Atheism

So let's get the thread back on track!

I try not to talk religion unless someone else starts it. Mrs Hinge is 'spiritual' as opposed to formally religious, and thinks that me not believing in anything is somehow dissing her beliefs, which is not my intention. I don't think her beliefs are dissing my beliefs. Any atheists (still) with an SO with who isn't atheist?

A lot of good in the world happened because someone had a pipe dream and tried to make it happen. So, thanks for trying.

I don't always know, Hinge. The Girl was not raised in a formal, religious atmosphere, and i don't really know what her parents religious predilections were, if they had any. (I could ask her father, but i'd rather not bother him with something he never brings up or discusses.) But there have been times when i was critical of Christians and Christianity, and she didn't like it. By and large, though, it's not an issue between us.

Has Mrs. Hinge explained why she sees your lack of spirituality as disrespect for her beliefs?

Hi Set

She was raised in a C of E household, was even an altar girl - but the family isn't overtly religious, they just have a cross-generation 'serve the community' bent and the church seemed the best tool to do that through.

Her beliefs aren't judeo-christian theistic, more a 'there must be a purpose' and 'there is definitely something more to this than a brief spark of light'.

I suspect, trying not to sound like a complete tosser, that she respects my intelligence so if I disagree she starts to doubt her own position which, necessarily, you can't argue for on grounds of logic which makes her uncomfortable. I've never tried to talk her out of what she believes, I hope she's right, but I've never hidden what I believe either, at least not until I realised she found the topic 'unfun'.

At the risk of sounding pedantic and being repetitive, there is a lot to be said for the for the idea that people do not have beliefs, they are their beliefs.
If you accept that idea, it logically follows that discussion of "belief" amounts to discussion of "self-integrity", hence the "un-fun" factor.

Bingo! That's why I personally, have more respect for an atheist who says they're an atheist than a Christian who's erected a facade of 'belief' - as in :

'this is what a believer looks like and does - and I think that's good - so even though I can't intellectually abide the beliefs, I want everyone else in the world to behave like they believe what I think they should believe.'

What the hell is that called? Extremely misguided egotism with a huge helping of lack of understanding about how/why beliefs condition behavior - so hey if they're not there - the behavior isn't either!
Yet you want it to be because YOU think it's RIGHT.

What a load of crap

I'd rather be married to an atheist who doesn't cling to facades than to anyone who'd mandate anyone else's behavior based on beliefs they don't respect, but expect everyone else to respect.

Fresco - you always express what I think exactly as I wish I could express it.

One tries .

You succeed!

My first wife knew before we tied the knot about my atheism. Her mother warned her about me. She replied, "I might want to be an atheist myself." After we divorced, she told me my atheism was one big sticking point. I had never tried to tell her what to believe in that respect. She next joined a Jehovah's Witness church, but at the same time adopted what I consider an immoral lifestyle, of a sort her church also condemns. I don't write this to be taking swipes at her, but I do it because it highlights the inconsistencies with which we are met in these, the Days of Our Lives.

Wow. The only difference between your situation is that mine was raised JW, but wants nothing to do with that lot.
Not going there has been good for 20 years married.

I'm catching up. Ignore the bleatings. Anybody would think it is a private club.



Suppose nobody else did either. Do you think it is usual for those who refuse to feign belief to also feel no need to live a responsible, prudent, moral and compassionate life. It makes sense. Except as a strategy. But then that is feigning as well. "When in Rome" eh?



That depends on their general position I should think. One might asume from reading history that those ladies with the most choices were still ladies and that their behaviour was normal for ladies. Ms Collins made something of a reputation as The Bitch. She was spotted in a London restaurant once with two men on leashes who both had holes in the knees of their jeans. But it's rather a large issue which pious Christian humility ameliorates to some extent although it has to be admitted that evolution theory amply justifies it.

Why would a lady not take as much advantage as she is able if she felt no necessity to be responsible, prudent, moral or compassionate? The catalogue of the sale at auction of Madame de Pompadour's effects is an extant historical document which I tried to read through once but got bored with after a few pages. There are many examples for anybody who cares to do the digging. Poppea Sabina's control of Nero ran the state into the ground.

I presume you have noticed that female newsreaders, weathergirls etc are above average in the looks department. What's odd about it is that in the evolutionary canon the female is plain and it's the male with all the fancy adornments. I suppose the burka, or burqua, is an attempt the copy evolution. But it's a fraught subject which can easily get some people running to the nurse.

I wouldn't say that women's wishes are more volatile and seedy. They simply address the scientific facts. Volatile and seedy seem to me to be value judgements and I don't bother with such things. I simple leave the lookers to the guys who need that sort of thing.

I'll get there eventually with your post. I've a lot on here and can only jump in for tea-breaks. You can always read the posts of the others if you want to give your brain a rest.

I plead with other posters to engage spendi elsewhere. Not on this thread.

The first post on the thread has this ed--



It does not specify your ideas. It is an invitation to anybody to discuss any aspect of atheism and there's only one aspect of the matter worth discussing and that is the effect of atheism. Something with no effect is no cause either.

The effect of atheism on individuals is of a consequence in proportion to their importance in the scheme of things. The effect of atheism on the collective society is of great consequence to that society.

The posters you are addressing seem to me to have nothing to say on the subject that is worth paying attention to. And they are at liberty to scroll through my posts or place me on Ignore.

Why did you not include Khethil is your intemperate remark? If the thread is to be about atheists cuddling each other it should have said so.

littlek - For my contribution to derailing this thread, I apologize. I'm vulnerable to taking bait, but I'll take it elsewhere.

