Millenials - the "most atheist" or merely a bunch of authoritarians?

Waestrel

You could easily say that the "fastest growing religion" is no religion. The millennials are surely are a very non religious lot, but is it the "right" type of atheism? Is it actually a non belief in superstition or supernatural, and a firm belief in humanitarianism and rationality? I see a lot of vitroil directed to the Catholic church, but often the same people will spew the same hate towards anyone who disagrees. I speak of course of militant feminists, SJW types etc.

My question is: Does atheism denote an embrace of rationality, or is it merely a case of non belief in religion? Is a angry SJW "just as good" an atheist as Sam Harris, or Christopher Hitchens, who were/are both strong humanitarians.

Sadly I think the current cohort of atheists are surely godless, but Im not sure if they are humanitarian.



https://idiocraties.wordpress.com/2016/10/05/the-godlessness-of-millennials/

Cabaal

Waestrel wrote: »

You could easily say that the "fastest growing religion" is no religion.

Well no you couldn't easily say that at all, so thats the first issue here
atheism is a lack of a belief, as such it can't be a religion

Religion

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

smacl

Being an atheist says no more about a person than they don't believe in a god or gods. I think you're making a fundamental mistake in your post in that it assumes there is more to atheism than this, such as a common or shared philosophy or world view. Atheists can't reasonably be considered as a homogeneous group the way members of a given religion can. As such the context where it makes any sense to talk about atheists collectively is very narrow.

Michael OBrien

Atheism is not a belief system, a philosophy or a worldview. You cannot be a 'bad' atheist or not the 'right type' of atheist unless you are NOT an atheist and pretend to be (some theists like to use the term ex-atheist when they really mean some form of non practicing theist that had some shady practices.)
"no religion" is not atheism. Not attending church is not atheism. Being non religious is not necessarily being an atheist any more than not being fond of marriages makes one a bachelor. They simply share some aspects in common usually.

Society may have a polerisation happening lately as religion gets a lot more scrutiny (albeit fairly shallowly) and information and opinion is viewed as equally valid rather than deserving of discrimination based on merit.

The loss of some of the outward signs of religious practice does not eradicate hundreds of years of cultural soakage by religion that has contaminated the very nature of ethics. This contamination was a problem that Nietzsche recognised in the 19th Century with his "God is dead" statements. Society has not had enough time, or support, to properly replace ethical frameworks with non-religious influences that relate to the writings of Hume or Ingersoll. So many of the people flounce around with a mish mash of foundationaless opinions that often have contradictions or fallacies. It is to be expected.

Also religion profits off fear and misery, and is set up to allow for that when challenged, so a bit of a back and forth will occur by design.

recedite

The article quoted characterises the millennials as deluded lefty liberals, and seems to suggest that older right wing conservative types have a rational edge over them.
So I'm not sure how you get from that, to calling the millenials "a bunch of authoritarians"?
Some good points in the article though. Are they any more rational than their forebears? I'm amazed at the frequency of plastic angels and buddhas appearing in people's houses these days.
New idols, same old $hit.

magicbastarder

the article just descends into 'aren't the youth just terrible' bolloxology, and thus deserves little analysis.

Cabaal

To be fair I'm an atheist and so are many others on this forum, but I certainly do not take it for granted that they also share my view on politics, taxes, healthcare, etc. I only known that they don't share my view in relation to gods, thats really it and thats where it ends.

Peregrinus

Waestrel wrote: »

My question is: Does atheism denote an embrace of rationality, or is it merely a case of non belief in religion?

Atheism denotes a lack of belief in any god or gods, nothing more.

Waestrel wrote: »

Is a angry SJW "just as good" an atheist as Sam Harris, or Christopher Hitchens, who were/are both strong humanitarians.

He's just as atheist as Harris or Hitchens. He may or may not be just as humanitarian, but that's an entirely separate question. Atheists can be found anywhere on the humanitarian/depraved monster of selfishness spectrum, and humanitarians can be found anywhere on the theist/atheist spectrum.

Waestrel wrote: »

Sadly I think the current cohort of atheists are surely godless, but Im not sure if they are humanitarian.

Why would they be? If atheism simply denotes the lack of a particular belief, it's very hard to see how that would logically require the embrace of any particular affirmative beliefs or values.

Delirium

magicbastarder wrote: »

the article just descends into 'aren't the youth just terrible' bolloxology, and thus deserves little analysis.

The 'article' is a blog post by the OP. There is no reason (since they authored the piece) that they couldn't have just posted the text here.

*grrr to click-baiting* :P

magicbastarder

Delirium wrote: »

The 'article' is a blog post by the OP.

i'd assumed as much.

seamus

Like "generation X" and "generation Y" before it, the word "millenials" is just bolloxology to allow some withered old misanthrope to have a whinge about "the youth of today".

Pretty much as soon as I hear someone use the word when attempting to have a serious conversation about society and social issues, I instantly tag them as a moron.

magicbastarder

seamus wrote: »

the word "millenials" is just bolloxology to allow some withered old misanthrope

the author self-identifies as 'a contrarian millenial'.

seamus

You don't have to be withered in the body to be withered in the mind

Akrasia

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'd assumed as much.

