experimenting with reality (science) continues to get us closer.

 

Even non-religious people routinely mischaracterize atheists and atheism. One may disagree with the position but it's not necessary to demonize it with exaggeration and lies.

 

Currently there seems to be an anti-science sentiment catching on, at least in America. It has its roots in Creationism and the religious challenges to biology, archaeology and geology.  I suggest not falling for the propaganda.

[ExCanadianReformed]

Well - one major difference between atheists and religions is that we typically don't tell you that you're going to hell for eternity for having a different opinion.

 

As for coming across as "know it all" - that's simply the readers lack of conviction or knowledge coming through. No atheist or scientist thinks they "know it all" - and most are very open about this.

[Kaiser01]

Large numbers of Atheist, and large numbers of Christians work under the same sociological laws that everything else runs under as well, so yes I would say Atheism can become dogmatic like religion as it becomes a fundamental part of identity. That's why we must actively ensure Atheism does not behave like religion, as in, maintaining a sense of individualism rather than conformity to certain ideas, otherwise, mob mentality and group psychology take over.

[SilentLoner]

What's dogmatic atheism consist of? Preaching on corners? 

[florduh]

What's dogmatic atheism consist of? Preaching on corners? 

 

 

If it's dogmatic to be unable to believe the extraordinary claims of gods without evidence, I plead guilty. WTF.

[Vigile]

It seems to me the OP is equating desire for facts and truth as somehow dogmatic.  Are scientists also dogmatic?  I don't get it. 

[Vigile]

I don't know anyone who doesn't admit that ideas exist and that ideas aren't physical.  OTH, many people, including myself, reject the concept of things such as spirits. 

[mymistake]

There is the issue that using the methods employed by extreme Atheists in which they assume that everything that exists is physical.  It is called Material Reductionism.  It is good for solving problems and working though technical issues but not for answering more existential questions.  And YES, the Material Reduction wing of the Atheist movement is as dogmatic and closed ended in reasoning as any hard core fundy or evangelical Christians.  It is kind of like arguing with a secular version of a Calvinist. 

 

 If you cannot produce a single example that fits your description then you made it up.

[ExCBooster]

I'll give it the old college try, here, point-by-point. Replies in Green.

 

OP's questions:

 

A-theism means against theist. Technically I know its not a religion.  Its against religion. Not "against" anything, really. Atheism means "non-belief in God." I don't believe unicorns exist, either. That doesn't mean I'm "against" unicorns.

 

However "dogmatic atheism" seems akin to an evangelistic religion? Dogmatic anything pretty much sucks, in my opinion. Dogma means taking opinions on faith, instead of investigating the truth. I'm opposed to that, for philosophical reasons. Dogma holds people back from truth. Faith and dogma are not virtues, in my opinion.

 

With evangelism, one has a mindset that wants to impose dogma on other people,  trying to make everyone else, in the whole world, think exactly as you do.

 

Is this true of atheism today? Some atheists, maybe. Not me, and probably not the majority, either. In my experience, the vast majority of atheists are the quiet ones. You would never know unless you asked, or started an argument with them. It's just self-defence in a society that assumes that you're automatically immoral and evil. I'm open about it, but I literally only bring it up if someone brings faith or lack of it up to me. Door-to-door missionaries are fair game, in my opinion, and turnabout's fair play. If someone believes something strongly enough to get in my face about it, they deserve nothing less than an honest, stiff challenge, too, right?

 

I have read the God Delusion, and a Letter to a Christian Nation, ... both good reads... You know, I never have, actually. I did read The Selfish Gene, but that's the only book by Richard Dawkins that I've read.

 

However, these books leave you depressed. I can't really talk about the books, but I liked The Selfish Gene. Revolutionary for when it was written. These guys have such a bleak worldview. I don't see it that way. I think it's a matter of perspective. If we follow the idea of natural selection to its natural conclusion, where humanity is concerned, then the unavoidable conclusion is that it's inherently in our nature to be decent to each other. It means humanity is fundamentally capable of good. We create good and evil in our cultures and minds, and we can choose good, naturally. We are kin to all life on Earth. Our history was first forged in the hearts of distant stars. We're not separate from the universe, we're part of its fabric, connected to everything.

 

And you end up thinking, what really is the point? That's the best part, though! Each of us gets to decide. We make our meaning. It seems so much more selfish and petty to me, for people to presume that the whole universe was created, just for them. I'm an emergent property of the universal fabric, and I have the power to decide what my part of it will mean. And why do you care? I care because I decide to. I choose to help people, because I'm a human sort of animal, and that's how we survive. I choose what is good, and work toward it. It's better, to me, to do the right thing because it's right, rather than out of some selfish impulse to save myself from frying or win heaven. I don't need a fairytale carrot and stick.

