General / Off-Topic To Atheists, which great Atheist thinker do you allign with ?

[JeffRyan]

Nice to see anti-islamic prejudice and ignorance alive and kicking in this thread.

 

[verminstar]

Barely know half the names on that list and have no idea what tripe they preach...dont really care if truth be told. I dont listen to very many people who try and tell me 'the truth'...dont listen to very many people at all and trust my own feelings and judgements. I listen to all sides arguments, nod politely, then roll another joint in between sermons so I can sit till the end while attempting not to fall asleep.

Thing is...Im a sinner...and then some. Ive broken almost every commandment and did so smiling. Im not sorry fer my past, even though parts of it were very violent and turbulent...it was the right decision at the time and I dont live with that many regrets. I see living with regrets as feeling sorry fer oneself...self pity basically...I aint got no time fer all that jazz.

I would say Im spiritual, but dont believe in one all powerful being...doesnt make sense to me. I believe theres something, I just dont know what. What will be will be and if I am to stand before the pearly gates, then I got a few issues that need answers before I sit on a cloud playing a harp. If I dont get answers, then I suppose Ill be going south. Theres a lotta pain in my life...some was the fault of others and meself...but much was what I would consider to be needing a different explanation.

Some these things have left me bitter because...no answers. And I have asked...long ago...silence. Fair enough...but I sure as hell aint thankful fer it and I sure as hell aint gonna worship anyone until I get answers fer why certain things happen in certain ways. Anyway...whatever ^

 

[Gully Foyle]

No Neil De Grasse Tyson either

Poll Invalid

No mention of Bertrand Russell SHAME

 

[Peter Thompson]

Criticism of islam is not racist. After all, people have rights, but ideas do not. If we were to use terms like islamophobia —that somehow ties religion to race for arbitrary reasons— and we want to avoid being racist altogether, then we have to apply the same standard for Christianity, as it is practiced hugely in predominantly non-white areas as well, perhaps even more. Take my region, for instance. In Latin America, population sits at around 620 million people or more, 90% of them being Christians. And most of the population is mixed race to black. Shall we keep the same standard and talk about christianophobia and call racist all the atheists (specially if we consider that atheism is a big influence from first world nations) that criticize christianity? I think not.

Any religion, regardless of the color of the person who practices it, should be open for criticism as we do with any other ideas like politics, economics and the like. Hate is a sentiment that comes natural for humans with dichotomies. It sets up this "us vs them" mentality that can have people at each other's throats for thousands of years. This is why I see valid to judge ideas like islam and christianity as a whole, instead of judging people as a whole by one simple characteristic such as their religion. In that respect, I agree that painting with a broad brush is shortsighted and bigoted, but it is even more shortsighted and antiliberal to grant special privileges to ideas because one seems less "white" or less "privileged" than another. Ideas should stand on their own merit, and that alone.

 

[TheAntitheist Crusader]

Ok fair enough about the Catholic church, they are actually affecting laws in some countrries, like the Evangelicals in the USA, they are bad, they need to be stopped, but still i believe Islamic influence and potential domination would be worse for secular people (as Christianity is on it's way down not up). The other consequence of the political left ignoring these issues is that, as has been indicated by events, scared people will turn to the far right (wshich would be just as bad as biblical or sharia law) so from my point of view as a democratic secular socialist with liberal leanings, we tolerant humanists are under attack from the religious right and political right, and soon it will be tolerance that is a thing of the past, we will be persecuted either by a fascist right wing revival or an Islamic domination.

 

[Gully Foyle]

Criticism of islam is not racist. After all, people have rights, but ideas do not. If we were to use terms like islamophobia —that somehow ties religion to race for arbitrary reasons— and we want to avoid being racist altogether, then we have to apply the same standard for Christianity, as it is practiced hugely in predominantly non-white areas as well, perhaps even more. Take my region, for instance. In Latin America, population sits at around 620 million people or more, 90% of them being Christians. And most of the population is mixed race to black. Shall we keep the same standard and talk about christianophobia and call racist all the atheists (specially if we consider that atheism is a big influence from first world nations) that criticize christianity? I think not.

