Atheism

By no shame or guilt attaching to anything of this sort I mean that a wife might recount to her husband when he comes home from work a blow by blow account of what the milkman did with her in the morning, the meter reader and a plumber around lunchtime and the vicar in the late afternoon, in a similar manner as she nonchalantly recounts her activities in the garden pruning the roses or sowing the sweet peas.

I was not suggesting that consenting adults in the privacy of their rooms or in the library reading room should be restricted by officious functionaries. Simply that they have no need to feel any shame or guilt concerning what it is that they do nor seek to hide it from view.

As when Sid Vicious, of the Sex Pistols, when asked by the parents of his current girlfriend what "you youngsters plan to do this evening", he told them straight as one might expect of an enthusiastic Dionysian.

Some holiday resorts specialising in attracting modern, well-heeled, youth are known to be very liberal about these matters.

Your system does not seem to have collapsed in regard to M. Strauss-Khan &Co.

Interesting post, but your example is a bit off-key as you hold the institution of marriage in some measure of contempt... I would say that the husband's reaction is the key: if he doesn't mind, no harm done. If he minds but does the same with the secretary,his sister in law and his wife's best friend, he can tell her about his day. If he minds and is faithful then he can divorce her. No harm done if a divorcee fucks the milkman. Only if he is sincerely in love with her and faithful is there a real harm being done. But that harm is what motivates the moral issue, not the sanctity of marriage. Not the "filth" or the "lucre" of sex. Nothing is inherently bad in love or sex, not anymore than in hammers. Yet you can kill someone with a hammer... and with love too.

John 3:16

Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

How can atheism be a word when the definition of atheism is nonexistant? Rhetorical.

I chose an individual example, Olivier, but surely it would catch on and everybody end up in the condition.

The husbands have no right to complain because, as is often pointed out, a woman has the right to do what she will with her own body.

My "modest proposal" was actually a defence of monogamous marriage which I hold in high regard as an institution which lends itself to stability and good order in society. Even some homosexuals are demanding and getting monogamy.



Yes--I have been trying to explain that for 10 years on A2K. Moral issues are a straw man. Only the consequences are important. The moral issues are a conjuring trick to underpin a policy for efficient organisation of what is admittedly a very difficult set of circumstances. A focus on moral issues is a smokescreen to avoid a focus on the consequences.

Unless atheists can offer a system which is efficient in the event of everybody accepting what they say about religion, or more specifically the Catholic Church, they are vandals. Dissidents. Not revolutionaries because revolutionaries do offer alternatives. They are just wreckers employing gratuitous verbal violence in the service of personal interest without any consideration of society's interest.

And they need to put the argument from consequences on Ignore to avoid facing up to it. So they are cheats as well. There are no other things in play besides consequences.

Well, there ya go, then. Problem solved.

It's so robust that there is more than one definition. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

That describes many A2K atheists indeed. Their lack of interest for the social and political ramifications of atheism is pretty appalling. They look at the issue with the blankness of a goose staring at a Swiss pocket knife.

I guess they only care about 'them Yankees'...

But then why would they come here, on a thread precisely devoted to sharing about what it feels to be atheist, just to say that they have nothing to share about what it feels to be an atheist?

Maybe the behaviors are a form of self- preservation. Have you ever lived in the southeastern U.S. ? ... Appallingly constrictive society in terms of what you are " allowed" to believe. Maybe they have felt attacked, alienated, and denigrated by Christian culture. I have had the experience of living there as a foreigner ...let me tell you..it's not a walk in the park, although I did make some good friends. It takes guts to admit you are an Atheist in that part of the country.

Very perceptive observation of my environment.

I can relate.

I lived in the US though not in the Bible belt. I like your idea -- it's possible that they've have internalised their minority status to a degree that it makes them uncomfortable to speak about their beliefs -- but I think it was dismissed here recently by Set. Apparently living as an atheist among bible thumpers is not as bad as what foreigners can see from a distance... What do I know?

I bet he would not be elected to public office by the people , if they knew he was an atheist. I bet many parents would not even allow his children to play with his. Socially... to differ widely in ideas that oppose the norm results in social constraint. Of course, there are always people anywhere that wouldn't take that stance. Tolerant people exist everywhere.

No American politician would be likely to admit to being an atheist because the fundamentalist storm troopers would come after him or her. Pappy Bush said more than once that atheists should not be allowed to vote, and he could get away with it because the holy rollers would shout down anyone who objected.

Nevertheless, it doesn't impinge on daily life, which is relevant in this thread. It varies from region to region, too. EB would have a hard time of it where he lives. I've never lived anywhere where it even came up, and that includes living in the South. It's just not the huge issue that foreigners seem to think it is.

Truth is beliefs come up in conversation . If you have any close friends, they know how you think (Although, I love to keep surprising them). I can't imagine not feeling able to discuss my views (concerning anything at all) with my friends or family. In my circle...everything is up for discussion.

You're conflating two separate ideas. If you actually read this thread you'd see plenty of people talking about what it 'feels' like to be an atheist. The baseball thing was used to explain to you that there isn't a shared ideology of atheists. We each get by in our own way. You cannot group together people by what they don't believe in. Would you tell everyone who doesn't believe in Santa Claus that they have to offer a credible alternative to Santa for the good of society?

I tell you what, I'll share what a little of what it's like to be an atheist:

In online communities, if you try and talk about what it's like to be an atheist with other atheists, you get bombarded by theists who misrepresent you, make specious arguments, and can't grasp atheism and want to treat it like a religion.

In short: it's frustrating, annoying, boring, unless there are only atheists in the conversation.

Hint hint.

Aye lad...'tis true

That bore repeating. It also made me think of the Dorothy Parker quote: You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think.

I also liked: You can't teach an old dogma new tricks.

I kind of agree, but most theists don't consider their belief to be 'a view'. Good luck trying to tell them it is one, or that you don't share it. It's a conversation killer, trust me.

Seems to me that there is a need to make space for a casual expression of atheism in the US. And that's a space atheists should be creating, because if it doesn't come from them, it won't come from the believers...