| Author |
Topic:
Atheism 3.0: A new approach
|
KnightWriter
Title:
Administrator Emeritus
Registered:
Nov '01
|
Date Posted:
7/2 3:36pm
Subject:
Atheism 3.0: A new approach
- Date Edited:
7/2 3:38pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
KnightWriter
|
After two somewhat rocky but also sometimes enlightening editions, I'd like to start off a new discussion of atheism.
I'd like to start us off by asking people what their initial impressions of atheism are, and what they think of when they see or talk about it. In my case, I think of someone who actively believes there is no God. Everything else is secondary to that. I don't necessarily see someone who is anti-theist. Some people are anti-theist, but plenty of atheists merely believe than there is no God.
Some quick guidelines:
1. Please be respectful to all members, regardless of beliefs or non-beliefs.
2. Atheism is the belief that there is no God. It does not necessarily mean that the atheist has a problem with every religion, or any religion, or even the belief in God in general as believed by another person.
3. Different people have different concepts of what atheism and God mean. Your concept may not coincide with someone else's, and that's okay. Use the differences to bring illumination to each other, not anger.
4. If you have a problem with someone, please contact the Senate moderators.
For background, please see the previous thread.
-----signature-----
"May you live all the days of your life"
"The Obama Car will be fueled by FISA amendments and emit civil liberties for exhaust." A-B
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
JMJacenSolo
Registered:
May '06
|
Date Posted:
7/2 4:12pm
Subject:
RE: Atheism 3.0: A new approach
|
In my case, I think of someone who actively believes there is no God. Everything else is secondary to that. I don't necessarily see someone who is anti-theist. Some people are anti-theist, but plenty of atheists merely believe than there is no God. posted:
This is essentially my problem with Richard Dawkins; as the figurehead of atheism, he's conflating the two in the public's collective conciousness. He's a poor ambassador for atheism. I was reading about the MLK assassination two days ago and I stumbled across a speech given by RFK shortly afterward. He talked about blacks and whites having to make a decision between moving towards further polarization or making a genuine effort to understand each other. I was struck by the parallel between the current relations of many atheists and religious people in America. The speech really made an impression on me. I wish atheism had an RFK.
-----signature-----
"What good would it do me to switch tests with the guy who got the lowest score in the quarry?"
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
7/2 4:21pm
Subject:
RE: Atheism 3.0: A new approach
- Date Edited:
7/2 4:22pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Jabbadabbado
|
|
I've stated my position many times, but I'm happy to do it again. I'm not an atheist, really. I'm an a-supernaturalist. The term "atheism" unnecessarily privileges the idea of God or no God as a binary option, when the judeo-Christian mythos is only one of an infinite number of possible supernatural beliefs, all of which I disbelieve in equally.
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DorkmanScott
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Mar '01
|
Date Posted:
7/2 4:24pm
Subject:
RE: Atheism 3.0: A new approach
- Date Edited:
7/2 4:26pm (2 edits total)
Edited By:
DorkmanScott
|
JMJacenSolo posted:
I was reading about the MLK assassination two days ago and I stumbled across a speech given by RFK shortly afterward. He talked about blacks and whites having to make a decision between moving towards further polarization or making a genuine effort to understand each other. I was struck by the parallel between the current relations of many atheists and religious people in America. The speech really made an impression on me. I wish atheism had an RFK.
Conflating race with religion is a mistake, as race cannot be changed. You conflate the BELIEFS or IDEAS a person holds with the person THEMSELVES.
You're basically arguing the equivalent of: we should stop trying to cure cancer, because cancer patients are people too.
Racists have a problem with black (or Asian, or Mexican, or whatever) people. Dawkins does not have a problem with religious people, it is religion itself that he opposes, and for the same reason that a doctor would "oppose" cancer. It is, in his estimation, harmful, it is a disease, and it is something without which humanity would be much better off.
Dawkins has no interest in living peacefully with religion, but that doesn't mean he doesn't want to live peacefully with those who are religious. He just wants them to think better of it -- which, ultimately, he believes will result in people living more peacefully altogether.
