A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"

Bowser

Ah, someone at least asking the right question.

I, as an individual, accept most all of what Jesus actually taught as being a good framework for a civilized society. Thomas Jefferson excised the sayings of Jesus and we call that collection the Jefferson Bible. It's an interesting document as the philosophy of Jesus makes a lot of sense, shorn of the mystic babble that religions added to that message. I don't agree with all of it, but it contains wisdom. Additionally the Humanist organization doesn't care what you believe about god, but how you behave towards your fellow man. Gandhi wrote "“There are Seven Deadly Social Sins: Politics without principle. Wealth without work. Commerce without morality. Pleasure without conscience. Education without character. Science without humility. Worship without sacrifice.” That about covers what I think about morals(the short version, anyway).

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Without the mystic babble, most of what Jesus said doesn't make any sense.

I know, I know! We're not going to agree on this. Just couldn't let it go without comment, is all.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Tiassa

It is not hiding it, it isn't there. Atheism has no real significance whatsoever when it comes to morals or anything else. I don't really want my lack of belief in the supernatural sky daddy to mean anything else, it is one of the least significant things it would matter to know about me. I want how I behave toward others to be attributed to the content of my character(good or bad). I am disappointed in your reaction to what I posted, I tried to put it as honestly as I can, I gave a lot of thought into it's composition and it seems you haven't given what I said any thought whatsoever. Rather than try to start a shouting match, I think you should simply try again, I have no interest in repeating myself and on this subject I have said what I have to say. I also do not think trying to convert you to my way of thinking is a lofty goal, but I was trying to give you an understanding that your disappointment with the lack of content of the atheist position is not due to the lack of content(and there is none), it is about you expecting that it would. Once you understand that, you can move on to the questions where you might get what you are looking for. But there is no such thing as an Atheist dogma, there are no precepts, there is no membership dues or church mortgage(though some people have failed, spectacularly, in trying to found one). Bowser just asked one of those questions, you don't seem to see the need.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Balerion

We can disagree about it, I don't, however, feel the need to convert anyone to my particular viewpoint. Everyone must come to their own conclusions on these things, there is no owners manual, I think we both agree. I certainly would not seek to impose my moral viewpoint on everyone(by law), claim it as superior or "righteous" or inspired by a deity who's priesthood seems always to speak for him. It is this behavior where the Atheist might be more likely to be engaged. It is this area where my atheism does have a moral purpose, but not in the name of my atheism, but because it is a morally repugnant, unAmerican, anti-Freedom, overbearing evil practiced by the current species of snakes that has taken over one of the political parties in this country. I'll leave it to the reader as to which party that is.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

However, the idea that such a thing might be possible originates in superstition, myth, legend and fable. Remove all of that, and there is no more value in searching for an outside intellect than searching for a cosmic Easter bunny.

They've accepted that the world is round. Now if we can get them to accept that the universe is 2,000,000 times older than they think it is, that earth is about 1/3 as old, and that during most of that time the species evolved from simple cells, and that human activity is warming the planet . . . then we'd be doing pretty good.

Like a religion it's full of superstition.

Or laughed at them.

What you described sounds like pseudoscience. Actual science has empirical evidence as its input. The output is not only text, but results. A specimen culture which, when exposed to antimicrobial agents over successive generations tends to evolve an immunity. So the end result of such a study is a new strain. Then come the words to explain what happened.

 

You sound like an agnostic atheist. You don't believe there is a god, but you recognize that there could be, however unlikely, since we don't know everything.

 

(Insert Title Here)

Hey, you said it, not me.

Then it really is a feel-good platform for lobbing stones at religious people.

Yes, it would seem he asked the "right" question, as in one that pertains solely to you and has nothing to do with how your proclaimed identity politic relates to other people.

And that, in the end, is the problem.

I get it. Atheism has nothing to do with anything but whatever an atheist wants to complain about. It's nice work if you can get it. So is porn if you're into it.

But here's the thing: Without that pathos, all identifying atheists are doing is lobbing Molotovs at the situation.

Your answers are the same as I've received over the years.

Analogously, the simple fact that some of our parenting laws are a bit screwy because they pertain to older circumstances we haven't completely eliminated is easy enough to acknowledge, but I'm not about to count myself among the men's rights movement. That is to say, there are plenty of issues to deal with in questions of men, women, and the law, but I'm not about to throw in with a movement whose entire purpose seems to be to remind us how horrible women are.

