Atheism

Bzzzzt, Wrong. Thanks for playing the game.

ros is only saying that. He knows very well that atheism is as much of a religion as Christianity. It's obvious that it is and ros knows most obvious things.

Atheism believes there is no God. It's also obvious that if there is no God we are without God. It is a belief. And it unites people. It has ceremonies too but most atheists are far too Christianised to take part in most of them. The main ceremony most atheists take part in is making speeches to other atheists, presumably for mutual comfort, which is why they restrict their social interactions to those involving other atheists or to polite superficialities. Abortion is pretty popular.

And most philosophers who have written on the matter say that atheism is a branch of Christianity. It is the Christian God who is believed not to exist. It's a clever way of getting all the benefits of Christianity without having any of its disciplines except those that have been conditioned. Like placing the knife on the right of the plate and the fork on the left and both at right-angles to the edge of the table except on round tables when they are aligned as radii to the centre of the table. Avoiding being invited to orgies is another.

Please note that I noticed the use of the word most.

Delicate attention to those who don't feel included in your broad statement.

Not that I need peers or mutual comfort. But as you said "presumably", I'll take that as a wild yet failed guess...

What other reason is there for preaching to the converted?

Before talking about other reasons, tell me about the main one..

Reinforcement, comfort and mutual assurance. If it wasn't for the opposition they would all end up in a heap as was likely the case at the Australian atheist convention once the speeches were done with.

This is actually largely true. There is little purpose to organized atheism, such as it is, other than to oppose the limitations and control of theism. I imagine most atheists would be thrilled to see atheism disappear in puff of purposelessness the day after theism did.

There may be one or two of us, however, who would miss the buzz we get from the righteous indignation.

I am amused by people like Spendi repeatedly conflating "believing there are no gods" with a "lack of belief in gods". It's the main foot of their argument, with fragile ankle.

I am amused that he thinks he knows what others believe.

So, has any one of us racked up how many pages of obscurantisms on this thread have been off topic after the original poster, littlek, asked no one to do that?

I think perhaps it's inconceivable to a faith based thought process to believe in a non-faith based one. Perhaps they have no choice but to see it as the same thought process with faulty components in place of the correct ones. Certainly the inappropriate arguments seem to suggest this. e.g. "The ancient battle between whether God rules on earth or Man". They consistently jump across the primary issue of such a gods existence as though it's a given for both sides. It's as though they think we are lying about the existence of a god we know to be true. (Certainly, much of Islam openly sees it that way) I think perhaps fully understanding an atheist perspective destroys the faith process too much.

I think there are few who make that mental journey, and of those who do, few make it back to faith.

I'd like to see one thread that didn't do that!

Your snotty little post prompted me to look back at littlek' s original post that opened this thread. It appears that you have continued the smug and self-serving notion that you are the persecuted elite few while all contrary expressions can be torturously labelled as "obscuritanisms" .

OK by me. Enjoy yourselves.

Well, most threads don't start with littlek's wish well expressed.

I like diversions and often cause them, but wish they would wrap around to address the original question.

Snotty? Geez, the whole thread has been vitiated, and I am standing up for it.

That would be 'obscurantisms'.

In a very real sense, this threads mirrors the "real life" experience of atheists. In an allegedly religiously tolerant society such as one finds in the United States, the tolerance is arguably broad, but still limited. You could be a Hussite, or a Jain, or a Sufi, or even Rastafarian--any acceptance of the god bullshit is at least marginally acceptable. But let it be known that you don't buy the god bullshit at all, and they come crawling out of the woodwork, and they want to argue with you--whether you're interested in the argument or not. O'George is a good case in point. He has shown up here expecting that he can show that the atheist position is bankrupt or illogical (really, it's difficult to say just what he thinks he can accomplish)--not because that's the subject of the thread, but because that's the knee-jerk reaction.

I have been thinking similar thoughts.

Even a couple of our normally quiet on the subject archbishops had a go at atheists over easter!

Given that oz is a predominantly secular country in reality, this was odd.

Must be Dawkins.

Maybe they are trying to divert the eyes that have been on them in this newest sex scandel. Look! Atheists! <run awayyyy>

yup a rooty

The apparent premise of your question, that the religious part of our upbringing happened before the scientific part, doesn't apply to me. As the son of two chemists who raised me as an Evangelical-Lutheran, both parts happened simultaneously for me. (The Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Germany is theologically liberal, comparable to the ECLA in America.)

My trigger for becoming an atheist was that, between the age of 14 and 16, I read the whole Bible, cover to cover. From reading it all, including the parts my priests consistently skipped over, it immediately became obvious to me that this book couldn't possibly have been inspired by a loving, almighty, and all-knowing god.

Although evolution never figured into this decision, it did have an indirect influence on keeping the matter decided for me. Evolution removes the "argument from design" for religion, which would otherwise have been a fairly strong argument for believing in some sort of god. It's not a compelling argument -- Hume punched holes in it without knowing about evolution -- but without evolution, it would have been the least bad argument for the origin of species. So, although acceptance of evolution didn't make me an atheist, it's responsible for my remaining one.