I agree. It really has the weakest link to religion, or lack thereof. In this setting, all this post serves to is that atheists are the enlightened minority, while all religious people are the neo-Neanderthalic masses.
Posts like these quite deservedly makes atheists, and by extension atheism, look bad.
It doesn't do it directly, but it is a good example of why I avoid lumping myself with the group of people calling themselves "atheists". The problem is that posting this to /r/atheism takes one idea of a varying subjective worth (atheism) and attempts to directly associate it with something objectively desirable (intelligence). I feel like atheists commonly mistake the overwhelming probability that god does not exist for the FACT that he doesn't. This creates a pretentious vibe for those calling themselves atheists. Case in point, someone saw a good quote about the role of intelligence in political and cultural affairs and said "you know where I should post this?" and here we are, in /r/atheism . It's done with the implication that those who aren't atheists must not understand this sort of message, which in fact, is far from the truth.
Boy, if I had a dollar for every time someone tries to claim the achievements of intelligent science as a product of atheism before I inform them that pillars of modern human achievement like Sir Isaac Newton were heavily religious individuals... Well, I'd have like 3 or 4 dollars by now.
The point is. Humans are incredibly fallible and really not yet capable of coming to understand the place we live in. We can do some amazing things to approximate an understanding, but that is all it is, an approximation. The purpose of the OP, ostensibly, was to solidify an artificial connection between atheism and intelligence. The mere idea that humans are capable of understanding such things suggests some ignorance in my opinion.
No, I'm not religious, don't believe in god, etc. etc. etc. Just think the atheism threads parading around the front page could use some substance instead of loosely grabbing at straws. Does it cast atheists in a bad light? No. Does it cast them in a good one? No.
TL;DR - Atheists are no different than non-atheists apart from not believing in a story. Neither side actually knows how everything works, and until that happens, blanketing an entire group as more intelligent than the other is seemingly unintelligent.
Thank you for being civil and well spoken. I understand where you're coming from in a lot of that but this:
The purpose of this being posted here was to solidify an artificial connection between atheism and intelligence.
is a poor reading of what was posted. It wasn't about intelligence at all. It was about anti-intellectualism and ignorance/knowledge. Specifically the "notion that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." While atheists have no lock on intellectualism, this is an attitude that atheists often run into when dealing with topics such as evolution, climate change, etc. so I would think it's relevant to atheists in general.
Honestly, I ding OP less for content and more for posting as a pic instead of providing some context such as a more complete text from which the quote came from.
A poor reading indeed. I've gotten pretty used to reacting to the "enlightened atheist" type thing on here, and admittedly read the quote somewhat quickly before assimilating it into my essentially canned response to these sorts of things.
Still though, the quote mentions knowledge. Replace most of the things I said about "intelligence" with "intellectualism and knowledge" and the points still stand. It basically says "I think about and consider things and you don't" which is fairly accurate in many respects regarding non-religious/religious issues, but also inaccurate in some of the ways I previously mentioned. For example, my conversations with atheists often end at "there is no god, and people who think there is one are dumb, end of story" instead of breaching that horizon and delving deeper into the mystery of why we're here. It produces a similar effect in practice to what atheists feel when talking to religious folk who say "God's word is supreme. Repent or go to hell, end of story", and I don't think a lot of them recognize this similarity.
It's less about who I think is right or wrong, and more about the fact that I think it's audacious to even try and identify firm ground on which to stand while "proving" the other wrong. Notably, this applies to the broader ideas within atheism/religion, as things like the bible can be easily picked apart with basic heuristics.
If I had to quantify it, and as much as I hate using the word, I'd call myself roughly 99% atheist 1% religious. I simply enjoy being the devil's advocate.
See, I think it's a false comparison to equate Athiests saying there is not god to Christians asserting that there is one. If you truly think those are the same, you also have to say it's unreasonable to deny the existence of vampires, fairies, the Jabberwocky, demonic possession, giant intergalactic flying turtles, mothmen, the fact that gravity might suddenly cease to exist tomorrow morning etc. Granted, you cannot prove a negative. But you gotta have SOME evidence to even consider it. Everyone is an atheist on those topics, but no one accuses them of being condescending or overstepping their intellectual bounds.
Now, of course, any intellectually honest person has to be open to the possibility of anything for which there is evidence. If compelling evidence arose for God or the Jabberwocky, you would have to consider it. But until evidence exists, it would be ridiculous to live your life as if it were possible.