-----signature-----
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabba-wocky
Registered:
May '03
|
Date Posted:
7/2 4:28pm
Subject:
RE: Atheism 3.0: A new approach
|
DorkmanScott posted:
Racists have a problem with black (or Asian, or Mexican, or whatever) people. Dawkins does not have a problem with religious people, it is religion itself that he opposes, and for the same reason that a doctor would "oppose" cancer. It is, in his estimation, harmful, it is a disease, and it is something without which humanity would be much better off.
Yes, and Fred Phelps never had a problem ith homosexual people, it is homosexuality itself that he opposes, and for the same reason that a doctor would "oppose" cancer.
In both cases, they effectively fail to walk whatever tightrope they're trying for, and their rhetoric comes off as hateful towards the targeted parties, whom they also, as a matter of observation, tend to treat rather awfully and disrespectfully.
I don't think anyone would argue you aren't free to advocate for atheism. But it's a bit of a stretch to claim that there are no inappropriate ways of doing so.
-----signature-----
ays Darius the king: 8 of my family (there were) who were formerly kings; I am the ninth (9); long aforetime we are kings.
All Hail His Excellency, Barack Obama
Roma vincit
Tearing Up a Lane (TERRIN UP A LAAAANE!!!)
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DorkmanScott
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Mar '01
|
Date Posted:
7/2 4:35pm
Subject:
RE: Atheism 3.0: A new approach
|
Jabba-wocky posted:
Yes, and Fred Phelps never had a problem ith homosexual people, it is homosexuality itself that he opposes, and for the same reason that a doctor would "oppose" cancer.
That would be a good point if it were true. But he specifically singles out the PEOPLE, and not the act. Also, I can't think of a single religious event that Dawkins has attended, picketed, or spewed hate-speech at uninvited. Can you?
Jabba-wocky posted:
In both cases, they effectively fail to walk whatever tightrope they're trying for, and their rhetoric comes off as hateful towards the targeted parties, whom they also, as a matter of observation, tend to treat rather awfully and disrespectfully.
What have you observed? Because honestly, everything I've seen of Dawkins, he is perfectly respectful to those who approach him with respect. Those who do not afford him that luxury perhaps do not, in his estimation, deserve it in return, but even still I don't think Richard Dawkins has said or done half the things that people seem to think he has. Given that most people wildly misrepresent the arguments that he puts forth quite clearly in his numerous books, I'm guessing that the people who have a problem with Richard Dawkins only know what other people have told them.
Jabba-wocky posted:
I don't think anyone would argue you aren't free to advocate for atheism. But it's a bit of a stretch to claim that there are no inappropriate ways of doing so.
I suppose it is, but I don't recall making that claim.
-----signature-----
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
JMJacenSolo
Registered:
May '06
|
Date Posted:
7/2 4:35pm
Subject:
RE: Atheism 3.0: A new approach
|
DorkmanScott posted:
[quote=JMJacenSolo]
Racists have a problem with black (or Asian, or Mexican, or whatever) people. Dawkins does not have a problem with religious people, it is religion itself that he opposes, and for the same reason that a doctor would "oppose" cancer. It is, in his estimation, harmful, it is a disease, and it is something without which humanity would be much better off.
First, that's a poor analogy because absolutely nobody chooses to get cancer. Religion for whatever reason is an attractive lifestyle for many human beings. Nobody who has cancer would argue that they would be better off without it. People who are religious are likely to argue the very opposite.
Second, I don't want to turn this into a Dawkins discussion, but check out his interview on Real Time with Bill Maher and tell me if what he is doing is constructive for atheism. He is clearly unable to totally uncouple his hatred of religion itself from those who practice it.
But back towards the original topic, as is always the case with atheism, its hard to have make any sort of collective judgement about followers of it. It seems a large majority I encounter on websites geared toward agnosticism/atheism are of the anti-theist variety, but that's pretty much just a case of selection bias. The few atheists I have met by chance encounter have tended to be very rational, thoughtful people who don't harbor a great amount of animosity for religion.
-----signature-----
"What good would it do me to switch tests with the guy who got the lowest score in the quarry?"
