Atheism

Without going over the article point by point, I will say, Kanazawa seems to rely on personal opinion at least as much as any study results. He can't accept that we have a valid point in being atheist, for example. -We are atheists merely to demonstrate our superior intelligence to 'the herd.'-

"It's unnatural for people to be concerned about total strangers."
That may be true for a few thousand prehistoric cave dwellers, but we now live in a world of hundreds or thousands per square mile. Completely different dynamic.

I read more than a few times, when I was more concerned with these questions, about a million years ago, that the message of love and tolerance spoken of by religious founders, such as the mythical Jesus, represents an evolutionary jump on the part of the human mind. The separation of Old Testament and New. More progressive, less fundamentalist.

I just noticed this thread; read the first ten or so pages attentively, then skipped to the recent ones and noted the shift in the tone - from a polite conversation among like-minded folks, salted with anecdotes, ranging from kind and sympathetic to condescending and occasionally hostile, about the foolishness of " the others" - suddenly to the more familiar A2K pattern of arguments, sometimes shrill criticism, and all the rest.

It was an interesting transformation. Without it I wouldn't have been at all inclined to post in a conversation that basically involved no interests of mine, but which does me no harm.

I have no quarrel with atheists, or atheism for that matter. I'll confess I don't understand it, having a great deal of trouble conceiving how anyone could be certain that the universe which we small creatures inhabit has no objective meaning or designer. I can readily understand how one could become skeptical of, or even even hostile to, all organized religion - in view of its, all-too-human character and history. However, I can't understand how one could conclude, based on what we know of history, that non or anti religious social systems are, or have ever been, any better.

I also have some difficulty with the often "moralistic" (probably not the right word) attitude of some avowed atheists to some issues which interest and arouse them. Consider, for example Msolga's (an early poster in this thread) entirely worthy interest in stopping the harvest of whales by the Japanese in the southern Pacific . She asserts that it is wrongful activity and at least condones the sometimes violent behavior of activists at sea to prevent the whalers harvesting. I have no objection at all to this as a political position: it is only the implied "ethical" issue that intrigues me. What is is based on?

I think we all live our lives with, at best, imperfect understanding of ourselves, the world about us and what it all might (or might not) mean. I am equally suspicious of anyone who expresses certainty about these existential questions, whatever his explanation. I also recognize a demonstrable appetite in human nature for an explanation or at least reassurance on these questions. Indeed I would suggest that the very polite and mutually supportive conversation at the start of this thread was, in part, an expression of this appetite. I don't mean to suggest that this as some clever or subtle argument or proof for theism - rather a reminder that we all, at some level, really do struggle with such questions.

The only thing about atheism or atheists to which I would object is certainty.

Human social structures of all kinds appear to work best when there are some unifying beliefs, responsibility, some degree of accountability, tolerance of others and their beliefs, civility, and kindness. Religions have historically played a constructive role in achieving these conditions - with the prominant exception of tolerance. So far their anti or non religious counterparts haven't done any beter.

In any event, I don't wish to either argue the matter or disturb the mutual conversations and reassurances of the members of this thread.

Thanks for the thoughtful post. At a deep, basic level I simply feel there is no supreme being, designer, etc. You say that it is natural to question. Then you question your religion and come back to certainty of belief, yes? Frankly, I don't see why you object to our certainty if you don't care if we're atheist?

There's an awful lot of presumption here. Atheist means "without god," and there is no good reason to infer from that that anyone so described is certain of anything, other than that they don't believe there is a god. This is redolent of the claim that many religionists make to the effect that atheism is just another form of belief, the equivalent but polar opposite of theism.

That is not necessarily the case. Hot describes an objective reality--cold is simply a relative statement of the absence of heat. They are not two sides of the same coin. Leaving aside that theism describes no objective reality (i can't think why you believe the universe has any objective meaning--subjective, from the point of view of religionists, but objective? please . . . ), an atheist is not someone who possesses a belief, but rather one who rejects a belief, and these are also not two sides of one coin. Certainly there are many ranting atheists who make a god of their disbelief, but you've no basis to lump all atheist into that group of militant religion-haters.

