The Adult Atheist Thread

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

YO!

Here you may come rest and drink from the mouth of your fellow disbelievers, all you godless free thinking associates welcome. Seeing as the young atheist thread is off limits to the more seasoned associates, I thought this should be remedied. So enjoy, I suggest much good nature and humor in dealing with the topic.

Boagie, I know I'm obtuse. I admit it. But, I don't get why the Dawkins thing is titled "An atheist's call to arms." True, many are deluded by naive models, if that was what was being implied.

Anyway, here's my question. Isn't it possible that us theists just have a name for something that the atheists don't have a name for?

Let's get together for a beer and hash that out.

Thanks for a great post and links.

Cheers,
D.

1 Reply

@boagie,

I don't think atheism needs a movement.

Isn't the whole practical point of atheism that it's unencumbered? Why make a movement out of it and bog it down in an identity?

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Hi Aedes,

Well I do not know that atheism does not need a movement, as is stated in the link, only about seven percent of the scientific community and the intelligentsia are religiously oriented, this is completely at odds with the American electorate. It also means that the brightest people in our midst are banned from holding public office unless they lie about their beliefs. My personal experience is unless you ascribe to some absurd fantasy it is you that is looked at as if you have two heads. As I stated in another thread, no one knows the origin of their own being, the being of the world or any object one could referance, that is why they are all said to be metaphors to a transcendent mystery. If you understand this as a fact, it just underlines the sillyness of most of these religious claims, claims of knowing, mystery solved.

Certainly the religious are organized, political, and supported by the government by the fact that they are tax exempt. I do not know just how this movement will unfold, but perhaps these people have realized too, that there is power in numbers, and it is time to balance the political activities of Christianity. If enough atheists step out of the closet, there will then be a flood, and people will for the first time in this country be able to excercise intellectual intigrity in public. This thread is not addressed to the religious, but to the atheist, thus if the religiously orientent do not BELIEVE in that transcendent mystery, we would ask them to show the proper respect for both the mystery and the believers there of.

richard dawkins lectures youtube - Live Search Video

1 Reply

@Dichanthelium,

Dichanthelium, Smile

Well the atheist knows its a mystery, the religious say it is not a mystery, we know, it is our god that created everything, and not the god of other peoples in the world, their gods are false gods, my god can beat up your god--as Einstein stated, It is time for humanity to mature.

"Those whom say they know, do not know, those whom know that they do not know, know." Upanishads

richard dawkins lectures youtube - Live Search Video

2 Replies

@boagie,

Actually dawkins doesn't think that things are a mystery, he thinks that evolution explains life completly, despite the obvious fact that while an excellent theory, it is incomplete, and a great deal more complex than darwin himself realised. I came across this in the guardian a few days ago, its alot more enlightened than any of Dawkins drivel, be you atheist or believer-
Simon Conway Morris: Darwin was right. Up to a point | guardian.co.uk

0 Replies

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Dichanthelium,

Well the atheist knows its a mystery, the religious say it is not a mystery, we know, it is our god that created everything, and not the god of other peoples in the world, their gods are false gods, my god can beat up your god--as Einstein stated, It is time for humanity to mature.

You're using a subset of "the religious" to characterize all of "the religious."

Surely you wouldn't argue that any given atheist is smarter and more mature than any given theist, merely by virtue of their respective outlooks on that one issue.

I know plenty of atheists who, though otherwise well-educated, are quite simply ignorant when it comes to religion and theology. Some of them hold to their atheism as naively as some theists hold to their theism. And I think this is a serious deficiency, considering the role that that religion has played in the course of history--both good and bad.

1 Reply

@Dichanthelium,

God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that.

Joseph Campbell

Why cannot the religious admit that god is a metaphor for that mystery which is beyond the human intellect.

Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble.
Joseph Campbell

Every religion is true in that it address that ultimate mystery , and true only in this sense.

Please, do give me an example of something which is not a metaphor, meaning that it does not open backward to mystery, give me just one example of something you know the ultimate origin of.

.

Science is by its nature engrossed in the msytery, that is indeed what defines it. those whom cannot come to terms with mystery are left in a pretend world.

Mystery is in my thinking essential to a spiritual experience, I think that is why Carl Young stated, religion is a defense against a spiritual experience.

It would seem we have some unbelievers here, unbelievers in that great mystery, you must be morally bankrupt or intellectually bankrupt ---------lol!!

