Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

[Londoner]

If I demonise another person I am casting them in the role of anger, spite, malevolence, ignorance, or some other such immorality. There is a demon, therefore, in my perception. To demonise another person is to attribute to them the personification of some immorality.

A demon simply is what it is; it acts as it must do, according to its nature. So I would say to demonise somebody is to deny they are making ethical decisions in the way that a human does, i.e. that the person is no longer is open to empathy or reason, thus are incapable of reform. So, for example, we might say that the Nazis demonised the Jews, making them out to be less than human.

But less strongly, one might talk about 'having demons' and be referring to something that controls you; a mental problem, or an addiction say. You are not fully possessed in that you are conscious on some level that you have a problem, but you are not capable of doing anything about it. We can imagine how meeting Jesus might enable someone to cast out that sort of demon.

[Belinda]

If I demonise another person I am casting them in the role of anger, spite, malevolence, ignorance, or some other such immorality. There is a demon, therefore, in my perception. To demonise another person is to attribute to them the personification of some immorality.

A demon simply is what it is; it acts as it must do, according to its nature. So I would say to demonise somebody is to deny they are making ethical decisions in the way that a human does, i.e. that the person is no longer is open to empathy or reason, thus are incapable of reform. So, for example, we might say that the Nazis demonised the Jews, making them out to be less than human.

But less strongly, one might talk about 'having demons' and be referring to something that controls you; a mental problem, or an addiction say. You are not fully possessed in that you are conscious on some level that you have a problem, but you are not capable of doing anything about it. We can imagine how meeting Jesus might enable someone to cast out that sort of demon.

Yes, Londoner. And to demonise someone, or a group of people, might also be to shed one's own faults, sins, or shortcomings on to someone else or on to a group of people. So atheists are accused by some believers of being sinful; and this allows the believer to feel that they occupy the moral high ground. People who esteem themselves don't demonise but take responsibility upon themselves.Jews and Nazis are a case of the Germans seeing what was wrong with Germany and blaming Jews for the economic problems. In order to blame Jews convincingly the Nazis had to demonise them as you say, Londoner, "So I would say to demonise somebody is to deny they are making ethical decisions in the way that a human does, i.e. that the person is no longer is open to empathy or reason, thus are incapable of reform. So, for example, we might say that the Nazis demonised the Jews, making them out to be less than human."
I appreciate the special point you make that the demonised person or group is "incapable of reform": the condition of a demon is permanent, for if it were not conceived of as permanent the demoniser could not be absolved of reponsibility.

[Immanuel Can]

My purpose is not to disagree with everything you say. It just so happens that we think differently to each other which
given how you are a theist and I am an atheist is only to be expected even though I do not really care what you believe

Actually, that's exactly what is rationally consistent with the Materialist worldview -- you shouldn't care what I think, right or wrong, unless there's power at stake. Here, there's none, of course. So why would you need to care?

I accept that. It makes sense. Thanks for your frankness. And I mean that without irony. I regard such blunt honesty highly.

[Immanuel Can]

If I demonise another person I am casting them in the role of anger, spite, malevolence, ignorance, or some other such immorality. There is a demon, therefore, in my perception. To demonise another person is to attribute to them the personification of some immorality.

Fine. But the concept of anything being bad comes from my worldview, not apparently from yours.

In a Materialist view, there is no "immorality." Nothing is objectively wrong. If one wants to do it and can do it, or if one does not care who objects, one simply does it. After that, there's nothing to be said, based on Materialist suppositions. "Demonizing," then, even were it actually being done, simply isn't "bad." At least, that's what a Materialist has to think, in order to avoid hypocrisy. (Mind you, even hypocrisy cannot be "bad" and rational consistency or sincerity cannot be a virtue, since there are no such things rationalizable with a Materialist worldview.)

So it cannot be clear that the OP is claiming anything. From a Materialist perspective, it simply cannot be objectively "wrong" for anyone to "demonize" anything or anyone. But I doubt that anybody at all is being "demonized" anyway...as I say below.

Immanuel is not stupid or uninformed and does of course know all this. What I don't understand is why Immanuel Can doesn't speak up for theism instead of spuriously attacking atheists.

Now I'm amused! So, wait a minute...

A person identifies as an "A-theist." That is, he or she claims that there is but one certain thing in the world: that there is no God, or perhaps that there is no evidence for God. And hence, he or she is quite confident that all Theists are deluded. (S)he gets on line to propose this view of things. And now (s)he is not attacking Theism? Instead, (s)he's the victim, and any criticism of that is "spurious," and undeserved. (S)he's a poor, innocent, helpless waif, assailed by the naughty Theists?

A little ironic, that. If Theists are accused of "demonizing" Atheists by disagreeing with them, what are the Atheists doing by self-identifying as antithetical to the Theists, and nothing more? it's the one affirmative claim that "Atheists" make, by definition. By their own proud declaration, the sum of their ideology is a rejection of Theism. And according to their own line of defence, they've nothing more to defend, and not a thing more to offer the world.