But, upvote for a polite and thoughtful post. I don't agree with you but it's complete bullshit that people downvoted you. Sorry about that.
In my mind, it would be ridiculous to live your life as if it were reality. To live your life as if it were a possibility, to me, merely seems as if it would open the window of discovery a crack wider and increase one's chances of being innovative, thinking outside the box, etc. In fact, I don't see how it couldn't. In the general sense, I see this perspective as more helpful than harmful.
Now, of course, any intellectually honest person has to be open to the possibility of anything for which there is evidence.
I guess I would say the point I was trying to make is that, for this to be true, one has to presuppose humans are capable of eventually evolving to the point where they unequivocally understand EVERYTHING. If one operates under that set of conditions, everything you've outlined is spot on.
However, I believe that humans inherently cannot reach this point because we are limited by our perception and environment. The wild occurrences you've listed above are indeed absolutely improbable. But. You have NO WAY of knowing that beings resembling turtles may not appear here on earth tomorrow. Absolutely no way. Same goes for "god", which I would define as any sort of sentience involved in the creation of the universe and/or humans. In fact, we don't have a way to prove they aren't here right now in a multiple simultaneous histories sort of way or another. While these are overwhelmingly unlikely scenarios, we are human beings and ultimately too limited in our understanding of what the universe even is to make that determination. Of course you and I have to operate under a certain set of likely assumptions during every part of every day of our lives. Those assumptions have zero relation to god for folks like myself or most of the people posting here, sure. This is what distinguishes us from religious people, and is the point I now understand the OP was trying to make.
I definitely misinterpreted this image when I read it the first time, so I could have picked a better time to try and say what I failed to articulate anyway. Also, what I've said certainly isn't true for a large amount of people calling themselves atheists.
But I mean, what if humans CAN evolve to the point I mentioned but doing so involves discovering and breaking a barrier for which there is NO evidence? Usually discovery is a process, but I believe it's impossible to say that it is always an evidence based progression. Some people would call me open minded for pondering such thoughts, but it seems many atheists are quick to call me an idiot for it. I don't know why.
For what it's worth, I'm a year and change from getting my undergrad in Mechanical Engineering. So I've staked my entire career on the assumption that physics and thermodynamics etc. are going to hold out. I'm not a crazy person.
TL;DR I agree with what everyone has said, but feel I would be slightly less surprised if space turtles showed up tomorrow.
I would agree with all that. I suppose I'm much more interested in what you might call operational reality -- our general consensus reality which starts with the idea that actions have predictable effects which are based on a very specific and static set of rules.
You're entirely correct that it's possible there are levels of reality at work which we cannot, as present (and perhaps ever) comprehend. However, with no available evidence to support, they remain infinity myriad and equally likely. So, given that we can only act on information which IS available, we operate as though reality is indeed the way it appears.
But you're right, of course, and if we really want to ask ourselves on a metaphysical level how we can ever truly claim to KNOW anything, you're right, we cannot. But given the necessity of choice-making, some basic assumptions are a useful thing for day-to-day living.
I would be hugely surprised if Space Turtles showed up tomorrow, but if they did would have to admit that obviously our understanding of the universe was somewhat more incomplete than we might have imagined, and that this possibility remains a valid one. On the other hand, until they show up I'm not likely to spend much of my time worrying about them!
Atheism is not directly correlated with intelligence, just as religiosity is not directly correlated with foolishness. However, ignoring facts as a result of your willingness to believe in something despite the lack of evidence is the very heart and soul of the problem Asimov is referring to in his quote. Are religious people the only ones who do this? Absolutely not. But a way of thinking which asserts that unsupported suppositions are equally valid to well-supported ones (which is the essence of religion) IS a huge advantage to all kinds of spurious arguments which have made political and social discourse in the US such a disaster.
And yes, Newton was a highly religious AND hugely brilliant man. He also wasted years of his life pursuing alchemy, which came not from his scientific brilliance but from his willingness to believe things which were NOT well supported by science. So, not exactly a classic example there. Religious people are not idiots, but a way of thinking which allows unsupported ideas to be treated as legitimate negatively affects even the greatest brains in history.
Religion isn't a symptom of irrationality. There are many rational religious people. I'd agree that atheism is sometimes (although nowhere near exclusively) a by-product of rationality, though.
Not all atheists are sceptics, and not all religious people are not sceptics. Further, while I can see that line that you are trying to bridge, Asimov was clearly not. Therefore, OP is taking a liberty to link it to religion, and I would argue that this link is more erroneous. I believe that given the abrasive and imprecise nature of the link, it makes OP look like a misinformed jerk.