Any religion, regardless of the color of the person who practices it, should be open for criticism as we do with any other ideas like politics, economics and the like. Hate is a sentiment that comes natural for humans with dichotomies. It sets up this "us vs them" mentality that can have people at each other's throats for millenniums. This is why I see valid to judge ideas like islam and christianity as a whole, instead of judging people as a whole by one simple characteristic such as their religion. In that respect, I agree that painting with a broad brush is shortsighted and bigoted, but it is even more shortsighted and antiliberal to grant special privileges to ideas because one seems less "white" or less "privileged" than another. Ideas should stand on their own merit, and that alone.

Criticism isn't bigoted when it's made in a general sense and not specific. It's not a race thing either. All religions are silly equally.

Superstition - The bane of real wisdom.

 

[TheAntitheist Crusader]

Nice to see anti-islamic prejudice and ignorance alive and kicking in this thread.

Nothing wrong with being Anti Islamic, the fact is that being Anti Islamic is like being Anti communist or Anti capitalist, or Anti Flat earth theory. I'm not against muslim people, but i'm against the religion/Ideology. I regard it, like all religion, to be a threat to reason and progress.

 

[JeffRyan]

Criticism of islam is not racist. After all, people have rights, but ideas do not. If we were to use terms like islamophobia —that somehow ties religion to race for arbitrary reasons— and we want to avoid being racist altogether, then we have to apply the same standard for Christianity, as it is practiced hugely in predominantly non-white areas as well, perhaps even more. Take my region, for instance. In Latin America, population sits at around 620 million people or more, 90% of them being Christians. And most of the population is mixed race to black. Shall we keep the same standard and talk about christianophobia and call racist all the atheists (specially if we consider that atheism is a big influence from first world nations) that criticize christianity? I think not.

Any religion, regardless of the color of the person who practices it, should be open for criticism as we do with any other ideas like politics, economics and the like. Hate is a sentiment that comes natural for humans with dichotomies. It sets up this "us vs them" mentality that can have people at each other's throats for thousands of years. This is why I see valid to judge ideas like islam and christianity as a whole, instead of judging people as a whole by one simple characteristic such as their religion. In that respect, I agree that painting with a broad brush is shortsighted and bigoted, but it is even more shortsighted and antiliberal to grant special privileges to ideas because one seems less "white" or less "privileged" than another. Ideas should stand on their own merit, and that alone.

Absolutely agreed, but too often and particularly in this political climate it's simply thinly veiled racism with little or no understanding of the history of Islam or its contribution to western science and culture. Whilst yes, fundamental islam is an abomination and a threat to society it is by no means the majority.

Nothing wrong with being Anti Islamic, the fact is that being Anti Islamic is like being Anti communist or Anti capitalist, or Anti Flat earth theory. I'm not against muslim people, but i'm against the religion/Ideology. I regard it, like all religion, to be a threat to reason and progress.

It is however no more or less a threat to reason and progress and often in the past has gone hand to hand with it. It's the rise of fundamentalist islam and fundamentalists being given power and training often because of American intervention in middle-eastern politics. Again, broad strokes of islam and a lack of ignorance about what islam is is of no use to anyone who claims to be dedicated to reason.

 

[Monk]

I used to be a devout Catholic until my pursuit of truth through science led me to dismantle every bit of faith I had in a higher power. Or at least my need to worship some petulant child-god. However, through the same commitment to logic and reason, I could not outright say god, gods or some higher-power does not exist. So, since I can't prove existence or non-existence I set the god variable as an unknown. Fortunately, the god variable isn't needed in any scientific calculation or theory.

Many of the men listed in the poll are smart people with good arguments. However, I think many of them have erred in their approach to eroding societal commitment to religion. They do not seem to know how to appeal to the devoutly religious, unable to find a common point to start from. Rather, they attack, belittle, and generally take an elitist tone of moral and logical superiority. This is a wholesale mistake when dealing with followers of the Hebraic religions. These are religions designed to be questioned and victimized. The more you oppose them, the more righteous they become. Every time some ritual is highlighted as insane religious shenanigans they become more committed to their church. They are religions based in victimization, oppression and always being the underdog against an totalitarian secular government. Just look at the major stories...Moses rescues the Jewish people from Egyptian persecution, even calling God to punish the Egyptian citizenry (though it was a Pharaoh, not the people that oppressed them...whatever), Jesus died for you sins under the oppression of a Roman governor (feel the guilt) and Mohammed fought against the Meccan and Jewish ruling elite.

Every time you attack it makes them stronger.