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
dianethx
Registered:
Mar '02
|
Date Posted:
7/2 4:40pm
Subject:
RE: Atheism 3.0: A new approach
|
I'm in the "atheist as believing that there is no God" camp. There seems to be a wide range of beliefs possible - from an absolute belief that there is a God to one where the idea of God as reality isn't viable. While I am an atheist, I will admit that I'm also a scientist and I have a problem with absolutes; therefore, I'm 99.9 % sure there is no God.  That might make others think that I'm agnostic because of that 0.1% doubt but that's not the case.
As for atheism in general, I have so little contact with other atheists that it rarely comes up. Mostly, we just say we are and move on to other topics. I would prefer that a more rational and less emotional spokesperson was in the forefront (at least Dawkins is better than O'hare) but I can certainly see why it isn't really possible. I think that no matter who was defending atheists' rights to hold onto the reality that there is no God, the vast majority of people in the States would make it impossible for the spokesperson to remain calm at times. And then the media would jump on it and make things worse.
-----signature-----
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DorkmanScott
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Mar '01
|
Date Posted:
7/2 4:49pm
Subject:
RE: Atheism 3.0: A new approach
- Date Edited:
7/2 4:53pm (2 edits total)
Edited By:
DorkmanScott
|
JMJacenSolo posted:
First, that's a poor analogy because absolutely nobody chooses to get cancer. Religion for whatever reason is an attractive lifestyle for many human beings. Nobody who has cancer would argue that they would be better off without it. People who are religious are likely to argue the very opposite.
That's true, I can't argue with that.
JMJacenSolo posted:
Second, I don't want to turn this into a Dawkins discussion, but check out his interview on Real Time with Bill Maher and tell me if what he is doing is constructive for atheism. He is clearly unable to totally uncouple his hatred of religion itself from those who practice it.
You mean this one?
I don't see any hatred. Disgust maybe, but not hatred.
And I don't see a blanket statement about "those who practice it." But he does clearly take issue with "those who force others to abide by the rules of their private club." And that's only right at the beginning of the interview. Please don't tell me you're quote-mining or that you didn't watch the whole thing before using it as an example. After that point he doesn't really talk about the believers themselves, although he does indicate that he doesn't have much respect for people who believe in the fairy tale. (Would you respect a grown adult who believed fervently in and worshipped the tooth fairy?)
Really, if anything Bill Maher himself was far worse there, but I still don't see what's wrong with calling something ridiculous when it is clearly, in fact, ridiculous. It's a bad sign of the times when speaking straightforwardly is taboo.
And as far as "constructive for atheism", I don't think that's the goal. I think the goal is to be destructive to theism, and atheism is what you're left with.
-----signature-----
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DarthPoojaNaberrie
Registered:
Jun '05
|
Date Posted:
7/2 5:00pm
Subject:
RE: Atheism 3.0: A new approach
|
KnightWriter posted:
I'd like to start us off by asking people what their initial impressions of atheism are, and what they think of when they see or talk about it.
my initial impression is generally that i just don't get atheists. i understand what motivates people to agnosticism. i understand what motivates people to be theists. those both make sense to me. but i don't understand the motivation behind atheism. i find it odd.
-----signature-----
follow me: www.sarcasmtable.com
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
JMJacenSolo
Registered:
May '06
|
Date Posted:
7/2 5:12pm
Subject:
RE: Atheism 3.0: A new approach
|
DorkmanScott posted:
And as far as "constructive for atheism", I don't think that's the goal. I think the goal is to be destructive to theism, and atheism is what you're left with.
My objection to the interview is centered entirely on the discussion of Francis Collins. Bill Maher himself is trying to discuss the dichotomy of intelligent people harboring religious beliefs, and Dawkins works himself into a frenzy over a semantic distinction, then dodges the question by saying that Francis Collins probably believes in a nebulous type of God, and when corrected by Maher that Collins is a literalist concludes that Francis Collins is actually dumb. Outstanding.
Theism isn't some self-propagating phenomena. It exists solely because people practice it. Now, If you're trying to sell the world's population of believers on the benefits of atheism, from a pragmatic perspective, and not a John Lennon "Imagine No Religion" fantasy world, is it a good idea to go on a talk show and conclude in the most condescending tone imaginable that a respected, accomplished scientist is "not a bright guy" because he harbors religious beliefs?
-----signature-----
"What good would it do me to switch tests with the guy who got the lowest score in the quarry?"
