Atheism

Ain't no hair off'n Gawd's ass what you believe.

I once was an atheist but then I got old and decided to hedge my bet. Now I'm a deist--I call it 'The Big Kahuna'.

Rap

Hi Olivier

Sorry I've been busy.



I don't see it as quite a big a deal as you for a number of reasons.
a) There have always been atheists
b) I don't think rationalism is on or off I think it's a spectrum, there are probably some theists who are more rational than atheists. Rationality is subjective anyway.
c) Thinking no atheists are dogmatic is naive




-No-one said it was passive non-belief - you made that up
-No-one said it has no consequences, just that they don't appear as world shaking as you want them to be.
-No two atheists are alike any more than any other two people are alike. You're being disingenuously absolutist. They can't all have widely different ideologies. The whole point that you consistently ignore that a number of us have tried to make is: you can't assume someone has a particular ideology because they are atheist.
-I haven't seen any of the regular atheist posters to this thread argue that this thread is useless we were sharing our experiences as atheists in a non-secular society and having interesting conversation here way before you found us. Mostly I just see people saying that a bunch of threatened theist trolls can't resist rabbiting on about **** they know nothing about.

So I agree your last point is BS - but you are the one claiming it's been made.

If anything makes my point that atheists aren't alike it's your oft made statement (lately) that American atheists should grow balls and be out and proud, like you. Not much common ground there in your mind I'm guessing.

Weren't you arguing about the social disaster of disclosing the Santa myth to kids, but you won't cut other atheists any slack for trying to keep their families together by not ragging their own family members for their theism?

If no children or animals are harmed I say let them manage their affairs as they see fit. Dictating behaviours for others is uncomfortably theistic.

Hey - where in France do you live? We'll be there in June - don't want to meet up but I do love France and I have that Australian need to place you geographically.

It might be assumed, hinge, that atheists will act, and promote acting, in ways that we have a biologically driven desire to act and which Christians disapprove of with varying emphasis. That some Christians, even many Christians, are tempted to act in those ways, and do so, as they have a similar biology to atheists, is not an ideological argument. They won't promote acting in those ways and if they do succumb to the temptations they won't be proud of having done so and will hide the fact they have done out of degrees of guilt and shame.

It is the whole point at issue. It is your side which is "disingenuously absolutist" by pretending it is not the whole point. The law covers most other matters outside the field of sexual behaviour and applies to Christians and atheists alike.

Biblical exegesis, which is woeful on this thread, is neither here nor there. It is nothing but a straw to cling to.

Christianity is an ideology of sacrifice in the sense of eschewing acting according to desires. Atheists can have no reason to make such sacrifices. That they are coy about the details is a social consideration in a Christian culture. chai was open and honest about the temptation of festering in the pit of a Sunday morning and deserting the man who she had made vows to in order to have "wild, exciting sex", I think it was, with another man.

Look how coy abortion as an action is. Millions of them and never once have I heard anybody admit to having had one. Discussing that subject is invariably undertaken in the abstract and the performance of an abortion is anything but abstract. Nor have we seen a recording of one being done on a TV medical programme. Why not?

As an atheist I do not see any value in the whole population having no inhibitions regarding sexual activity. I think it would be a disaster in the social conditions we have created. And that is what you are promoting and it is why no serious politician will publicly embrace atheism.

One well known ex-communist, homosexual and atheist swore by "Almighty God" on the occasion of becoming a Peer of the Realm. His doing so was the only part of his speech to the House which appeared on the News.

One thing seems sure to me. It is that participating in this discussion without any reference to the sexual question is trolling. And it discredits atheism. As does the petulant refusal to answer the points I raise.

Personal dick-work is not a subject for ideologies.

Oh wow... no way I can give justice to this post on cell phone...

In short, 1) you were the one arguing that atheism is not an idea.. and that it has no consequences. Now you're backtracking, saying "the consequences are not earth shattering"... is that progress?

2) set and edgar argued that such a thread is inherently useless.

3) the idea that atheists all have the same ideology was your strawman, not my argument.

4) as for "growing balls", it is not a question of family. It is about civil rights and equality. I find the idea of not being able to elect an atheist MP or president disgustingly anti-democratic.

Edit: I totally agree with that though:

Do you mean that the whole population giving themselves guiltless free rein in the matter of the pleasure pathways of our physiology will not be earth-shaking?

Really!! You have led a sheltered intellectual life hinge.

And why the expression "don't appear".

Why wouldn't all ladies do what chai so enthusiastically recommended? It made perfect sense to me. Are other ladies differently constituted than chai?

