Thursday, June 23, 2011

Atheists are not a group! And other bull.

Tales from the internet.

Being told by an atheist that my thoughts that there are groups of atheists intent on spreading atheism is a delusion, and that in reality atheists do not form groups or have interests in common related to atheism.

Putting the Cult of Gnu aside - which is putting one hell of a thing aside - you have everything from the American Atheists to the Beyond Belief conference illustrating that yes, there are groups of atheists who have the stated goal of stamping out religion as much as they can. I used to think that atheists were only tactically ignorant about the 20th century. Apparently, they're also just as ignorant about a couple weeks ago (with an organized Atheist group meeting in Dublin, Ireland.)

5 comments:

The Phantom Blogger said...

I've always thought it was just a tactic by them, during debate, in which there basically saying "we can judge and make claims about all Christians and Christianity based upon the actions of a few, since they are essentially a collective whole, who all share the same beliefs (and hence all Christianity leads to the same out comes). But we atheists aren't, so you can't make claims or judgements about us as a collective group".

Obviously one problem with this is that Christianity isn't quite as cohesive amongst sects as they seem to think in is.

Long time no see, by the way. This is the first comment I've posted anywhere in about 6 months or so.

Crude said...

No doubt at all it's a tactic. But it's one which is trivially easy to dispute - you can do it with a single link, when talking this broadly.

It's only slightly more difficult to do this for, say, 'atheist regimes of the 20th century'. It's downright bizarre.

And nice to see you around.

Ilíon said...

Just as it is intellectually invalid to judge the truth of atheism by the behavior of those who call themselves atheists; so to with Christianity. Both -isms ought be judged by the -isms, and not the -ists. Atheists are fond of judging Christianity by the worst of those who claim to be Christians (and, sometimes, even of those who don't), while simultaneously insisting that no bwhavior of any atheist has any bearing on the questions. And, many so-called Christians -- who seem to be more concerned to get a pat on the head from those who despise everything they say they believe, than they are in pleasing the One who their say is their God -- are fond of allowing them to get away with it.

Similarly, and especially when they're allowed to get away with the prior trick, atheists are fond of misinvoking the "No True Scotsman" fallacy -- I call it the "No True Scotsman Fallacy" fallacy -- with respect to Christianity. One is a Scotsman by birth (generally), one is a Christian by conviction and behavior -- not everyone who claims to be a Christian is one, and it is no logical fallacy to that "Clearly, So-and-So is not a Christian, for no true Christian would do 'X'."

Crude said...

I imagine it could be made even more complicated. A person can be a Christian, but engage in an un-Christian act. A moment of weakness, a moment of doubt, and so on. Does a person doing something unChristian automatically become a non-Christian, if only for the duration of that act? I think that's troublesome, though less troublesome than the claim that a professed Christian's every act is therefore a Christian act.

I agree that some Christians love to go out of their way to get that pat on the head from atheists, of course.

Ilíon said...

"I imagine it could be made even more complicated. A person can be a Christian, but engage in an un-Christian act. ..."

Sure. I took that as understood.

"Does a person doing something unChristian automatically become a non-Christian, if only for the duration of that act? ..."

I also took it as understood that I was talking about not just an initial unChristian act, but also about what follows afterward.

For instance, one can conceive the possibility that someone who truly is a Christian might, in an unChristian rage, kill (by which I mean murder) another. But, then what? If he really is a Christian, will he deny that the killing was a murder and that it was unjust and that he deserves punishment, perhaps even death? Will he invent lies about the murder victim, so as to exonerate himself? Will he allow his defense attorney to insinuate lies about the murder victim, so as to emotionally sway the jury to the belief that the killing wasn’t a murder and that the deceased somehow deserved to be killed?