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
SWBob
Registered:
Jun '03
|
Date Posted:
7/2 5:12pm
Subject:
RE: Atheism 3.0: A new approach
- Date Edited:
7/2 5:13pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
SWBob
|
What do you mean darth pooja? What dont you get? I dont mean this mockingly, I really am curious.
I personally dont believe in any "God", but I wouldnt be adverse to believing if something in my life dirasticly changes that can with out doubt be conected to a God. (ie. miricle, impossible thing hapening).
To me there are just to many things that I dont like about religion. One of the big things is how almost all religions have that if you dont believe in our god you dont go to heaven. And since most people join religions due to geography, that just seems evil to punish someone because they live in some backwoods area of china or the amazon.
But there are other things.
-----signature-----
"There will be pages. Lots and lots of pages. Most of them will have letters on them,
and a vast majority of those letters will be in the Roman alphabet"
-Aaron Allston
Minister of Internal Affairs and CoW Senator
Sith Governer of the NJO Fan Club
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
dianethx
Registered:
Mar '02
|
Date Posted:
7/2 5:23pm
Subject:
RE: Atheism 3.0: A new approach
|
DarthPoojaNaberrie posted:
my initial impression is generally that i just don't get atheists. i understand what motivates people to agnosticism. i understand what motivates people to be theists. those both make sense to me. but i don't understand the motivation behind atheism. i find it odd.
That's very interesting.
Actually, I'm not motivated to become an atheist. I just am. It's sort of like not believing in Zeus. It's really an absense of belief. I certainly don't miss believing in a God or feel that there is a hole in my life because of the lack of it.
Does that make it any clearer?
-----signature-----
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
JMJacenSolo
Registered:
May '06
|
Date Posted:
7/2 5:32pm
Subject:
RE: Atheism 3.0: A new approach
|
DarthPoojaNaberrie posted:
my initial impression is generally that i just don't get atheists. i understand what motivates people to agnosticism. i understand what motivates people to be theists. those both make sense to me. but i don't understand the motivation behind atheism. i find it odd.
From our perspective, it is theism, being a position of an affirmative ("God Exists") that needs motivation behind it. I see nothing compelling to indicate the existence of a deity.
-----signature-----
"What good would it do me to switch tests with the guy who got the lowest score in the quarry?"
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DarthPoojaNaberrie
Registered:
Jun '05
|
Date Posted:
7/2 5:36pm
Subject:
RE: Atheism 3.0: A new approach
- Date Edited:
7/2 5:40pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
DarthPoojaNaberrie
|
|
maybe it's the connotative meaning that comes with the labels. the idea i get from theists is that the deity is important to them in their lives because of their faith, etc. agnostics give the impression that we'll never know either way and that's ok. many atheists give the impression that they know and it is very important to find ways to prove to the ignorant people that there is no higher power. it just seems like alot of atheists talk and speculate and focus on god and god-topics more than anyone else, more than theists. i don't understand why it is so important to them.
-----signature-----
follow me: www.sarcasmtable.com
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
ShrunkenJedi
Registered:
Apr '03
|
Date Posted:
7/2 5:50pm
Subject:
RE: Atheism 3.0: A new approach
|
DarthPoojaNaberrie posted:
maybe it's the connotative meaning that comes with the labels. the idea i get from theists is that the deity is important to them in their lives because of their faith, etc. agnostics give the impression that we'll never know either way and that's ok. many atheists give the impression that they know and it is very important to find ways to prove to the ignorant people that there is no higher power. it just seems like alot of atheists talk and speculate and focus on god and god-topics more than anyone else, more than theists. i don't understand why it is so important to them.
Well, I don't know what sort of atheists you've come across. But is it possible that the only reason you knew they were atheist was that you or someone else around you got into a religious discussion with them, and otherwise you... well, pretty much assume that everyone else would be a theist, even if unconsciously? Because you probably wouldn't hear atheists talking about atheism unless they were trying to convince someone else or they were talking with other atheists about it. Just a thought and probably a generalization, but I hope you get the idea.
-----signature-----
I Just Graduated College!!! Oh yeah, now I have to get a job... Fanficcer and Fanartist-- check the profile! My New Drabbles and Viggies: http://boards.theforce.net/the_saga/b10476/28153417/
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