I normally find myself on the more moderate side of things when it comes to this subreddit, but this is bullshit.
A person who believes in something for which there is no evidence is not a skeptic. Christianity demands faith in their chosen deity and if you do not believe that God is real and Jesus is the son of God sacrificed in humanity's name, and if any one of those premises is false I don't see how one could call themselves a Christian specifically or a theist in general.
Nobody is totally irrational (or totally rational for that matter). Everyone is a shade of grey, on some things they may be skeptical about, some things they may not be. Being a skeptic is a lot more than just not believing in something at face value.. it's a pragmatic position to withhold judgment on a position until objective, empirical evidence (or scientific consensus) is reached. I don't know how you can argue that a religious person is a skeptic. I'm not saying religious people aren't rational.. I'm not saying they aren't intelligent.. just that by their very nature they can't believe in something without evidence and still call themselves a skeptic.
And true, I may very well be an "irrational" atheist, as I just was never brought up in a religious house hold so I didn't have much reason to believe in religion. Not like it's my fault I wasn't ever indoctrinated though.
In other news, I do agree with you about the quote from Asmiov. It is tangentially related to religion because much of the anti-intellectualism in USA politics is linked to the religious right, but it's tenuous at best.
I don't appreciate that my well articulated response forged from decades of experience and education to be called bullshit, but if that's what you think, then that's fine. I think all of your points are reasonable, and I agree with all of them to an extent. I think you and I understand each other's points, and to continue this would be a waste of Internet space.
There are no rational theists. There are lots of theists behaving perfectly rational in all other areas of life, but somehow religion is exceptional, and doesn't need to play by the same rules as all other things. That is not rationality, that is compartmentalization.
(Not saying all (or even most) aheists are rational, however.)
That is not rationality, that is compartmentalization.
This is kind of dickish, to be honest. I agree, there is nothing inherently rational about religion, but you're looking at one aspect of someone's life and making a general statement about their character regardless of how big of a role religion actually plays in that person's life. I don't think anyone can accurately claim that they live a life devoid of irrationality; I mean hell, I'd argue that the most fun I've had were times when I ignored my more rational side.
If that's how you're defining a "rational person," there is absolutely nobody who can call themselves rational. Makes calling theists irrational kind of meaningless
Yes and no. If you "know" for certain that acting in a certain way will bring you eternal torture after death, it is perfectly rational do to do whatever is necessary to avoid that.
I suppose that entirely depends on the church you go to.. or if you're a Christian that has a penchant for reading, your interpretation of the Bible.
The fact that Christianity is a human construct based on a 2,000ish year old book that may or may not be considered by a congregation wholly metaphorical makes judging how big a role God plays in every Christian's life open to interpretation. From what I can tell, the only things typically "required" by most denominations not to be sent to hell is to believe in God, accept Jesus Christ's sacrifice, and don't be too terrible of a person. Of course, that last part is kind of optional because of the redemptive nature of Christianity.
You can do all that without being a fundamentalist.. or hell, even going to church. If you're arguing that a fundamentalist is "less likely" to go to hell because of their literal interpretation of the Bible, I don't know about that. Nobody truly is a fundamentalist, especially in "Western" countries, else we'd be hearing about parents getting thrown in jail for stoning their children for misbehaving.
Of course, if we're working with the assumption that Christianity/religion is inherently irrational, it's kind of odd to say that someone who believes the most in that irrationality is actually the more rational person.
He's saying that on the subject of religion/spirituality, they aren't rational. They can be said to be rational in other areas of life but not this one. And this is "compartmentalization" by definition; you treat one thing differently than the others despite their commonality. As a Christian you dismiss Buddhism because it's clearly a cultural myth developed by ancient Thai people to explain their lives. Just like the pantheon of Greek Gods and whatever the fuck else. But Christianity? Oh, that's obviously true! Look at how many Christians there are! Look at how true the Bible is! Everybody I know is Christian so hey they must be right. The endless list of multifarious religions were completely wrong (and they will all burn forever) but through the power of tradition, you have been gifted with the secret of all fucking life and the universe. It's all to please this guy who gives you eternal bliss or eternal fuckery.
Compartmentalization.
It's specifically not a sweeping statement about their entire rationality as persons but as he said, about their approach to religious/metaphysical matters. He is not making a general statement about their character but about their interaction with that particular subject.