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie;48536 wrote:

Well I do not know that atheism does not need a movement

Atheism isn't one thing or phenomenon, though. People have all sorts of other belief systems that fill the gap. It's heterogeneous. And I, for one, as an atheist member of the academic intelligentsia, do NOT want either Dawkins or some other movement speaking for me. I do not and will not ever define myself by my religious beliefs, and therefore I reject the notion of a movement. Change the world with truth, rather than turning religion around on people. Atheism isn't truth -- it's just a belief system ex vacuo.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Atheism isn't one thing or phenomenon, though. People have all sorts of other belief systems that fill the gap. It's heterogeneous. And I, for one, as an atheist member of the academic intelligentsia, do NOT want either Dawkins or some other movement speaking for me. I do not and will not ever define myself by my religious beliefs, and therefore I reject the notion of a movement. Change the world with truth, rather than turning religion around on people. Atheism isn't truth -- it's just a belief system ex vacuo.

Aedes,

No, atheism simlpy realizes that it is a great mystery, that all things are metaphors to that great mystery, even the term god is but a metaphor, and the religious would make war over their particular metaphor. You my friend are the proverbial fence sitter--in the terms of modernity, an enabler of anti-intellectual sentiment. ALL IS METAPHOR IS TRUTH! The wonder the awe the mystery!!!:a-thought:

PS: Just an added thought, theology is about the debate of concrete terms is it not, a concrete term meaning literalism cannot referance to mystery, so why on earth would anyone debate theology. By defination it is non-sense--and yet, considered a part of philosophy.

YouTube - The tyranny of scripture

2 Replies

@boagie,

boagie;48618 wrote:

No, atheism simlpy realizes that it is a great mystery, that all things are metaphors to that great mystery, even the term god is but a metaphor, and the religious would make war over their particular metaphor.

I'm an atheist and I don't buy any of this.

boagie wrote:

You my friend are the proverbial fence sitter

No, I'm not. I don't believe in God. Period. I just happen not to be a proselyte of that feeling. I also think that it's completely incorrect to assume that atheism describes a uniform belief about other people's scriptures and practices.

boagie wrote:

--in the terms of modernity, an enabler of anit-intellectual sentiment.

Hmm, I don't know -- unless you define modernity as Hume and Voltaire. To be an abrasive political atheist isn't modern, and to burn bridges isn't pro-intellectual. To box all atheists into your own preconception is actually anti-existential and hypocritical. So unless you've got a particular definition of atheist that excludes everyone you disagree with, you need to stop acting as if you're speaking for us.

2 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

I'm an atheist and I don't buy any of this.

No, I'm not. I don't believe in God. Period. I just happen not to be a proselyte of that feeling. I also think that it's completely incorrect to assume that atheism describes a uniform belief about other people's scriptures and practices.

Hmm, I don't know -- unless you define modernity as Hume and Voltaire. To be an abrasive political atheist isn't modern, and to burn bridges isn't pro-intellectual. To box all atheists into your own preconception is actually anti-existential and hypocritical. So unless you've got a particular definition of atheist that excludes everyone you disagree with, you need to stop acting as if you're speaking for us.

Aedes,

When Christianity stops speaking for us all!! Aedes, give me one example of something which is not metaphor, then you can make sacred all the ignorance you wish. Actually realizing the commonality of the metaphors in all religions should make one realize that the human psyche is universal and that the mystery, belongs to us all, but, we cannot go around creating unity after all can we? :brickwall: FELLOW ATHEISTS, JUMP IN ANY TIME!

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie;48627 wrote:

When Christianity stops speaking for us all!!

It doesn't. I'm not sure what you do for school or work, or what radio stations you listen to, but I don't find Christianity to be pervasive and omnipresent, even if politicians do lip service to it.

boagie wrote:

Aedes, give me one example of something which is not metaphor

Christmas. It's an excuse to get together with family members, have a big meal, give presents, decorate the house.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

I'd describe myself as an atheist. Sometimes I seem to suffer from religion withdrawal and I think about taking up a faith. Only Zoroastrianism has any real appeal though - and you have to have Zoroastrians as parents to become one. As I am a sulky sort who resents not being able to play I stick with atheism as a form of revenge as much as anything.

I also think Dawkins' attempt to rally atheists and create a movement for them is a little patronising (in the best possible way, but patronising nevertheless). I much prefer Hitchens' take, but I don't feel that either of them talk as movingly about atheism as Schopenhauer.

I think some of Dawkins' zeal comes from his frustration with creation science and the continued ignorant claims of theists relating to things like monopoly over morality.

Some of the more interesting critics of Dawkins do point out that there seem to be a lot of biological/sociological imperatives for faith - Dawkins' own theory of memes might actually support a lot of theory about the "need" for religion and the danger of repressing it.

I also think Dawkins is a little guilty of hypocrisy. For example he spends a lot of time in the God Delusion arguing that Einstein is on his side, despite his regular references to God, whilst trying to label Hitler a Roman Catholic despite all the evidence to suggest he had long turned away from the faith and became a de facto atheist.