 

There is nothing positive from these people. It is all negative. (See above.)

 

Dogmatic atheism wants to destroy everyones faith, and is cynical about everything spiritual.  Including eastern religions and new age.  The only thing they believe in is science. See above comment about dogma. Dogma is intellectually dishonest. I think about ideologies including faiths as jellybeans. There are some jellybeans that I like more than others. Some people might like other jellybeans than me. (I hate fake grape and cherry flavours more than anything. Yuck. Like cough syrup.) You have a right to choose your jellybeans, and I'm not going to stop you eating any, unless they were poisonous. Some flavours of faith are toxic. But it's still your choice, until it starts hurting other people. Jellybean suicide? Drink the cynanide flavour-aid? Go for it. Just don't force it on me. Or poison anyone who can't choose freely for themselves. That's what I have trouble with. Jonestown and Aum Shinrikyo are just two particularly nasty examples of toxic faith. Kill people trying to vaccinate children against diseases? That's a problem. Oppress people, who aren't doing you any harm, just because you have ideological differences? "Love the sinner, hate the sin" is utter and complete hypocritical bullshit. I dislike the way a lot of religions use emotional leverage and coercive tactics on people. That's morally wrong. I certainly do respect aspects of belief systems that are not my own. I can get on board with Zen flavour Buddhism, for example, easier than, say, Tibetan flavour Buddhism.

 

I realise this post may upset some .  Many are protective of atheism, in the same way as a religion? Why is this? I think of these people as defensive. It's easy to get that way when you're one of the most hated and distrusted groups of people in your country, and belief systems have become highly politicized. I don't want these people deciding what to do with my body. I don't want these people sending my friends and family to die for their cause. Frankly, the tone of the political debate around this joint scares me pantsless. I want people to think, not feel their way forward. You may believe you can fly, but if you jump off a building, gravity is the thing that determines what happens, not your feelings or beliefs. I am very good at arguing, and I've broken people to tears, but I argue only in self-defence, and against people that can handle it, or asked for a debate.

 

Freethinking to me is not being dogmatic, neither is science. To be a free thinking means you question everything, including your own opinions and beliefs. I agree. Science is the definition of free thinking. That's why the highest possible level of scientific knowledge is called a formal theory.

 

Some Atheists say science or evolution explains everything. "everything" like what, exactly? Everything we can observe, measure, test, and repeat. They say that naturalism in all that there is. Not really the case. Science utterly sucks at dealing with qualia. The colour "blue" is a thing. Fun fact, but a lot of cultures define these things differently. In Classical Chinese, blue, green, and "dark-ish" are all covered under the same word. Despite the flexibility, qualia are often the only things we feel "sure" of. I'm not sitting on a solid chair, the chair is mostly empty space, and matter at a fundamental level acts like maths equations. Interesting, huh?  Sorry, but these seem like dogmas? Anything can be a dogma, but only if you have people who are uncomfortable with ambiguity. I'm okay with ambiguity. The universe is painted in shades of grey, and even a huge spectrum of colours I'm not even able to comprehend, because I'm a human being, and limited by my biology. Mantis shrimp, on the other hand...

 

The internet is awash with evangelical atheism. Where? And having spent time reading many atheist wesbites. Whilst providing a valuable service, they can come across sometimes as know-it-all? Some people sure are assholes, but you know what? So are a lot of Christians, too. If it is an innocent mistake, I can see a lot of it being frustration. Kids getting sick with measles again is not cool. Children abused or killed because their parents had faith as an excuse to do nothing medically but pray.

 

I agree religion IS bollocks We here have all woken up.  Organised religion, in the West, is on its way out.

 

There is a lack of evidence of any God or gods. However spiritual things may exist or may be in the imagination. Its a personal opinion and matter for debate.

 

But...

 

how why do former evangelists get all preachy about atheism. Why not let people think what they want? I do believe in letting people think what they want, but it does have limits: some of these people, "thinking what they want" are a massive threat to my personal well-being, as a woman, and as a human being. Duh. Basic self-preservation, here. Then we have wider, humanitarian problems too. Some people, eating the different flavour jellybeans, are okay, but when they want to chow down on the toxic ones, and force everyone else to eat those, too, it's not okay.

 

Cheers, Adam

[flockoff]

I have read the God Delusion, and a Letter to a Christian Nation, ... both good reads...

 

However, these books leave you depressed. These guys have such a bleak worldview.

 

And you end up thinking, what really is the point? And why do you care?

I have also read those and I don't see how they were bleak, rather I found them liberating, although I seem to be in a minority that was all too happy to become an atheist. But more importantly I don't see what this has to do with the rest of your post. Their books depressing you doesn't make what they say any more dogmatic or any less true. Sometimes the truth isn't a bowl of cherries.