I expect it to be featured as an opinion piece in the irish Independent some time next week. Whatever day that John Waters is off

cowboyBuilder

Waestrel wrote: »

You could easily say that the "fastest growing religion" is no religion. The millennials are surely are a very non religious lot, but is it the "right" type of atheism? Is it actually a non belief in superstition or supernatural, and a firm belief in humanitarianism and rationality? I see a lot of vitroil directed to the Catholic church, but often the same people will spew the same hate towards anyone who disagrees. I speak of course of militant feminists, SJW types etc.

My question is: Does atheism denote an embrace of rationality, or is it merely a case of non belief in religion? Is a angry SJW "just as good" an atheist as Sam Harris, or Christopher Hitchens, who were/are both strong humanitarians.

Sadly I think the current cohort of atheists are surely godless, but Im not sure if they are humanitarian.



https://idiocraties.wordpress.com/2016/10/05/the-godlessness-of-millennials/

Yep, thats the regressive left these days, it's agree with us OR ELSE!!!!

They will have no problem spewing hate toward the Catholic church or Christians in general - but they'll keep staunchly quiet with Islam.

hmmmm - That might make them 'racist' or worse 'Islamaphobic'

Someone should explain to these spoilt kids that Islam is not actually a race.

robindch

Delirium wrote: »

*grrr to click-baiting*

Not sure if it's really click-baiting - the blog is just a slightly longer version of the same vacuous prose.

@Waestrel - can you be a little bit more specific and engage in some kind of discussion?

If this thread turns out to be a driveby, it'll be shut down in due course.

Zubeneschamali

magicbastarder wrote: »

the article just descends into 'aren't the youth just terrible' bolloxology, and thus deserves little analysis.

I find that anything that uses "Social Justice Warrior" as an insult can be ignored.

PopePalpatine

Akrasia wrote: »

I expect it to be featured as an opinion piece in the irish Independent some time next week. Whatever day that John Waters is off

Make John Waters 30 years younger and you have the gist of OP's blog post. :pac:

Hotblack Desiato

Waestrel wrote: »

Sam Harris, or Christopher Hitchens, who were/are both strong humanitarians.

Hitchens strongly supported the Iraq war, which didn't work out that well on the humanitarian front.

Samaris

What is "most atheist"? Taking it as atheism means having no god/no belief in god, can you have -more- no belief than someone else?

Can you be a Level 10 Atheist?

riffmongous

smacl wrote: »

Being an atheist says no more about a person than they don't believe in a god or gods. I think you're making a fundamental mistake in your post in that it assumes there is more to atheism than this, such as a common or shared philosophy or world view. Atheists can't reasonably be considered as a homogeneous group the way members of a given religion can. As such the context where it makes any sense to talk about atheists collectively is very narrow.

For the sake of argument, is this really true? Are members of a religion more homogeneous than atheists are? Do they really have more in common than belief in a god? Sure you can easily say that they do and they believe in the x,y,z of the religion but as we see in Ireland, while people are supposed to believe these things, the reality is often that they don't in practice and on the humanitarian scale religious people can vary quite a lot

magicbastarder

in a sense - in terms of religious belief - atheism is as homogenous as you can get. in that it simply boils down to 'i don't believe in god', and there's not as many variations in that belief structure as there would be with catholicism.
but you're just arguing about whether atheists are a homogenous group, or whether their beliefs are homogenous.

Peregrinus

magicbastarder wrote: »

in a sense - in terms of religious belief - atheism is as homogenous as you can get. in that it simply boils down to 'i don't believe in god', and there's not as many variations in that belief structure as there would be with catholicism.
but you're just arguing about whether atheists are a homogenous group, or whether their beliefs are homogenous.

Well, yes, atheists are homogenous, but in a sense it's a trivial homogeneity. Atheists are homogenous to the extend that they all lack a belief in God, but that's like saying that a group of people are homogenous in the sense that none of them have brown eyes, or none of them follow association football. Atheists are not at all homogenous in terms of what they do believe, which in most contexts is a much more interesting, relevant and informative characteristic than what they do not believe.

If you can say that all atheists are homogenous in the sense that they are not theists, couldn't you with equal validity say that all theists are homogenous in the sense that they are not atheists? In both cases I think the claim is formally true, but trivial.

looksee

We have said all this stuff before, it gets a bit tedious repeating it, especially as we are now talking to ourselves

magicbastarder

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, yes, atheists are homogenous, but in a sense it's a trivial homogeneity.

that's what i'd intended to say in my post.

magicbastarder

the OP has deleted the article from the blog, i see.

robindch

magicbastarder wrote: »

the OP has deleted the article from the blog, i see.

And is now rambling on about the Irish Army and how it relates (or not) to libertarianism. At least some of this post has been spell-checked.

Right, folks, I think we're looking at a driveby.

Move along now. Nothing to see.

/thread