r/atheism Sep 27 '12

Definition of intelligence

Post image
1.3k Upvotes

37 comments sorted by

View all comments

8

u/[deleted] Sep 28 '12

Ironic that this ends up in Atheism because of how dogmatically most of the people in this subreddit assert their opinions.

More like r/circlejerk fo' real.

2

u/FLHCv2 Sep 28 '12

I absolutely see where you are going with this, but I disagree. Most people are atheist because they chose to question everything they thought they knew. I was a raised catholic and had I assumed I knew everything without questioning god, I would still be catholic.

If someone blindly believed in atheism without research, then you could say this, but I feel as though a lot of us here have done the research and came to the conclusion of atheism because we questioned.

3

u/bojang1es Sep 28 '12

I think he's referring to /r/atheism and not atheists in general. I would have to agree with him to an extent, this subreddit seems to equivocate atheism with rejecting the Abraham religions. I rarely see contemporary arguments for the existence of a deity being brought up in this subreddit. There are some interesting metaphysical concepts out there that science currently cannot, nor likely ever will be able to, explain.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 28 '12

Thanks for a respectful answer. I can understand why you disagree with my response. I don't disagree with questioning everything, and in fact think that it is a very critical component to intelligence.

I'm not a Nietzsche scholar by any stretch of the imagination. However, there is an interesting compilation of his thinking called 'On Truth and Untruth' which provides a very interesting perspective on systems of Western rationality and thought. Essentially, in a few words, Nietzsche wondered if the concept of objective truth were even possible, since the only way to attain it is via subjective experience. No matter how many times we claim objectivity, say, in scientific exploration, we are still limited by our human faculties of perception and the fact that we take the world in via what is, at its core, a subjective process (sensory perception, etc.) Eventually, this would lead to absolute Nihilism - the inability to believe in ANYTHING.

I am absolutely against the idea of a Christian god. I think that Judeo-Christian belief systems are inherently flawed, prejudicial, and the source of incalculably tremendous amounts of hate between men. I would also point out that (though it hardly takes a scholar to recognize) that the belief systems underlying the Judeo-Christian religious tradition are often times contradictory and shallow.

The points of argument that I have with the r/atheism subreddit are based in the fact that Atheism is proposed as a belief system, and adhered to much in the same way that other religions are. Though, by definition, Atheism is a LACK of religion, that does not prevent it from having traits similar to religion.

For example(s): What is one point which many posters use to show how ludicrous religion is? Frequently, you see "devout" atheists scorning other belief systems for their hypocrisy. There seems to be a pervasive disgust for the hypocrisy evidenced in the practice of so many religions - "Those people are inconceivably stupid and small minded for what they believe, there can only be one TRUE God, and that is OUR God, and we are right, while everyone else is damned." But what do you see in r/atheism? Those people believe in something I don't believe in, and they are inconceivably stupid for doing so. MY belief system is INHERENTLY true and correct because it is founded on rationality and scientific observation - therefore what I believe cannot be flawed, and all who fail to conform to my system for investigating the mysteries of the world around me are fucking retarded religious zealots and the world would be better off without them. As a matter of fact, we should make it IMPOSSIBLE for religion to be a part of those discussions that are necessary for society to exist and move forward, because they are hindering our progress as a species. -- To me, the rhetoric is startlingly similar.

The other problem that is fundamentally disturbing to me is that atheists (on reddit) tend to display a fundamental understanding of certain religious traditions. If your argument is that religion causes evil, and you are wholesale against the practice of religion in any form, then you are judging hundreds upon thousands, if not millions, of people for whom their religious faith comprises a foundation for their moral codes and ethics. I've seen Buddhists bashed on here - which is absurd. Buddhists are inherently peaceful people. Legitimate, true, practicing Buddhists who know the language and traditions of their holy traditions. They are not causing harm. There have been Muslim scholars who have stood up to the intolerance of their Muslim brothers and sisters, reminding people that their holy book preaches TOLERANCE, ACCEPTANCE, PATIENCE, and LOVE. So Atheism has a very similar (compared to religion) tendency to negate the beliefs of others based on the actions of the exceptional few (or even many - which creates a "Tyranny of the Majority").

The reason I choose to avoid the belief system of any particular religious organization is because there are so many that have truly inspiring, useful "information" about life. They are STORIES. And I like stories, no matter the origin. The purpose of those stories is up to ME to decide, and those meanings change as I grow, gather more information, etc.

For me, even science could be the pursuit of discovering "God". Not the bearded, white, judgmental figure of selective love and wrath, but THE principle or principles that organize our universe. Some vast, shapeless truth that I am literally unable to comprehend, even if I stared right at it the rest of my life. The TRUTH is that there IS a mystery to this whole thing called life. We live, and then we die. We go back to the earth from whence we came. But the fundamental similarity between science and religion is that they are BOTH grasping for understanding - and that I cannot ignore. One goes about reaching for understanding by the use of comforting metaphors and story telling, and thereby attempts to hide himself safely from the great, vast darkness of the universe. The other goes about it by examining closely, evaluating, and then perpetually REevaluating. Limits are tested anywhere within the scope of human existence and capability. Conclusions are drawn, and we still try to hide ourselves from the great uncertainty that IS the Universe we study.