Are the "New Atheists" As Bad as Christian Fundamentalists?

Betty:
I find it interesting that what occurs between an infant and her mother is precisely the opposite of what you claim.  The instinct to bond is crucial to survival, and the actions of an infant at the breast can only be described as worship.
 You have made two seperate and distinctly different statements.
Bonding IS crucial to survival. I agree.

However:
"Can only be described as worship".
 
One cannot worship while eating!  I don't think that infants are capable of multi-tasking.

an infant at the breast can only be described as worship.
Only? Maybe "only" to you! I can think of many ways to describe it. But I'll say, "it's just animal instinct". ( or evolutionary, if you prefer)

Raven #41 "nice anology but not quite the same thing"
.
It wasn't an analogy at all.  I DIDN'T say "feeding", I said "actions at the breast".  And the caregiver doesn't have to be female, either.  It's the bonding that is important; the physical nourishment is secondary.  Without emotional interaction, "failure to thrive" can kill just as surely as starvation.
.
Otter #42 "Bonding IS crucial to survival. I agree."
.
And yet you let yourself distract yourself by following a tangent.  It would seem that even atheists can let ideology trump evidence, huh?

Betty

Skafloki #43 "I'll say, "it's just animal instinct". ( or evolutionary, if you prefer)"
.
You'll get no arguments from me.  The instinct to worship is innate and has been 'selected for' by evolutionary pressure.  It is seen in every culture in every time and place that we have looked.  In contrast, atheism must be taught.  It's probably not a very good long-term survival strategy.

Betty

I got something you can worship, Betty;

That's pretty cheeky, skafloki(B)

[but i guess you've answered that proverbial question... lmao]

[image]no problem honey Ska made an excellent point I thought

-ravenwynter1

LOL, I think it was my point

http://natureorgod.lefora.com/2009/11/03/are-the-new-atheists-as-bad-as-christian-fundament/page2/#post15611624

Ska's point though was rather good also.

Why can't you religious types understand that the universe and life itself is mysterious and wonderful, with or without a god.

Anthropal #33 "People don't seem to realise that atheism is not a religion bound with hard and fast rules, but is actually the position in which we are all born, and if not for the intervention of theists, would remain in all our lives."
.
I find it interesting that what occurs between an infant and her mother is precisely the opposite of what you claim.  The instinct to bond is crucial to survival, and the actions of an infant at the breast can only be described as worship.
.
Betty

-bettypickering1

I would say adoration, but I'm sure when the child reaches a time of understanding that they don't look at the mother as a deity.

In contrast, atheism must be taught.  It's probably not a very good long-term survival strategy.

-bettypickering1

What?

Religions are taught, atheism is simply a natural state. Homo sapiens appeared some 200,000 years ago, and the first skeins of religion took another 160,000 years to appear.

I'd say that refutes your point, but agree that with the development of civilisation that religion became a way of uniting people and controlling the population.

Anthropal #50 "Religions are taught, atheism is simply a natural state."
.
It looks to me as if you're flailing away at the same straw man that distracts Mr. Biggles; you conflate and then confuse religion with spirituality.  In post #49 you tacitly conceded to my position that worship is innate with, "I would say adoration."
Consider this:
"Definitions of adoration on the Web:
worship: a feeling of profound love and admiration
the act of admiring strongly
the worship given to God alone
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Adoration (Latin) is to give homage or worship to someone or something.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoration
.
Definitions of worship on the Web:
idolize: love unquestioningly and uncritically or to excess; venerate as an idol; "Many teenagers idolized the Beatles"
show devotion to (a deity); "Many Hindus worship Shiva"
the activity of worshipping
attend religious services; "They worship in the traditional manner"
a feeling of profound love and admiration
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Worship literally means "worth-ship". Giving worth to something. In its older sense in English of worthiness or respect (Anglo-Saxon,worthscripe), worship may on occasion refer to an attitude towards someone of immensely elevated social status, such as a lord or a monarch, or, more loosely ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worship"
.
I think the important thing here is for you and I to strive to be very careful in our choice of terminology.  Scrupulous respect for the very different connotations that the word 'religion' invokes will take us far along our path to mutual accord.  For me, the distinct character of religion is neatly encapsulated in the aphorism "Religion is Politics rolling on wheels stolen from Spirituality."  It should be obvious that there is NO element of politics in the relationship between infant and caregiver.  It's only when that primal bubble is invaded by others that politics -- and thus religion -- can become operative.  Once we recognize that line of demarcation, everything you say about Religion is perfectly agreeable to me.  It's the blurring of that line by the inappropriate intrusion of social dynamics into the primal space occupied by the infant/caregiver duo that triggers my disagreement.
.
So to recap: we agree that spirituality/worship/adoration is the basic condition of humans and that religion/politics is a learned phenomenon.  Once we agree upon the proper place for differentiation between the two, our accord will be complete.
.
Thank you for your generous input.
.
Betty

You are the "BOMB" Betty,....I have come to love to read your post.