However, in comparison I do find the bewildering and fantastical rhetoric of any major religious text, and the metaphysical justifications that religious philosophers use to justify it, far less appealing than atheist visions. I like them for their austerity, and the first video on this thread proves that they need not even be austere.

I think the problems facing athiests in US politics are worth complaining about, but that the need to "call them to arms" beyond encouraging them to stand up and be counted is unnecessary, and might even result in a simple polarisation of intolerance for people who don't believe in the things you believe in.

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

It doesn't. I'm not sure what you do for school or work, or what radio stations you listen to, but I don't find Christianity to be pervasive and omnipresent, even if politicians do lip service to it.

Christmas. It's an excuse to get together with family members, have a big meal, give presents, decorate the house.

Aedes:)

Then it is still a metaphor, a figure of speech in which an expression is used to refer to something that it does not literally denote in order to suggest a similarity. Aedes what is so vile to you about there being two sides to any coin, certainly all things are metaphors is undeniable, unless you can enlighten me as to the orgin of it all. Your a very reasonalbe man, why not here?

2 Replies

@boagie,

Dave Allen, Smile

Some excellent points, but I think that bit about Hitler is off, I believe there is documentation demonstrating his stated belief in Christianity.

Hitler's Christianity

Certainly Germany was a throughly Christian country. Christianity was historically anti-semetic.

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie;48636 wrote:

Aedes what is so vile to you about there being two sides to any coin

Talk about glass houses, boagie. I'm the one in this conversation who acknowledges that atheism is an almost infinitely multifaceted phenomenon. You are reverting to this quasi-manichean crusading, as if your point of view is representative of all other atheists and as if the Christians who annoy you are representative of all other theists. I think an atheist call to arms would be outright hypocrisy -- it would effectively be a statement of theist-envy.

boagie wrote:

certainly all things are metaphors is undeniable, unless you can enlighten me as to the orgin of it all.

They're allegories, not metaphors, but first and foremost they're traditions. The significance of such traditions has evolved over time and varies from person to person and sect to sect. What good will you do if you go out beating a metaphor drum. None.

boagie wrote:

Your a very reasonalbe man, why not here?

I'm as entitled to as strong an opinion about atheism and religion as you are. And as an atheist, I'm sooner going to campaign against intolerant and inflammatory rhetoric from either side than join some contrived crusade.

2 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Talk about glass houses, boagie. I'm the one in this conversation who acknowledges that atheism is an almost infinitely multifaceted phenomenon. You are reverting to this quasi-manichean crusading, as if your point of view is representative of all other atheists and as if the Christians who annoy you are representative of all other theists. I think an atheist call to arms would be outright hypocrisy -- it would effectively be a statement of theist-envy.

They're allegories, not metaphors, but first and foremost they're traditions. The significance of such traditions has evolved over time and varies from person to person and sect to sect. What good will you do if you go out beating a metaphor drum. None.

I'm as entitled to as strong an opinion about atheism and religion as you are. And as an atheist, I'm sooner going to campaign against intolerant and inflammatory rhetoric from either side than join some contrived crusade.

Aedes,

Great then lets here it from you in support of the atheist cause. Granted culturally there has arose great complexities here, but the fact that existence, creation, the world as object are metaphors for the mystery that opens backward to wonder is really inescapable. If you wish to discuss concrete terms, discuss them elsewhere, they mean nothing if they do not serve as metaphor to the mystery, if it does not speak to mystery, it is babble.

YouTube - Joseph Campbell

0 Replies

@boagie,

boagie,

I don't see where you have responded to the last points I posted.

You're using a subset of "the religious" to characterize all of "the religious."

Surely you wouldn't argue that any given atheist is smarter and more mature than any given theist, merely by virtue of their respective outlooks on that one issue.

I know plenty of atheists who, though otherwise well-educated, are quite simply ignorant when it comes to religion and theology. Some of them hold to their atheism as naively as some theists hold to their theism.

You are approaching this in such a polemical fashion that you really don't seem to be interested in careful, deliberate debate (which is what I thought to be the point of a "forum." What you really seem to be saying is just that your mind is made up.

1 Reply

@boagie,

I don't think atheism is a cause, nor do I think it deserves one. Fine, people aren't going to get elected to national office if they shout their atheism through a bullhorn. But that will also be true if they tell the world about their bowel habits or darkest fantasies. Whatever. It doesn't matter to me.

As for metaphor to the mystery, frankly so is science. The mystery isn't solved by learning more about the universe -- it's just displaced. Science has two roles -- one is practical (invention, solving problems, etc), and the other is intellectual -- knowing about stuff. And people will pick up Scientific American or National Geographic or whatever to pique their own sense of mystery by learning about science.

0 Replies

The Adult Atheist Thread

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know