I video I recently saw on youtube

I really love listening to Neil DeGrasse Tyson. He's so excited, when he speaks.

"We are all connected. To each other: biologically, to the earth: chemically, and to the rest of the universe: atomically. That's kind of cool."

jeeprs - Your reply here

A
R
T

Say a group of people meets once a week in a church, preaching a belief system of how the world works, they apply moral guidelines to their lives according to that belief system, and they have priests that wear robes and funny hats, and they have chants, and ritual observances, and holy days. But their beliefs do not contain any supernatural claims. No gods, no magic. Thus according to your definition it would not be a religion and they would not be religious. How can that be? The definition must be wrong.
Your definition of a religion is accurate in a scientific realm. For example if the debate is about whether the universe was created by a deity or not, a belief that contains supernatural claims is religious, as distinguished from one that is scientific. And yes, in that context atheism is the skeptic position. But you cannot transfer that dichotomy to the question of being a religious person or not. If we are talking about people being religious or not, that is anthropology. In an anthropological context, 'religion' has to be understood in an anthropological sense.
On the wikipedia page for 'religion', right after your strict definition follows the loose one: a set of beliefs explaining the existence of and giving meaning to the world, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. That is the definition of religion which applies to the context in question. Using the loose definition is not evaporating the meaning of the word, it is applying the right meaning of the word.



It's the other way around: Atheists are using the strict meaning of the word 'religion' in a context in which it does not apply, in order to criticize theists as being "merely religious". If the other side is "religion" then your side by implication is areligious, rational, scientific. I.e. it constructs a false choice between religion and atheism which practically all atheist arguments base on; the old "science vs. religion" mantra.
It is not me that tries to make atheists into religious people, it is atheists that try to make theists into the only religious people.



The accurate definition of a religion in the context of anthropology is a total vision of the world. Such visions are not restricted to belief in the supernatural (or rather it depends on what's 'the supernatural', as our own beliefs of course are natural and only what everybody else believes is supernatural), or theism. An example of atheistic religion would be political movements that favor worship of the state or leader instead of deities, like communism. I happen to think that some modern environmentalist beliefs are based on a form of earth-worship, and therefore are religious as well. And theoretical constructs, such as the belief in overpopulation or peak-oil, are in my estimation religions as well. And yes, global warming. All of these are organized belief systems, with what could be considered a church structure and priesthood, they have a doctrine, the believer believes it as faith and not due to empirical evidence or rational considerations, they st up moral guidelines (use incandescent light bulbs), provide community, a us-versus-them feeling, many even promote asceticism, etc. They do pretty much the same for a person as theism. They practically fulfill the same psychological functions as, say, Christianity. That's why the anthropological definition of religion makes more sense, as opposed to the 'belief in supernatural stuff' one.

You hold the vision that irrationality and faith are fully contained in supernatural beliefs. You can't comprehend how atheism and areligiousness aren't the same thing. That is itself a vision of how the world works. Since you hold this vision to be self-evident without any need to question it and since it is an organized movement, it could be considered a religious faith. That's what people mean when they say that atheism is a religion. They don't mean the philosophical notion, they mean your beliefs in that philosophical notion. What you believe in does not have to be supernatural for your belief to be religious.

It's not cool at all. It's mawkish, meaningless, cloying sentimentality which transfers to words the responsibilities to those we are actually connected to.

Your reply here

A
R
Take it to the other thread.

Uh... I suppose if you want to motivate people to do something, that's one way. Why would we? And more importantly, how's that relevant to the topic?


I understand where you're coming from, but disagree: We needn't justify the design (or "original reason") for anything to decide if its helpful, hurtful or neutral. Besides, very little of what 'good' we have today can be drawn to 'why it was instituted'. What serves us well as a society, culture, nation or species stands on its own; why or how it was designed has no relevance to the here-and-now - to our every day lives.


This is mass type-casting, again - and another not-so-veiled insult; as if atheists aren't astute. This kind of insult doesn't serve your cause very well; its a turnoff in that it takes an entire group of people who have *1* attribute in common and labels them all, en masse - just not very becoming.


No, it shows we're all vulnerable, regardless of religiosity. Your statement here is predicated upon the idea the people - in what they do - are only motivated by fear of divine retribution (or some type of other punishment, like law). Read but one newspaper, witness a single act of violence and knowing the orientations of the people involved you'll see that neither law nor any notion of divine guidance has played a part in quelling their transgressions.

The thing is: People who will do wrong will do so anyway; completely absent of any 'guidance' they've received from any source. This, alone, shows that religion isn't necessary to live a good, responsible life (by any standard).


History doesn't show this at all. As I mentioned earlier, the only way we can know whether or not the presence of religion actually made any difference were if we had some identical historical model - with the same variables - but this time absent of that. So no, it can't be shown, proven or even asserted with any reliability. I do think it played a positive part in some ways, but this too can't be said with much surety without having something with which to compare.


Who's saying we should get rid of religion? As if such were even possible...

We're not getting anywhere, you seem to be wandering from each question or counter point to something completely different. And while I love a good conversation, this is just meandering-away the statements you can't support and not answering questions - just diverting to new issues you're not following up on.

Being a theist or atheist has as much relevance to ones likelihood to do good or harm as having the letter "L" in your middle name - there's simply no connection. What's important towards a moral existence (moral by any standard) is the values we hold dear, what we're taught and what we believe to hold value as we interact; none of these results is exclusively contingent on religiosity. People are individuals - and certainly more than just one label.

Thanks

Please don't quote conversations you don't want to see. You're making it hard for me to ignore them.