Upon what basis do you assert (with apparent universality) that atheists believe or claim that non- or anti-religious systems are better than any other we've seen? You make an awful lot of assumptions here. This is a classic example of the kind of "logic" which proceeds from unfounded prior assumptions.

How clever of you, George, and how civil!

I don't believe that certainty on these issues is rationally possible within the limits of our knowledge, perceptions and understanding.

However, I don't object to your "feeling" that way, even at "a deep, basic level", or believe that you should be corrected or limited in any way for it.

I do find your apparent conclusion that I have necessarily "come back to certainty of belief" highly ironic ... perhaps involving a little religious-like prejudicial projection on your part. I think I expressed myself very clearly on that point.

Yes.... almost French !

an atheist is not someone who possesses a belief, but rather one who rejects a belief, and these are also not two sides of one coin. - setanta

This bears repeating.

That's just ridiculous. Hot is a human category. Like colour.

For 1 year I shared an office with a Jesuit Priest, quite often he had a visitor who was also a Jesuit Priest. The two of them continuously carried on nearly fistacuff debates over the "holy trinity." I learned a bit about catholic theology. I believe I actually got along with each of them better then they got along each other.

I thought George's long-winded post was more pointless than civil. In fact, in view of the vague pointlessness of it, it might be said to be uncivil to expect us to wade through it when there was no chance of any of us being any further forward if we did so.

It is invariably the case that those who don't wish to argue the matter or disturb the mutual conversations and reassurances of the members of a discussion, on a matter of profound importance especially, often come over as meandering aimlessly through verbiage for the purpose of sounding off.

The only matter worth discussing is whether we want an atheist society or not and if those who do are only faced with those who don't wish to either argue the matter or disturb the mutual conversations and reassurances of the members of the debate then we will get an atheist society which very few atheists will admit to actually wanting.

I think other, pluralism and suicide are the only matters worth discussing.

Are they certain there is no god? I think that was my point. As to the believe/don't believe part... You appear to be just playing with words.

No. "Hot" and "cold" are words we use to describe our perception of relative temperature. Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the molecules in a substance. "Heat" is a word we use to describe thermal energy in transition. I think the metaphor itself may have confused you.
I don't consider all atheists as religion-haters, though some are. Moreover, I believe that tolerance is a virtue, no matter what one's belief.

I don't - and didn't - make such a claim. I wrote that they were "no better". My point was that, so far, atheistic social systems have not demonstrated that they were a solution to the problems historically associated with religious ones. Intolerance and oppression have been found in both.

Maybe this is important to you but my feeling is that when atheists resist a religiously driven society and government they are not looking to replace it with atheism, but rather to be left alone to not believe in a deity

Thank you for the kind words, Spendius.

While you may think that the only thing worth discussing here is whether or not we should have an atheistic society, I don't yet detect that kind of aggressiveness or inclination on the part of the others here . I don't think this thread so far is much about that: it appears to be focused more on individual experience and perceptions. I don't share your apparent need to redirect it.

No openly atheistic society ever has been establish by the will of the people, that I am aware of. Until that happens, we cannot judge.

I think you should review some of the salient political movements of the 19th and 20th centruries.

I don't want to divert the intent of this thread by a long involved discussion of it, but I don't think the Soviets were able to abolish religion. The few examples I can think of were born of turmoil, not reasoned judgement.

Soviet and Chinese Communism were indeed avowedly atheistic political systems - and they were intolerant and oppressive as well. However, it is true that they failed to destroy religion - though they tried hard to do so.

But, as you said, no more about that,

Your repeating that does not make it true as there are nice open societies now in Europe where the good old atheists at least equal the true believers and the tend is growing.

See the link to the wikiped's article I had already posted.