Or course, this is the problem with the OP. The "demonization of Atheists" really means simply "the questioning of Atheism." That's what's not wanted. The OP poster doesn't want his ideology to be subjected to any scrutiny or critique. He wants a philosophical "pass" for his prejudices, and an unqualified license to criticize Theism, and to position Theists as if they were the aggressors, it would seem. We can't think otherwise, given the wording of the OP.

But I need to point out here that nobody's making it personal, saying that somebody who's an Atheist is evil: all we're saying is that Atheism is a erroneous and dangerous ideology...and there's very little that one could say that has so much historical evidence to support it. Nevertheless, this is characterized by the OP as "demonization," and postulated as a personal attack? At least, that's what the OP wants us to assume.

I would say this is simple nonsense. I submit to you that if an ideology is so foolish and weak that it has to go ad hominem immediately, just to survive, and then has to protest its victimhood because it cannot stand to be scrutinized or criticized, then no "demonization" of it is necessary at all. It's manifestly a snowflake ideology. It can't take the heat of ordinary, reasonable philosophical scrutiny.

And I think that's pretty clear about Atheism. It doesn't stand up to the first level of criticism. But to say so is not to say anything about Atheists as people, so no one's being "demonized." There is nothing directed to Atheists as persons being said, except that they haven't thought things through -- and that hardly qualifies as "demonization" of anyone. It sounds to me like ordinary philosophical-debating practice.

[surreptitious57]

The tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered empty by a group of women on the Sunday following the execution

Why is there no account in any of the Gospels about who could have removed the body and why they would have done so
For a body still in the tomb could not be accepted as evidence of resurrection so it had to be removed to maintain the lie
The tomb was not guarded after Jesus was buried in it and so his body could easily have been removed any time after this

Jesus disciples had real experiences with one whom they believed was the risen Christ

How do the Gospel writers know that they were actually real experiences and not hallucinations induced by extreme panic
as a result of seeing Jesus crucified and of being in genuine fear of their own lives too. Since Peter was crucified and Judas
committed suicide but the rest went in to hiding because of such fear. So did they really see Jesus or merely think they did

As a result of these disciples which had the resurrection at its centre the Christian Church was established and grew

Eventually it did but for the first four hundred years after the death of Jesus Christianity was no more than a cult for it only
really started to gain prominence following the collapse of the Roman Empire. Which would have seen it as a threat [ though
some Emperors did convert to Christianity ] Also the notion of a belief system with just one God [ albeit a three in one God ]
would have been a revolutionary concept to the Romans who like the Greeks were a multi theistic pagan worshipping society

I notice you have not addressed any of this Mr Can so am reposting it again to remind you should you actually want to reply

[Immanuel Can]

The tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered empty by a group of women on the Sunday following the execution

Why is there no account in any of the Gospels about who could have removed the body and why they would have done so
For a body still in the tomb could not be accepted as evidence of resurrection so it had to be removed to maintain the lie
The tomb was not guarded after Jesus was buried in it and so his body could easily have been removed any time after this

Jesus disciples had real experiences with one whom they believed was the risen Christ

How do the Gospel writers know that they were actually real experiences and not hallucinations induced by extreme panic
as a result of seeing Jesus crucified and of being in genuine fear of their own lives too. Since Peter was crucified and Judas
committed suicide but the rest went in to hiding because of such fear. So did they really see Jesus or merely think they did

As a result of these disciples which had the resurrection at its centre the Christian Church was established and grew

Eventually it did but for the first four hundred years after the death of Jesus Christianity was no more than a cult for it only
really started to gain prominence following the collapse of the Roman Empire. Which would have seen it as a threat [ though
some Emperors did convert to Christianity ] Also the notion of a belief system with just one God [ albeit a three in one God ]
would have been a revolutionary concept to the Romans who like the Greeks were a multi theistic pagan worshipping society

I notice you have not addressed any of this Mr Can so am reposting it again to remind you should you actually want to reply

That is because these question are answered well in the readily-available literature: the "disciples stole the body" objection, the "hallucination" objection, the "'apostolic succession" question -- all these were among the first objections ever raised, and have long since been answered in print...repeatedly, at that. At the popular-historical level, Josh McDowell's book "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" dispatches all these. If you prefer the perspective of a skeptic, I recommend Frank Morison's "Who Moved the Stone," which I suspect you'll like even better. Or, for a more philosophical approach, you could look at Dr. Norman Geisler's "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist," though the title might displease you at first.

But one has to be willing to consult the literature available. If one wishes simply to assume there ARE no answer, one will not find them. If your interest is genuine, I suspect you'll find these books quite helpful.

