Atheism

Nothing 'wrong' in that indeed, but the answer to the question of why this is so may help reach out to more women and thus expand the current social boundaries of the 'movement'. At least if one is sympathetic to the idea of an atheist movement, which is my case. I'm aware that some A2K atheists disagree with that.

True, those remarks by Frank were unfounded.

I would personally suggest (as i already have done) that this phenomenon is a product of the deepest divide in society, between the sexes. Without reference to atheism or any other "-ism," society is replete with authoritarian males who can't seem to "see" women in any social roles. Not that i suggest they are anti-women; rather that they simply don't get it, and absent any prodding, don't even think about women as intellectual partners.

There are a number of atheist women who have posted on these boards and have made more sense than a lot of other posters. I think they would be here more, but they don't seem to care to put up with as much nonsense as we men do. My personal take, without consulting a one of them.

Nonsense! They are founded as can be.

Many spokespersons for atheism do show a marked disrespect for women (or a callousness towards them)...something that has already been discussed here...and they also show lots of disrespect and callousness (intended or inintentional) toward others who are not theists, but who also are not atheists.

That is one of the reasons why I suspect and suggest atheists will never lead a movement to corral the powerful, and unreasonable influence organized religion exerts on our society.

But there are times where I suspect atheists are not truly interested in curbing the power of organized religion on society. They are more interested in promoting atheism...apparently wanting to substitute atheistic guesswork about the true nature of the REALITY of existence...for theistic guesses.

Ah-hahahahahahahahahaha . . .

You can't be this place for free entertainment.

Can someone define 'atheism' in a proper way of course ?

so you can't, we are clear on that as well!

Even if it was true that "Many spokespersons for atheism do show a marked disrespect for women (or a callousness towards them)" -- and I don't know that it's true -- it would not follow that “atheism treat women disrespectfully".

Atheism is a philosophy or set thereof, that says that the number of gods is equal to 0. It belongs to the ethereal and as far as I know gender-neutral realm of metaphysics.

For the record, I believe the number of gods can be equaled to 0 for all practical intent. Of course, for non practical use, people are allowed to dream and imagine and conjecture many magical things, and it happens to me too at times, but it serves no practical purpose other than mental comfort and the mass control allowed by organized religion.

Frank was way out in left field at other times. This time he is out of the ballpark.

The discussion about (self-appointed) spokespersons for atheism showing a lack of regard for women has already taken place.

I note your disagreement with the notion...and it is a valid position to take. I am taking the other side of that coin...but it is not something written in stone for me.



That is interesting, Olivier.

So you are saying that YOU (as an atheist) are asserting that there are no gods.

Theists assert there is at least one GOD.

I assert that the true nature of the REALITY of existence is so hidden from humans...that I cannot see any logical reason for asserting either position.

There is at least some minuscule chance that a theists might know there is a GOD (a GOD could reveal itself in an unambiguous way)...but no way at all that an atheists can know there are no gods.



I can see you making a blind guess that there are no gods...but I cannot see the "for all practical intent" in your comment.





Okay. But I do not see how any of that impacts on whether or not there are gods...nor how it impacts on why I said earlier about leadership to curb the influence of religion on our lives.

No I am not, Edgar.

The way you worded it at first is totally wrong.

Leadership to curb the influence of religion is a pipe dream. The first amendment to the United States constitution begins with the clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . "--yet the Supreme Court, ruling in the Greece, New York case, allowed public prayer before town counselors convened their meetings. (The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbitrary, authoritarian institution in the country--there is no appeal from their decisions other than to amendment the constitution. How is that supposed to play out when the Court ignores constitutional amendments?)

Even in a society which is legally constituted to avoid the influence of religion, it's influence creeps in. I can't know of course, but i expect that mankind will never be free of the influence of religion. "Atheism" is not actually a movement--there are just some authoritarian, explicit atheists (even Dawkins often sounds like an implicit atheist) who constantly attack organized religion, but that's like a flea attacking an elephant.

Where is public leadership to curb religion supposed to come from? The agnostics? Ah-hahahahahahahahahahahahaha . . .

I agree. There is no reason to assume that most atheists are either represented by "movement" atheists, or that they misogynistic. There is also nothing more hilarious than to assert that atheists systematically treat theists and agnostics badly. That one really cracks me up. Poor Frank.

Like many other things that are still worth trying.

I think it's possible and laudable to prevent organized religion from taking any control of governance. I don't for a moment believe that anyone can curb religious influence.

You cannot call another a theist, because they do not believe in an actual being - they just believe; belief is not a god.

You cannot call another an atheist, because they were born an atheist - they just live; living is all we got.