Sam

Thank you, Sambo; you make me feel special, and I'm not.  I simply strive to do the best I can with what little I've got.
.
You bless my day; may yours be equally blessed!

Betty

Hello, new to the group and all.  I'll try to keep this short.  I've been around and involved in religious debate for ten years, online or in real life.  I've seen and argued almost every version of the debate known to man.  Many times it falls into bickering about semantics, such as the debate going on now.  Misuse of words is often a debater's greatest weakness, something I have been known to suffer from many times as well.  In my experience, when people began to stray away from the actual argument itself, and focus more on what the words they are using actually mean, it's almost a guaranteed stalemate.  Neither side will ever submit or "convert" to the other's way of thinking.  More often than not, people just love to argue.  They loose site of what they are arguing about, looking only to gain that "one up" over their adversary.  A person feels really good about themselves when in their mind a counter argument of theirs appears to trump the other person's.  It's like a natural high.  In my younger days (not to say that I'm an old fart), I fell prey to all of these things time and time again, and debating, after awhile, lost all of its luster.  The allure simply wasn't there anymore, and I just didn't see the point in debating with someone who's views, no matter what I said or proved, wouldn't change.  It's a never ending cycle of redundancy.  And speaking of redundancy, I suppose a little about myself wouldn't hurt.  I was raised a christian, did the church thing and everything that came with it.  I was very active, choir and all that, until when I was nineteen, for various reasons, I no longer believed.  It was literally overnight.  I went to bed a believer, and woke up with the firm opinion that there is no god.  I was angry for awhile, with a feeling of betrayal, of time lost.  I started doing my own research, and discovered many interesting things, many of which ironically were never included in any of the weekly sermons I had heard, which only infuriated me further.  For awhile, I referred to myself as an atheist, not really understanding what the term meant, only using it when looking at others who seemed to share in my beliefs called themselves.  After a few years, my anger began to subside, whether from maturity or simple frustration from the countless debates, I still don't know.  I began to delve deeper into what I actually believed, but continued to call myself atheist simply because it saved precious time.  Now, I no longer think of myself as an atheist, but it is the closest to what I believe.  Over the years I've come to the opinion that, as individuals, deep down, humans are selfish, narcissistic, and capable of cruelty unmeasured.  I do not dispute that we have the capacity for good too, it's just overshadowed so often by the bad.  In my experience, most people only behave, or "do as they're told," because someone is watching, or the threat of someone finding out what they did stays their hand.  I believe this concept can readily be applied to religion.  Back in the day, the human people were chaotic at best, running rampant.  Some people in the know, most likely very powerful families, caught on to the fact that people actually behave when others are around to judge them, and created a means to have that be a constant.  Having people think that someone is watching you, everything you do, say, or even think, is a very simplistic, yet powerful tool of keeping people in line.  All the snakes and ladders that were attached later only helped to contain the individuals, distracting them from what was going on over their heads.  Governments have applied the same concept to their people.  I am by no means stating that one person's belief is right, while the other is wrong, because I simply do not know.  I like to look at it in terms of math.  An equation must be balanced, one side to the other.  If you cancel one side, for whatever reason, then by default you must do the same to the other side to keep it balanced.  That is how I view atheism and theism, or the god equation as I call it.  For me, so far, I haven't seen anything that would lead me to even look at the equation, let alone debate whether one side holds credence over the other.  Again, these are just my opinions, and apologies if I might have offended anyone, it is never my intention to do so.  I am but a simple man, who occasionally will ramble when I said I would keep it short.  Thank you for inviting me to the community, and I will try to be as active as my free time allows.     

I think the important thing here is for you and I to strive to be very careful in our choice of terminology.  Scrupulous respect for the very different connotations that the word 'religion' invokes will take us far along our path to mutual accord.  For me, the distinct character of religion is neatly encapsulated in the aphorism "Religion is Politics rolling on wheels stolen from Spirituality."  It should be obvious that there is NO element of politics in the relationship between infant and caregiver.  It's only when that primal bubble is invaded by others that politics -- and thus religion -- can become operative.  Once we recognize that line of demarcation, everything you say about Religion is perfectly agreeable to me.  It's the blurring of that line by the inappropriate intrusion of social dynamics into the primal space occupied by the infant/caregiver duo that triggers my disagreement.
.
So to recap: we agree that spirituality/worship/adoration is the basic condition of humans and that religion/politics is a learned phenomenon.  Once we agree upon the proper place for differentiation between the two, our accord will be complete.
.
Thank you for your generous input.

-bettypickering1

My own definition is 'primal state', which is the state into which newborns arrive. Atheists can be spiritual also, but a theist has a deity to explain this spirituality. Your earlier explanation implied that the mother became a deity.