Dawkin style atheists believe in the same god fundamentalists do

Here are some truths as I see them:

1. tons of militant atheists seem to come from fundamentalist families

2. the difference between a fundamentalists god and a less fundamentalist god is what i'll call 'the santa clause effect.' The type of god that resembles more of an all powerful wizard than a mystic, unknowable being.

3. militant atheists prefer to attack the santa clause wizard god, saying very little about and mostly refusing to acknowledge the mysterious, unknowable god.

4. militants and fundamentalists, therefore, share a common conception of god that is unshared by many nonfundamentalist theists.

Lets chat.

I don't get it.
How many gods are there?

reply to post by choppedbrisket


I'm talking about conceptions of god. My argument is that 99% to all of the militant athiest arguments are directed against the same conception of god used by fundamentalists. The non-fundamentalist version of god as a more detached/ontologically distinct being, goes unmentioned.

In short, athiests and fundamentalists are arguing about the existence of the same conception of God. Non fundamentalists don't share their common definition. That's the real divide.

reply to post by snusfanatic


Okay? Well, to me, both are equal, stupid ideas.

There, consider this question "Addressed by an Atheist."

So I guess you are saying that militant atheists come to their beliefs based on experience with fundamentalist families and seeing their hypocrisy and intolerance?
That makes sense.

reply to post by choppedbrisket


Partly, yes. I'm sure other people have noticed that there doesn't seem to be many, extremely vocal atheists that grew up in more tolerant, less fundamentalist - yet still religous homes. The larger point is that they're hung up on only one conception of god (the fundamentalist one) to the exclusion of any good arguments against the existence of a less fundamentalist god.

reply to post by TsukiLunar


My guess is, if you engage in debates with religious people at all, that you spend a disproportionate amount of time addressing fundamentalists. What you think about either conception is really irrelevant to the point.

Instead of saying the "santa claus" type god, say it's a god that has been more thoroughly anthropomorphized. The type of god that has more tangible parts is ultimately the god that is weaker, imperfect, ungodly, and pervious.

reply to post by satron


yes, that's a better way to make my point. i agree.

Originally posted by choppedbrisket
I don't get it.
How many gods are there?

Well, like it says in the OP, they are unknowable. Funny how a lot of believers seem to know them though.

It's the detailed, personal Gods, that have all the emphasis put on by the majority. It's also the same that cause people to think they have special rights or moral highgrounds. It's also the most ridiculous argument.

People "argue against" things that are relevant in their lives. I've never found myself having to explain that there's no evidence for Santa Clauses existence. I've also had less times where it's relevant to explain the flaws in more vague depictions of deities.

~
It's simple. People don't argue about the nonexistence of something simply because they don't believe in it, they argue when it's made relevant by those that do believe it. Fewer people believing in these vaguer "Higher Power but not a fundy type god", means it's less relevant to discuss the flaws in that reasoning.

~
Let's rephrase your title, replacing Atheist with it's definition.

People who don't have belief in any Gods, believe in the same god fundamentalists do

See how ridiculous that is?

~
I really don't know what angle your coming from, but I can assure you, you've misunderstood something somewhere.

From my own point of view growing up in bad homes with awful antichristians for parents creates more atheists and agnostics than families who never believed in the first place. I was agnostic myself for 14 years until something happened that pushed me off the fence.

Theyre just looking for someone to take their resentment out on and it ends up being Yeshua. People hated him 2000 years ago, people still hate him today and us by default. Theyre always going to try to justify their hatred of him, jews did the same damn thing back when there was no such thing as atheism and everyone had some type of religion.

Seen alot of bitter people in my lifetime, and they take that bitterness out on everyone around them because misery loves company.

reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx


First, of course atheists, by definition, don't believe in ANY gods. The title is meant to draw attention and prime the reader for the idea that the atheists who seem to be the most up in arms focus solely on the 'fundy-god.'

You did a better job trying to explain WHY this is though, and I really appreciate that part of your response. Here's where I disagree:

When I say 'Dawkins style atheist' I'm referring to the type that would prefer a world that abandons any belief in a super-natural diety. Part of the point is that that they must necessarily ignore alternative theist conceptions that have been anything but destructive.

Fundies and atheists are leaving an important group out of the discussion, because when you ask both groups to imagine 'god' similar images spring to their minds.

reply to post by snusfanatic

3. militant atheists prefer to attack the santa clause wizard god, saying very little about and mostly refusing to acknowledge the mysterious, unknowable god.