The choice between wild exciting sex and doing permanently for a boring gump is a no brainer. Why do you think ladies flock to the boddice-ripping genre?

In my experience programmes on TV about prostitutes are very well attended to.

So what sorts of sexual prohibitions would you support, in tomorrow's hypothetical atheist world?

How about having the same lover more than once.

Taking Romeo's notion of "spreading himself out" as an ideal.

Huxley ran the idea past us in BNW way back before pre-packed sliced bread was invented. His biographers suggest he practiced it in real life with the help of his wife.

Dogging, an ancient pastime, insists upon it. We don't want to be fahlin' in lurve now do we? It's so bourgeois don't you think?

Is that ballsy enough for you Olivier?

Obviously such a prohibition requires a radical rearrangement of our norms which remain, for now at least, essentially Christian. If divorce leads to serial monogamy there is no moral principle why the process shouldn't become more dynamic. As it has partially become in Hollywood and other places. Holiday destinations for example.

Utterly unromantic.

We do! Love may be an illusion but life would be unbearable without it.

Why did you goad atheists by claiming they lacked balls when you respond in that manner to any who don't?

You soppy, old, Christian romantic you!! Declarations of love are the easiest methods of capture. And the divorce rate proves the instability of love.

Do you do the tail-wagging on Saint Valentine's Day?

The most beautiful things only last a moment.

"The last, rasping gasp of the mantis' groom" to follow.

As I've said before mate, I don't give a rats ass about your Jehovah's Witness 'New World Translation' because it was written by your JW big bosses to suit their own cockamamie ideas.
Incidentally stop trying to pass yourself off as a regular christian, come out from under the bed and say in your profile that you're a JW or people might think you're too embarrassed to admit it..

Why are you hedging your bet? Is it in case the threat of eternal damnation is true?

Oh will you please stop. Who is dying in a coit?

How about your masculine soul?

Are you from northern or southern France?

The mantis was only a symbol in Bill Greenwell's line.

There is a story about that which interested me. The poem in which the line appeared was an entry to the Literary Review's Poetry Competition. The rag was edited by Mr Auberon Waugh, who has sadly died since, and a committee of himself and a small coterie of female "writers" judged the competition. Mr Waugh wished to give Mr Greenwell first prize but the ladies wouldn't have it. After much persuasion, he reported, they allowed the poem to have sixth place which did at least mean we got to see it but Bill got no cash.

Anyway--a coit wasn't the subject. Lurve was the suubject. Protestations of undying love and devotion without conditions. Which are not really what nuptial agreements are drawn up to glorify.

I am from southern France. My masculine soul is content and happy when it gets enough carnal pleasure.


Love is natural enough. In a future atheist kingdom, we could default to the Catholic practice which is to have marriage cohabit with the occasional affair.

I'm still arguing atheism is not an idea - you are the one loading it with more meaning than it has - you want/see/demand a unified approach to atheism, and that atheist should thrust this up the non-secular. Good luck with that. You remind me of a girlfriend I once had who was absolutely convinced monopolies were bad. But that they are often are doesn't mean they are by definition and that they can't be good. Connotation had overtaken definition in her head.



They said that this thread is inherently useless for talking about atheist ideology - because there isn't one. (Cannot believe how many times we go over this).


Now your the one backtracking from your 'all atheists have common ground and beliefs because all lost their religion in their adolescence' (not a quote - an approximation of one of your posts) happy to go back and copy the relevant posts if you want.



Another straw man - US citizens are able to, and have, elected atheists. There's no law against it. They generally choose not to. Much like the French have few, if any, Islamic politicians even though they make up 5-10% of the population. How disgustingly anti-democratic.

There are a few states that do not allow atheists to serve.
http://americanhumanist.org/HNN/details/2012-05-unelectable-atheists-us-states-that-prohibit-godless
However, these laws are still on the books and have given atheist candidates trouble in the past. Cecil Bothwell, an atheist who in 2009 won an election for a Asheville, North Carolina city council seat, was almost unseated by local critics who pointed to a provision in North Carolina’s constitution that prohibited nonbelievers from being elected. This provision of the state constitution is similar to provisions in Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. The provisions follow:

Arkansas, Article 19, Section 1:
No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.

Maryland, Article 37:
That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.

Mississippi, Article 14, Section 265:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.

North Carolina, Article 6, Section 8
The following persons shall be disqualified for office: Any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

South Carolina, Article 17, Section 4:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.

Tennessee, Article 9, Section 2:
No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.

Texas, Article 1, Section 4:
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.