I believe it is better to undermine from within. We do this by teaching children the truth and ensuring that information is not only factual but free-flowing. We must pass legislation to ensure that science is a required part of all curricula. When children find they can feel wonder and spirituality simply by knowing the grandness and grace of our Universe, religion loses its attractiveness. There was a man that achieved this better than anyone else and he is not an atheist. Carl Sagan, an agnostic, I feel, had the most influence on me and my journey away from bad wine and stale wafers.

An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists.
To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed.”

“Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual.”

Now, I believe it is trivial to prove that the Hebraic religions are, indeed, wrong. As Carl would say "“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” There is not a shred of concrete evidence to the validity of any of those religions and much of it can be traced back to the writings of a noble wishing to maintain order.

 

[Boomer Kay]

I believe it is better to undermine from within. We do this by teaching children the truth and ensuring that information is not only factual but free-flowing.

Winter solstice. It's awesome. And there's gifts.


Ho Ho Holliday.


p.s. I already mentioned it in the other thread, but the Turkish-Muslim owner of the coffeeshop where my arch-catholic grandpa spends a lot of time opened his store on christmas just to that old people (most of them arch-catholic) who did not get visited by their families had a place to gather.
He wished everyone a "merry christmas".

Conservative, family value appriaciating, decent people who respect others and their beliefs are not the issue.
Social, inclusive, progressive decent people who respect others and their beliefs are not the issue.

 

[PigKiller]

"...which great Atheist thinker do you align with ?"

Jesus Christ. Although Moses and Mohamed tie in a close second.

[h=1]“He was an embittered atheist (the sort of atheist who does not so much disbelieve in God as personally dislike Him)...”[/h]-G Orwell

 

[Iskariot]

I have never had the pleasure of his time. I have had the fortunate experience of what I consider his handy work. I look outside and hear birds sing. To me a signiture of the creator. No MDMA or LSD. No brain freeze DMT experience either. Just pure wow. I pity those who cannot take in the splendor.

Atheists have no problem with taking in splendor. They just do not believe in invisible magical splendor.

One could argue the entire perception in the West of what is good comes from the indirect teachings of Christ.

One could, but it would be wrong.
Being a former christian I know that the actual teachings of christ are very limited and shockingly superficial.
Compare them for example to the very deep philosophical works of Buddhism.

To answer op's question: I do not align with any one atheist thinker.
Many have influenced me.
But my atheism is a direct result of being brought up in christianity and discovering on my own the barely hidden madness that lies within it's twisted dogmas.

 

[Roybe]

Essentially every Western intervention in non-Christian majority countries would qualify.

I know quite a few soldiers who follow the mantra "God, country, family", in that order, who would have a much harder time doing what they were told if the enemies they had been assigned were of similar faith to themselves.

Countless smaller scale examples as well, like fundamentalists shooting doctors or blowing up mosques.

Really? WW1, WW2, and so many other 'minor' wars were fought by 'men of similar faith'....and in more cases than not, the war was over differences in interpretation of the exact same religion!

On a side note, it fantastic to see an orderly discussion on such a topic here...let alone on the internet itself!

 

[Boomer Kay]

Being a former christian I know that the actual teachings of christ are very limited and shockingly superficial.

But of a rather simple and progressive way for that time. (well, when the gospel was written, so about 200-400 years after any historic Christ figure might have lived)
If christians would actually follow their own belief ...

Compare them for example with the very deep philosophical works of Buddhism.

Eh, half of buddhism is just intellectial self-fornication.
The stuff you think about when you sit around and stare at a wall.
They make a rather simple (scientifically proveable) mechanic of self-regulation into a yuuuuge piece of art. (which isn't bad, but in the end .. sit, stare, breathe .. that's all there is).

 

[Monk]

But of a rather simple and progressive way for that time. (well, when the gospel was written, so about 200-400 years after any historic Christ figure might have lived)
If christians would actually follow their own belief ...




Eh, half of buddhism is just intellectial self-fornication.
The stuff you think about when you sit around and stare at a wall.
They make a rather simple (scientifically proveable) mechanic of self-regulation into a yuuuuge piece of art. (which isn't bad, but in the end .. sit, stare, breathe .. that's all there is).

Following Jesus to the letter would require Christians to abandon all of their wealth to create and contribute to a commune tasked with helping the least among us. They would be compelled to open their doors to refugees, even if they are an "enemy." Further, they would have to turn their backs on demagogues and shun consumption of entertainment from the vane and greedy in Hollywood.