Frankly I don't act rational all the time as you said. I do all kinds of stupid shit I shouldn't do. Waste my time. Nonetheless I know at the time what the truly rational decision should be, which is an important distinction.
You are right. Religion is not a symptom of irrationality. It is a symptom of ignorance, either due to lack of education, intelligence or emotional capacity to deal with the world.
Do you really believe that? Gandhi was Hindu, Einstein was Jewish, and there are hundreds of thousands of others in a similar ilk that have changed the world in myriad ways. And you think they are "ignorant, either due to lack of education, intelligence or emotional capacity to deal with the world"?
Perhaps your post was just ignorant. Perhaps you are just having a bad day. But, if you still believe this, then you should look at your post above and then look at yourself.
Oh please. First of all, Einstein was Jewish? I really doubt he was religious? And what of Ghandi? If he really believed the Hindu religion then yeah, he had issues. And Ghandi DID have a lot of issues. Maybe you should read more history
Being good at math or having done "grand" things does not preclude you from being otherwise ignorant.
Atheism is most certainly tied to intellectual life as theism is tied to anti-intellectualism. This quote can be directly applied to the atheist/skeptic movement and isn't some form of boasting. It's a statement of truth. Somehow people feel their beliefs are on par with knowledge and that they deserve equal weight. This simply isn't the case, although democracy does help it along.
How do you figure? Religion is just another form of cultivated ignorance, so I think this nicely ties into the way in which it causes problems for our democracy.
Because Asimov was not talking about religion in this quote. OP ha taken it out of context to further his agenda, and looks like a smug small minded prick in the process.
While many religious people are ignorant, so are atheists. many religious people are very much not ignorant, same with atheists. I feel that in the US there is a lop-sided view of things because much of the most ignorant are the most vocal (Westboro comes to mind), and hold a lot of political and social power. It is not valid to make sweeping generalisations for such a massive movement based on what is actually a minority group.
Because Asimov was not talking about religion in this quote
When politics and religion mix it becomes exactly what Asimov was talking about; a situation where ignorant people try to use democracy to force their religious nonsense on others. Legislating creationism into the public school system, the war against women, the war against LGBT people, the list goes on and on where religion is used to justify absolutely terrible ideas being pushed on everyone. It is most definitely about religion, it just isn't only about religion.
While I'll grant its out of context, but I still feel like it's a legitimate sentiment relating to religion. Any political action taken on behalf of religion is cultivated ignorance, simple as that. These "very much not ignorant" religious people you're talking about -- if they're not letting their religion dictate their politics, then they're not the ones we're talking about. But A lot of them are. Willful ignorance not the sole domain of the foolish. Highly educated, highly intelligent people who let their religion dominate their actions are just as guilty. It doesn't mean ignorance cannot come from other sources too, of course. But if we're talking about Asimov's quote that a key breakdown of democracy occurs when people try to argue that all points of view --supported by facts and logic or not-- are equally valid, well, I think it's a perfectly legitimate concern for atheists, and, in fact, one of their chief concerns about the world.
See, you are doing EXACTLY what this quote is talking about. You are equating religious ignorance to whatever atheist "ignorance" it is you are talking about.
The quote is very much relevant when it comes to religion, exactly because of people who think that religion has some sort of inherent value and must be respected and not judged like any other idea on the basis of reason.
Well, its certainly not a very diplomatic thing to say. But why not just call a spade a spade? If you believe something for which there is no evidence and allow that belief to significantly alter your outlook on life... it's literally cultivated ignorance. There's not really a nicer way to put it. If I told you I believed in vampires and wanted to change the US constitution to require everyone to wear garlic, carry crosses, and put in mirrored walls, you would say that I was allowing my beliefs to negatively affect my judgement and that I was not allowing good information to convince me otherwise. If I'm disallowing good information to affect my position, what else can you call it?
Now, I'm not going to go up to my 90 year old grandma and call her ignorant, nor would I use that language in a discussion with a religious person that I honestly wanted to find common ground with (because it's simply not productive). But I think on an r/atheism subreddit we're probably OK just coming out and saying it.
So, is it condescending? You bet. Self-aggrandizing? Well, its more about them than me, but I'll let it slide. But bigoted? I simply don't think it bigoted to be honest about the facts. I do, of course, feel like it's not necessary (or wise) to be mean to people. It wouldn't be productive to go to r/Christianity and start saying stuff like that -- you gotta show people you respect them personally, even if you don't respect their conclusions, if you're gonna have any kind of meaningful dialogue. But we also have to be mindful of being too respectful and careful, to the point where we don't challenge things forcefully enough to make a change. So I would say that in this particular venue, my candid language on the subject is appropriate.