[surreptitious57]

My purpose is not to disagree with everything you say. It just so happens that we think differently to each other which
given how you are a theist and I am an atheist is only to be expected even though I do not really care what you believe

I accept that. It makes sense. Thanks for your frankness. And I mean that without irony. I regard such blunt honesty highly

I was being honest but not frankly or bluntly. As a matter of principle I fully support the right of anyone to think whatever they
want to. It is not for me to tell anyone how they should. Because I only control my own thinking and leave others to do likewise

[Immanuel Can]

I was being honest but not frankly or bluntly. As a matter of principle I fully support the right of anyone to think whatever they
want to. It is not for me to tell anyone how they should. Because I only control my own thinking and leave others to do likewise

How about that: we found something on which we agree: coercion is anathema to genuine belief, and responsibility for beliefs rests with the believer. Agreed.

[Londoner]

The tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered empty by a group of women on the Sunday following the execution

Why is there no account in any of the Gospels about who could have removed the body and why they would have done so
For a body still in the tomb could not be accepted as evidence of resurrection so it had to be removed to maintain the lie
The tomb was not guarded after Jesus was buried in it and so his body could easily have been removed any time after this...

I don't think this and the other questions are unreasonable, but aren't we demanding a higher degree of corroboration than we can reasonably expect?

It is an account of a unique event. Suppose somebody claimed to be abducted by aliens, say. They describe what happened - and there are also accounts by other people who witnessed the same event, or aspects of it. In that case, I would think we ought to take their story seriously. But I do not see how such accounts could possibly tie up all the potential loose ends, such that anyone who read the story must be convinced that it was true, that there could be no other explanation.

That doesn't mean that the story must be true; my point is that we judge things as being true if they as far as they are like all the other things we consider are true. If it is about something very unlike our normal experience we are unable to judge.

In other areas of philosophy we are comfortable with saying we cannot know the truth - or falsity - of things.

[uwot]

...coercion is anathema to genuine belief...

Really Mr Can? Then why do we need to be warned about hell?

[surreptitious57]

The tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered empty by a group of women on the Sunday following the execution

Why is there no account in any of the Gospels about who could have removed the body and why they would have done so
For a body still in the tomb could not be accepted as evidence of resurrection so it had to be removed to maintain the lie
The tomb was not guarded after Jesus was buried in it and so his body could easily have been removed any time after this

It is an account of a unique event. Suppose somebody claimed to be abducted by aliens say. They describe what happened - and there are also accounts by other people who witnessed the same event or aspects of it. In that case I would think we ought to take their story seriously. But I
do not see how such accounts could possibly tie up all the potential loose ends such that anyone who read the story must be convinced that it was true that there could be no other explanation

The Gospels were written seventy years after the death of Jesus and there are inconsistencies in the four separate accounts. And there were also other accounts which were not validated such as for example the Gospel of Mary Magdalene simply because she was a woman [ The entire Bible is in actual fact written exclusively by men ] All of this is sufficient reason to question the validity of every single known account of the Resurrection

[Immanuel Can]

The Gospels were written seventy years after the death of Jesus and there are inconsistencies in the four separate accounts. And there were also other accounts which were not validated such as for example the Gospel of Mary Magdalene simply because she was a woman [ The entire Bible is in actual fact written exclusively by men ] All of this is sufficient reason to question the validity of every single known account of the Resurrection

Not interested in the literature, then?

The "it was written by men" is the most perverse kind of (literally) ad hominem argument, and can have no impact whatsoever on whether or not the accounts are truthful. Basic logic, that.

You've clearly dipped into the very weak end of the "anti-resurrection" literature, and are channelling the old "gnostic gospel" kind of argument. Aren't you even a bit interested in the other side of the case? Because there certainly is one, and it's much stronger than what you're offering.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

But I need to point out here that nobody's making it personal, saying that somebody who's an Atheist is evil: all we're saying is that Atheism is a erroneous and dangerous ideology.

I am glad that you personally don't demonise atheists.

I identify myself as atheist as a social convenience for the sake of simple people such as the nice Jehovah's Witnesses who called a few days ago. I don't want to waste their time.

God is not a supernatural Being but is the ongoing efforts of good people to make the world a better place. Theists and atheists try to do this together. I think that belief or unbelief in a Superbeing called God does not make much difference and we have all got more urgent worries of a moral nature.

Atheists and theists of goodwill have the same moral principles .

[Immanuel Can]

Atheists and theists of goodwill have the same moral principles .

I think that's true. Good moral principles are really one thing, whomever practices them. Rape and murder, lying and stealing are equally wrong for Theists and Atheists. And mercy and justice, truth and peace, are equally good for both.

But admittedly, there are Theists who do not follow their principles consistently, on the one hand; and there are Atheists who do follow the logic of their beliefs on the other. In other words, there are hypocritical televangelists, and there are kindly-inclined, non-nihilistic Atheists -- though neither of those can rationally reconcile their moral condition with their professed ideology.

And so, as a Theist, I'm thankful for all the Atheists that are better people than their ideology warrants them in being.

[Harbal]

neither of those can rationally reconcile their moral condition with their professed ideology.

Does that matter? Is there less value in a good action if you only do it because it feels right?