I've known Christians all of my life, even sat next to them while the social contract was taught to us in seminary class. Not a single one practices a shred of the tenants in the social contract except for those that have left the faith.

 

[Iskariot]

But of a rather simple and progressive way for that time. (well, when the gospel was written, so about 200-400 years after any historic Christ figure might have lived)
If christians would actually follow their own belief ...

Even in those early days christian faith was much less progressive than you might think.
Unlike modern christians think Jesus felt that all jewish laws should be obeyed until the end of times and that includes the most awful and cruel ones.
Current christians are not really followers of christ. They are followers of Paul od Tarsus. Paul has corrupted and twisted the faith Jesus preached. Modern christians are really paulians.
Jesus was never a christian he was a jew and of jewish faith. Christians have perverted that and claimed him as their own.

Eh, half of buddhism is just intellectial self-fornication.
The stuff you think about when you sit around and stare at a wall.
They make a rather simple (scientifically proveable) mechanic of self-regulation into a yuuuuge piece of art. (which isn't bad, but in the end .. sit, stare, breathe .. that's all there is).

You are very wrong about that.
I have extensively studied buddhism and have a collection of at least 80 works, from the oldest to some very modern ones, mahayana, theravada, zen and everything in between. Buddhist philosophy is psychology avant la lettre and incredibly insightful. It very often is difficult to understand for westerners because the language and way of thinking is so different from what we are used to.

I am not a Buddhist, by the way. I have a large library on philosophy and theology. When I discovered 38 years ago how nonsensical my christian faith really is, I started looking around and searching for truth.
Never found it by the way.

 

[TheAntitheist Crusader]

Great debate here, i like it. Now i'd like to talk for a second about my intention with the poll. It was to find out who atheists enjoyed listening to the most, and point their friends towards (religious or not), i guess my wording was very wrong, like "favorite thinker" and "allign" it sounded too much like i was suggesting we follow them like sheep, i guess what i really wanted to say was...who do you enjoy listening to the most, if any ? I myself chose Christopher Hitchens, i respected him very much and i guess sparking this debate was very much in the spirit of Hitch, and i for one enjoy it despite the disagreements, after all what a terrible society we would be in if we all thought the same way.

 

[Iskariot]

Great debate here, i like it. Now i'd like to talk for a second about my intention with the poll. It. was to find out who atheists enjoyed listening to the most, and point their friends towards (religious or not), i guess my wording was very wrong, like "favorite thinker" and "allign" it sounded too much like i was suggesting we follow them like sheep, i guess what i really wanted to say was...who do you enjoy listening to the most, if any ? I myself chose Christopher Hitchens, i respected him very much and i guess sparking this debate was very much in the spirit of Hitch, and i for one enjoy it despite the disagreements, after all what a terrible society we would be in if we all thought the same way.

Ok.
I like so many of them:

Daniel Dennett
Victor Stenger
Christopher Hitchens
Matt Dillahunty
Sigmund Freud
David Hume
Richard Carrier
Bart Ehrman
Sam Harris
A.C. Grayling
Dan Barker
Richard Dawkins

They all have their own style and they all have important stuff to tell.

I have to add Voltaire, because he was a great influence in my twenties.

 

[Boomer Kay]

Buddhist philosophy is psychology avant la lettre and incredibly insightful.

The first one, yes. The second one .. hmm .. we have pills today that can directly influence the brain functions. I think that's incredibly insightful in how much we overrate ourselves.

(... and the existance of such pills a good sign of how badly we are in "tune" with our "selves" .. I do prefer the holistic approach of eastern/asian view on things like philosophy and being a human, but the entire construct of Buddhism as such is'n my cup of meds )

 

[Iskariot]

The first one, yes. The second one .. hmm .. we have pills today that can directly influence the brain functions. I think that's incredibly insightful in how much we overrate ourselves.

I do not quite get what you are alluding to.
But... of course buddhist 'psychology' is only insightful to those who feel they've learned something from it. I certainly did.
It has fundamentally changed how I view other human beings and compared to buddhism's insight in human nature christianity is incredibly simplistic and childish..

but the entire construct of Buddhism as such is'n my cup of meds )

That is perfectly fine, but if you view Buddhism as meds then you do not get it. That is all I can say.
I understand that buddhism is very often presented as a self help panacea in western culture.
I don't like that either and I am also very critical about Buddhism.
I am not a supernaturalist. I do not subscribe to ideas like reincarnation for example.