 

I am not sure you have the correct definition of "dogma." Atheism being dogmatic would imply a strict set of beliefs that people adhere to regardless of evidence or lack thereof. All atheism is is not believing in a god or gods. It ends there. If someone is claiming more under the banner of atheism, then they're talking about something more than or entirely different from atheism.

 

Now there are people that do this; people like PZ Meyers and the Atheism-Plus movement want to incorporate other things like feminism and liberalism into it, but again, they're trying to sell something that goes beyond atheism.

 

As for things like evolution and naturalism, acceptance of those things is just a common result of rejecting religion. There's nothing left making us deny those things, so that's what we default to. There's no one, no book, that I'm aware of, telling us that's what we HAVE to believe or else we're going to incur someone's wrath. Wouldn't be taken seriously if there were.

 

But I think the best evidence that atheism isn't dogmatic is the fact that it's older than religion, yet it hasn't split off into different groups. There are no Reformed Atheists or Eastern Orthodox Atheists or 16th Century Spanish Fly Atheists or whatever. Just atheists. That's because there's no dogma or intrinsic set of rules to fight over, so nobody really has the opportunity to start their own club, excommunicate anyone who doesn't agree with them, and say it's the only true "atheism" there is.

 

I think what you're really trying to say is that some atheists are assholes and can be just as bad as the people they're fighting. True, some atheists are indeed very brash and I can see why some people would want to punch them in the face, but generally I haven't seen any of them that are actually trying to get the law involved and force their beliefs into other people's lives. That's where some of us want to be assholes; as a reaction to that sort of thing.

[mymistake]

 

 

There is the issue that using the methods employed by extreme Atheists in which they assume that everything that exists is physical. It is called Material Reductionism. It is good for solving problems and working though technical issues but not for answering more existential questions. And YES, the Material Reduction wing of the Atheist movement is as dogmatic and closed ended in reasoning as any hard core fundy or evangelical Christians. It is kind of like arguing with a secular version of a Calvinist.

If you cannot produce a single example that fits your description then you made it up.

OK smart-ass, answer me this using MR. Why should I give a shit about anything? It cannot answer that.

 

 

True.  Material Reductionism cannot tell you why you should care.  It can theorize about what forces drive you to care and what caused those forces to be but the should part is beyond the limits of MR.

 

How does that make MR dogmatic, closed minded, like arguing with secular Calvinism, neutered, self-imposed aspergers or any of the other silly things you distort about it? 

[Fernweh]

 

I have read the God Delusion, and a Letter to a Christian Nation, ... both good reads...

 

However, these books leave you depressed.  These guys have such a bleak worldview.

 

And you end up thinking, what really is the point? And why do you care?

 

There is nothing positive from these people. It is all negative.

 

 

 

I've read The Selfish Gene and The God Delusion. I wouldn't call Dawkins negative or dogmatic but rather pragmatic and polemic. 

[Adam5]

Thank you everyone.  All of you. I have enjoyed reading your responses.

 

I thought I might get a little disagreemnt for criticising Atheism. I think I could have chosen my words a bit more carefully.

 

I think 'flockoff' put it better, in that, the point I was wishing to make, was that some Atheists can appear brash and as bad as the people they are debating.

 

Some good stuff on this thread. See you tomorrow. Cheers, Adam

[florduh]

I thought I might get a little disagreemnt for criticising Atheism.

 

We just tire of the mischaracterizations and mindless bashing and baiting. Legitimate criticism and debate welcome.

[Thackerie]

...

 

It needs to be said...

 

A-theism means against theist. ...

 

 

Wrong from the start. The "a" simply means without.

 

And, you don't need to capitalize atheism. It's not a religion. An atheist is simply someone who has not been convinced of the existence of deities. That's all. Don't be scared.

[midniterider]

Hi All

 

I am just asking a question here, so please dont go nuts

 

Dogmatic atheism.

 

Hmmm

 

It needs to be said...

 

A-theism means against theist. Technically I know its not a religion.  Its against religion.

 

However "dogmatic atheism" seems akin to an evangelistic religion?

 

With evangelism, one has a mindset that wants to impose dogma on other people,  trying to make everyone else, in the whole world, think exactly as you do.

 

Is this true of atheism today?

 

I have read the God Delusion, and a Letter to a Christian Nation, ... both good reads...

 

However, these books leave you depressed.  These guys have such a bleak worldview.

 

And you end up thinking, what really is the point? And why do you care?

 

There is nothing positive from these people. It is all negative.

 

Dogmatic atheism wants to destroy everyones faith, and is cynical about everything spiritual.  Including eastern religions and new age.  The only thing they believe in is science.

 

I realise this post may upset some .  Many are protective of atheism, in the same way as a religion? Why is this?