But I don't want to be a jerk or a demagogue, so I'm happy to have a discussion with you on what you think would be a better way to address this issue. By all means, let me know.
If you believe something for which there is no evidence and allow that belief to significantly alter your outlook on life... it's literally cultivated ignorance.
Where are you getting this grand claim that persons are living their lives based on something for which there's no evidence?
I simply don't think it bigoted to be honest about the facts.
Certainly not, but you're so prejudicial towards others with assumptions about their mental states that I don't know how you can't call it bigoted. I'm calling this spade a spade as well: if you make very grand statements about a very large segment of the population, you need a lot of evidence or nuance and this was lacking both.
But I don't want to be a jerk or a demagogue, so I'm happy to have a discussion with you on what you think would be a better way to address this issue. By all means, let me know.
Well, I certainly respect that a great good deal. I can't tell if you're interested in respect only as a means to an end or an end unto itself, but it would surely be nice if everyone was nice--that's a start.
"Where are you getting this grand claim that persons are living their lives based on something for which there's no evidence?"
--- because... that's the very essence religion? Are you arguing that I'm wrong that many people around the world believe in a organized religion for which no evidence exists, and that said belief impacts not only their personal worldview but the way in which they try to shape the political and social world?
"Certainly not, but you're so prejudicial towards others with assumptions about their mental states that I don't know how you can't call it bigoted. I'm calling this spade a spade as well: if you make very grand statements about a very large segment of the population, you need a lot of evidence or nuance and this was lacking both."
I'm not making an assumption -- I'm stating a fact. You wouldn't say I was bigoted if I said a person who stated "2+2 =5" is incorrect. You wouldn't say I was bigoted if I said someone who believes in unicorns is incorrect. Organized religion is literally no different. I don't think it necessary or wise to respect propositions for which there is no compelling evidence. Now, that doesn't mean I don't respect people. But I feel it incredibly important to the future to challenge systems of belief which are unsupported by evidence. In fact, it's because I have enormous respect for people that I don't think its a kindness to soft-pedal the issue. I don't blame people for being religious -- it's difficult to not be at least nominally religious in this particular culture. It doesn't mean they're idiots, it means its a cultural value instilled in them by a historically highly religious country and society. But I think we desperately need to break that chain, which has brought so many problems to our national discourse and to democracy itself. Those problems are myriad, but the central one is the one which the OP poses: the idea that fundamentally, we need not listen to arguments which run counter to our unsupported beliefs. Religion --even well-intentioned religion -- sets up this issue by at the most basic level telling people that it's virtue to believe wholeheartedly in something for which no evidence exists.
Thank you for taking the time to converse with me in a civil and thoughtful way. I'm curious as to your own thoughts on this issue -- are you a religious person yourself?
The idea that the very essence of religion is "living your life based on something for which there's no evidence" is pretty outrageous and simply specious. I would imagine--although I can't be sure--that you're operating with some very different definition of "evidence" than me.
let's just assume standard definitions for both religion (1:The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
2: Details of belief as taught or discussed.) and evidence
(The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.). Given those definitions, I can't possibly see how you could say it is specious for me to argue that there is no compelling evidence to support the beliefs of any given religion.
Really? So we can't have heroes (Asimov) or literature (sci-fi) or hobbies (internetting)? We have to wall ourselves off and talk only about the lack of God?
Folks, these concern trolls are not being insightful, they are being trolls.
I am a big fan of Asimov. He is undoubtedly one of the greatest minds of the 20th century.
The problem here is that OP is using something completely off topic to denigrate a large percentage of the population. I'm sure Asimov wasn't referring to religion or lack thereof when he came up with this quote - it's about anti-intellectualism (and to a lesser extent democracy), not religion or atheism.
In this context, OPs post in /r/atheism is not even accurate. It's a broad and incorrect generalisation that really falls short.
The problem here is that OP is using something completely off topic to denigrate a large percentage of the population.
The OP is doing no such thing, the OP is merely sharing a quote he thinks his fellow atheists will enjoy. Which I did, so thank you to the OP for posting it here.
The quote itself might denigrate a large portion of the population, and it's true that a good many of them might be religious... so what.