True. Every atheist that I have met seems to understand God as being human-like... with humanoid emotions. I think its because they understand God as a boss-character within religious books, mostly the bible. But the truth is that religions emerge from God..... not the other way around.

I consider myself pretty religious, but I admit that even what I know of God is limited to my own understanding.
Similarly, what we humans collectively know of reality is limited to our intellectual capabilities. Some may wave the banner of science and claim their approach to reality is 'superior' to that of a theists. But, they fail to realize that science itself is limited to what can be observed or experienced etc.

Originally posted by snusfanatic

Fundies and atheists are leaving an important group out of the discussion, because when you ask both groups to imagine 'god' similar images spring to their minds.

I still don't get it. Perhaps you need to explain what you mean by militant.

Atheists are not the opposing force of Believers.

I don't think you can be a true Atheist if you are anti-god. To me anti-god - - would mean you would first need to recognize god to oppose god.

Being Atheist because you are angry at god/church - - - is not legitimate IMO.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Every atheist that I have met seems to understand God as being human-like... with humanoid emotions. I think its because they understand God as a boss-character within religious books, mostly the bible. But the truth is that religions emerge from God..... not the other way around.

What?

That makes zero sense to me.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
Theyre just looking for someone to take their resentment out on and it ends up being Yeshua.

Are you feeling persecuted?

Anger is anger. If you are angry at church/god - - that is anti-god. It is not atheism.

Anyone who claims atheism out of anger against church/god - - - is false atheism.

reply to post by snusfanatic


Good thread man, haha.

Honestly, militant fundamentalist atheists remind me alot of very militant fundamentalist christians.....

Pretty funny,

this morning I was just thinking to myself "wow, for Seth macfarlane being an atheist, he sure promotes religious belief a HECK OF A LOT in his cartoons!"

Originally posted by snusfanatic
reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx

 

When I say 'Dawkins style atheist' I'm referring to the type that would prefer a world that abandons any belief in a super-natural diety. Part of the point is that that they must necessarily ignore alternative theist conceptions that have been anything but destructive.

Fundies and atheists are leaving an important group out of the discussion, because when you ask both groups to imagine 'god' similar images spring to their minds.

As I've explained, there's much less incentive to debate against these kinds of gods. On top of that, the kinds of faiths that make fewer falsifiable objective claims, and there's much less to argue against. I don't know exactly what kind of deity you subscribe to, however, something with no evidence for or against it(Like more higher power claims) is simply hard to argue against. An atheist just must place the stance that they see no reason to follow the same belief, and that they would only if it could be proven, and any "debate" ends there. Whereas more fundamentalist beliefs, containing many logical, factual, historical, and moral errors, there's a lot more room for discussion.

So there's less to talk about, and less reason to talk about it.

The thing is, like you said, the more fundamental, organized religions are more destructive than the personal higher power type beliefs. So, I'd assume most, myself included, would not have as much of a problem, or any problem at all even, with that belief held.

I don't have a problem with theistic belief. I do have a problem with deceitful tactics, trying to take away ones personal sovereignty but not giving them a chance to assess things fairly. Whether through dishonest organizations intentionally misrepresenting facts to give a skewed, inaccurate view of reality(Answers in Genesis, Discovery Institute, Watchtower, ect). Or in the indoctrination of children to young to assess something critically. I also have a problem with those trying to force their beliefs on others, take special privileges, use it to justify immoral acts, or act as if they have a moral high ground for it. I do support making more information, particularly scientific knowledge, available(Like Dawkins is doing) so that people can choose to pay attention to it if they wish.

Most atheists, including those who follow Dawkins, probably hold similar stances. Which means, most never bother saying anything about other beliefs that don't cause those problems.

So very few have a problem with those beliefs, those few have less to say about those beliefs, and those few still have much less incentive to talk about those beliefs.

Also, assuming they're more personally held, there's no large organizations pushing them. You don't have big church groups and bible colleges, or scientists and real colleges on your side(that I'm aware, again, didn't see you give a definite on what ideology you subscribe to.) So, with no one pushing your ideas into the public spotlight, obviously criticisms will be reserved.

Hence, why beliefs like yours are rarely in the ring of discussion.

reply to post by TsukiLunar

I highly doubt some can participate in a conversation such as this... therefore it must be stupid because I can't understand.