 

Freethinking to me is not being dogmatic, neither is science. To be a free thinking means you question everything, including your own opinions and beliefs.

 

Some Atheists say science or evolution explains everything.  They say that naturalism in all that there is.  Sorry, but these seem like dogmas?

 

The internet is awash with evangelical atheism. And having spent time reading many atheist wesbites. Whilst providing a valuable service, they can come across sometimes as know-it-all?

 

I agree religion IS bollocks We here have all woken up.  Organised religion, in the West, is on its way out.

 

There is a lack of evidence of any God or gods. However spiritual things may exist or may be in the imagination. Its a personal opinion and matter for debate.

 

But...

 

how why do former evangelists get all preachy about atheism. Why not let people think what they want?

 

Cheers, Adam

 

I think atheists like science because science, for the most part is concerned with and very good at obtaining practical knowledge of the world around us but doesn't concern itself with controlling us. To me, this is a positive thing. Religions, on the other hand are more concerned with controlling one's thoughts and behaviors and cash flow. To me, this is a bad thing.

[pawn]

I see religion as a marketable product being sold. Atheists are simply those who "are not buying it."

What, believe in a supernatural entity for which there is no evidence at all, give my life to this supposed entity and a tenth of my income the "priest" (salesmen) of this supposed entity, and follow all the rules and regulations that the priests (salesmen) of this entity tell me to???

 

Nah, I am an atheist, I'm not buying it.

[Ro-bear]

Atheist is just someone who lacks a god-belief.  Not all are against religion.  Atheists are a diverse lot, just like people who don't play soccer or people who don't eat potatoes.

[pawn]

Atheist is just someone who lacks a god-belief.  Not all are against religion.  Atheists are a diverse lot, just like people who don't play soccer or people who don't eat potatoes.

That is even better.  Very simple, clear definition.

[Sybaris]

 

how why do former evangelists get all preachy about atheism. Why not let people think what they want?

 

Cheers, Adam

 

A lot has to do with residual anger. They were duped and wasted a good portion of their lives following a lie. I suspect they are motivated to prevent the lie from wasting other peoples lives as well........... and in extreme cases like 9/11 or invading Iraq, they want to try to prevent motivated religionists from inflicting or authorizing physical harm on others based on whispers from their imaginary friend.

[amateur]

Personally, I don't believe in biblegod because I've come to think that the bible is simply a book of myths and legends, poetry, parables, and dreams.  I've never studied any other religion enough to know why I would reject it, and truthfully don't feel like getting involved with another religion.

 

I think people who were raised in a religiously abusive home have a lot to deal with, and that result in a lot of anger towards xianity.  I also think people who were deeply involved in xianity and have recently come out of belief tend to feel a lot of anger at being lied to and ripped off financially for decades.

 

As I was raised in an agnostic family, I didn't have a huge problem deconverting.  I was the only person in my family who took xianity seriously for a while, even becoming born again, but after a while I couldn't deal with not getting straight answers about the bible, and having to twist my brain to deal with some of the crazy bible stories and contradictions.  That's all been over for a couple decades.

 

I'm generally pretty amused by fundy xian preachers.  I sometimes listen to them on the radio when I drive because they make me laugh.  Or facepalm.  While driving.

 

I really don't care what other people believe or not (as long as it's not being abusive), because I know I don't know any ultimate truths.  Thus my name:  amateur.

 

I don't believe in any god.  But I think it is so cool we are here on earth and get to be aware of it all with our senses.  Just being here for whatever time I have is worth it.  It's so cool when I see a beautiful sight, or get to eat a fabulous meal, or enjoy great sex with someone I love, or take a walk on a beautiful morning.  I'm amazed that my body made two cute little babies who grew up into young adults that I still love and love spending time with.  Even with my 50-year-old aches and pains, occasional migraines, and a congenital heart defect, I am amazed at how well my body does work -- how fun it is to be able to run or dance, take long walks.  I love getting back rubs and massages.  I love the feeling of getting tipsy on gin and tonics.  I love the feeling of falling asleep and I absolutely love my dreams.  I love remembering moments from childhood that are precious to me.  I just think it is so cool how everything in my body works so I can do what I do and feel what I feel!  I can dream and remember!  I have no idea how all of that works, but even with no understanding I still get to experience it!  For me, believing in god never made any of that any cooler, and any stories of heaven never made this life here on earth any more amazing.

 

No religion could add any more to how lucky I feel to be here and experience all this.  All of this is enough, more than enough, and more miraculous than any bible miracle to me.  When it's time for me to die -- wow -- I got to be here and experience all this.  That is truly enough.

[sdelsolray]

Is Dogmatic Atheism Similar To Religion?

In some respects, yes.  In most respects, no.