Similarly, the simple fact that there is no God such as we find described in scripture is what it is, but I'm not about to count myself among atheists; I simply don't throw in with supremacist movements.

And people who want to say there is no movement, or cohesive body politic, or whatever, can continue to deceive themselves. But it speaks poorly of all atheists everywhere—that is, you're staining each other—when the answer to everything is the functional equivalent of a Christian distancing himself from another by saying, "He's not a Christian".

There is no atheist movement? Take it up with the prominent figures who would design symbols for the movement, or travel across the United States raising funds to build regular congregations. Coordinated efforts to put adverts in public? Organizations with names like Atheists Union?

I get it. There is no atheist movement. Atheists might wish to explain that to the movement.

Fun irony: Take a look at Balerion's early response: "What's the matter, did someone say something uncomfortably true about Islam at dinner?" It reminds me of a member who used to post here, years ago, an evangelical who hated Catholics, and would routinely accuse me of being Catholic.

The fun part about Balerion's response is that the answer is simple enough: What's the matter? Have I been too soft on my human neighbors for his tastes?

In the end, it's no different from the religious fanatics making similar projections. Once upon a time, both here at Sciforums and in the world at large, that thought would have horrified the atheists that I know. Now, apparently, it's a point of pride.

My sin, as such, is expecting that (A) having no belief in God, and (B) engaging these religious fanatics was supposed to (C) help alleviate a bad situation.

But as this community's atheistic voice has once again demonstrated, result (C) has nothing to do with atheism.

 

Ethics and religiosity are very closely related. When religious people vote in democracies, their choices will almost certainly be influenced by their religiosity, as they try to behave as their consciences and their ethics suggest they should.

Some of the most spiritual, ethical and humane people that I've known in my life were devout theists. I like and respect those people tremendously, even if I don't share their religious beliefs.

Militant atheists and militant theists (along with militants everywhere in life, especially in politics) seem to me to possess very similar and equally disagreeable psychologies.

 

Tiassa,

Perhaps there is more than one class of "Atheists". Personally, I relegate questions of this sort to an inferior position because I simply do not know. Full stop. Period.

I subscribe to the mainstream views on most all topics, including the "Big Bang" and inflation thereafter. This does not preclude a "God of the gaps" having instantiated that big bang. Whichever, it is unknowable to me, therefore I am "Ignostic". Oh well, I don't feel that defines me as a person anymore than the fact I can't predict tomorrow's weather. Just my two cents...

 

A classic case of hiding one's head in the sand, ignoring the blatantly obvious, that there would be no lobbing stones at religious people if it weren't for the religious people lobbing stones at everyone else in the first place. If religions were kept behind closed doors where they belong, stones would be on the ground and not in flight.

It's stunningly hilarious Tiassa completely ignores this fact.

 

I disagree on your first point. Religiosity is about following the rules of your religion, not contemplating on ethics. Their hatred of women and minorities has nothing to do with ethics and everything to do with the teachings of their religion.

See above point for how twisted and immoral their teachings are. Maybe you can find the recent case of muslim girls in Saudi being burnt to death by the religious police because their male relatives weren't there. Or you can find the joke the Iranians make about the lampposts in Tehran being useful for hanging gay men. Or you can look at 11 or however many US states which still have anti-gay laws and thus deprive those people of their right to love and be loved. Or you could look at these 2 sites:

http://www.evilbible.com

http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/195861

My psychology gets very disagreeable indeed when people try to take away my basic human rights, or even kill me. You might feel the same if you were in my place.

 

100% accurate post, (Q).

 

Atheism isn't an alternative religion. It isn't even a "philosophy of life" as some might put it. It doesn't provide its adherents with a ready-made worldview, with all the ethical answers, and whisper the secrets of life's meaning and ultimate goal into their ear.

Atheism is just disbelief in the existence of religious deities.

That doesn't mean that being an atheist means living in an emotional and intellectual void.

Individual atheists will almost certainly fill their atheism out with stuff drawn from all over. Many (not all) atheists believe pretty strongly in scientific cosmology. (I'm one of the atheists that does.) But scientific cosmology isn't an atheist-specific thing. Many religious people believe in scientific cosmology as well.