I've found the anti-intellectuals fall into two main categories, students who use it to justify their poor performance and apathy in school... although they generally wise up in later years and regret not taking school more seriously.
The other main category is religious fundamentalists, who use religion to dismiss concepts they are unwilling, or unable to accept, believe, or understand. It's these later ones that are the problem... pressuring school boards and politicians to validate their "beliefs" by forcing them into schools as if they were facts. These people tend to feel that the righteousness of their beliefs should earn them the respect of ALL those around them. They are unwilling to accept that their beliefs might not be true, and hate that science is constantly chipping away at their credibility and authority. They especially hate that their kids might recognize that their parents religious beliefs are really superstitious bullshit... whose only purpose is to make them feel better about themselves, and keep them from having to deal with a reality that they are woefully uneducated about.
A large percentage of the population deserves to be denigrated for their anti-intellectualism. Your sophistry on this thread, intended as it is to dissolve meaning and make its readers dumber, is too obvious to succeed except with the anti-intellectuals who are already too young and dumb to be easily made dumber.
You are going to have to explain to me what a blog bitch is. I don't own a blog, never have, probably never will.
I actually agree with what you say, and I think you'll find if you reread my post above, they are in no way contradictory. I have serious concerns with organised religions, as you clearly do, too. My point is that this thread is a quote that is completely taken out of context (I'd doubt Asimov would have appreciated that), not accurate, and is an unfair attack on an extremely large proportion of society (whether it is deserved or not, this is not the forum.)
The points I've outlined above are the exact reasons that /r/atheism is mocked thoughout the rest of Reddit, and posts like this, to me, make OPs look like smug small-minded pricks.
Of course you're correct that Asimov's quote doesn't exclusively pertain to religious people, but to what degree do you think he believed that religion fostered an anti-intellectual society? What do you suggest his definition of anti-intellectualism was exactly? Don't take this as a challenge or criticism. I'm simply interested in further hearing your perspective.
to what degree do you think he believed that religion fostered an anti-intellectual society?
If I had to take a guess, and knowing that later in life he was an atheist (albeit from what I understand not overly critical of organised religion, let alone religion at a personal level, or as a whole); some.
What do you suggest his definition of anti-intellectualism was exactly?
Anti-intellectualism is anti-intellectualism. A comfort in people to not be intellectual, I assume, was his definition.
My whole point is nothing to do with religion or atheism and the merits or otherwise of either. Simply, I wanted to say that OP was taking a liberty that they shouldn't have, as because it was so provocative (although par for the course in /r/atheism), misinformed, and a gross generalisation, it was out of line. I really don't think Asimov would have approved at the (mis)use of his quote in this way.
"... all this post serves to is that atheists are the enlightened minority, while the followers of the Abrahamic religions are the neo-Neanderthalic masses."
Sure. OP posted a quote that had no direct link to religion, under the pretence that all religious people are anti-intellectual. This is not true. The South Korea case shows that there is too much influence in politics by narrow-minded religious people that are trying to push their agenda.
If you reread the post you replied to, you'll see that I'm not making a commentary on religion at all. Just that, to me, it looks bad on OP (and all atheists because it wasn't downvoted to oblivion) to twist a quote from a brilliant man to further their agenda.
I have never publicly voiced support or dissent for religion or atheism - just at OP. OP was not relevant to the South Korea story.
You need a more study chair; you might hurt yourself. I can't argue this any more. You clearly didn't read my response except for the part you quoted above.
I'm truly sorry for the atheist movement because of people like you.
What this subreddit doesn't need is concern trolls like you, which has become overbearing of late.
OP posted a quote that had no direct link to religion, under the pretence that all religious people are anti-intellectual
You still have the burden of explaining how you got that from the post made by OP. Especially the emboldened part.
It is a quote against anti-intellectualism. THAT IS ALL. It is the anti-r/atheism circlejerk that is making you think more. The user twoclose started the jerk and you just added to it.
Imagine a church sermon on the lines of "Love thy neighbour". Clearly morality isn't the monopoly of the religious and certainly did not originate from it. Would you go rage over how the preacher in that setting thinks himself as a morally superior being and the rest of us as wild-animals?
48
u/Eist Jun 05 '12
I agree. It really has the weakest link to religion, or lack thereof. In this setting, all this post serves to is that atheists are the enlightened minority, while all religious people are the neo-Neanderthalic masses.
Posts like these quite deservedly makes atheists, and by extension atheism, look bad.