And atheists will typically have ethical views that might be influenced from all directions. Many just follow their hearts and their consciences. Others fill it out intellectually with philosophical ethics. There are even atheists who practice Buddhist ethics and things like that.

Atheists often have purposes in life and gravitate to all kinds of causes. But these are typically going to be secular purposes and causes. There are no end of interest groups and charitable organizations out there that one can align with without that alignment having to be a religious practice.

That depends on the individual atheist. Atheists go to work every day and have careers that often consume much of their time. They have families. They enjoy sports, food, travel, reading, studying, doing charitable work or driving fast cars. You are going to encounter them every day in all of life's everyday circumstances. That's what they are interested in and it's their context. You probably won't recognize them as being atheists, because you and they won't be thinking about religion at all.

Atheists' lives rarely revolve around their being atheists. Atheism's just a philosophical/theological view. It isn't typically the pillar of somebody's social or psychological identity.

 

This is true for me as an agnostic as well, except of course when I am here at sciforums. In fact, I try to avoid talk of religion altogether being an army wife and being the lone agnostic in the family.

There is this however, as an ex Christian (more of the gnostic type eventually) it cannot help but be part of my psyche. So when I personally rejected this belief, I did feel a great loss of say like a good friend or even lover. It is this connection to the psyche of the believer that when threatened by what seems to be uncaring atheists that all hell breaks loose.

 

Tiassa

I don't lob Molotovs because of my atheism, but because of the butt-holery of the theists. If that butt-holery didn't exist then I would have nothing to lob those firebombs at. It's all about behavior , not belief.

Good, then you have no excuse to continue to be so prejudiced and unreasonable in your reply. Do something about that and we will have no problem.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Atheism basically refers to a broad position in the philosophy of religion, namely belief in the likely literal non-existence of religious deities.

Atheism isn't an "identity politic".

I still think that you are making the error of trying to conceive of a philosophical issues in the ideological political terms that apparently are more familiar to you.

You seem to be complaining up a storm yourself. If you believe that atheists need to have an atheist ideology from which to complain, does the same thing apply to you? Where are you coming from with regards to religion?

I agree with you that there's a hard-edged kind of militant atheist who does seem to be sadly lacking in compassion and empathy. We see some of that right here on Sciforums.

I think that's a function of fanaticism perhaps, or of a fundamentalist sort of personality. We often see it very much on display among Christian and Islamic fundamentalists. You even display it yourself Tiassa, over on the politics forum when you are busily caricaturizing and denouncing Republicans. You don't seem to have very much interest then in understanding their concerns, let alone in protecting their feelings.

My own opinion is that this "lack of pathos" thing that you refer to is more a function of individual psychology than anything else.

That's bad generalizing. It's as if somebody said that they don't support civil rights for African-Americans, because they don't like welfare cheats. You seem to think that because some atheists are certifiable assholes, that atheism is a "supremacist movement" that you and others should reject and oppose. That's fine, except for the little problem that it's a caricature.

I'm quite willing to tell atheists who behave like assholes that they are behaving like assholes. Or Christians, or Muslims, or partisans of the Democratic or Republican parties here in the US. Assholes are assholes, wherever we encounter them.

But the fact that Christian or Democratic party assholes undoubtedly exist doesn't mean that Christianity or the Democratic party are nothing more than asshole "supremacist movements". That would clearly be faulty generalization.

There are no end of Christians who claim the authority to dictate what "true Christianity" is and isn't. There are no end of voices purporting to speak for "the 99 percent". But does all of the rest of Christianity, or everyone who isn't super-rich, agree with what these would-be sheep-herders are saying and acknowledge their views as their own? (Most people probably don't even know that they exist.)

 

This whole thread has me direly confused about SF: when is generalisation acceptable? Does one buy a license? What sort of objections or appeal process exist?

 

I don't know why we're bothering to respond. There's no substance here. Everything is vague or disguised as metaphor.

 

My bold. Damn right, as long as the religionists persecute women and minorities.

It's nothing to do with fanaticism or fundamentalism, just a desire not to be persecuted or demonised.

 

Exactly. To paraphrase Aqueous Id's fantastic post, this isn't militancy, it's argument.