Atheism thread

[LesJambes]

1 hour ago, jake said:

No they usually just bomb the shit out of people.

 

Anyway I don't believe in God.

More agnostic myself.

 

I just find the contempt a bit much.

 

For the record perhaps the most anti religious secular regime the USSR routinely killed people on the grounds of their belief.

And I'm pretty positive other secular governments have done so.

George Bush? He claimed he was told to go to war by god or jesus iirc. As for contempt, don't you think cutting little girls vaginas is contemptible? Or beheading people, or bombing them etc etc. If religions do harm to people I will criticise them, I don't care if it seems 'a bit much'. If they don't harm people then they can do what they like, no contempt from me whatsoever. Well I do reserve the right to laugh at people dancing naked with tambourines to worship the rising sun, but I won't go out of my way to be rude to them either.

Also Communists didn't kill people for beliefs, they killed everyone who threatened the power of the government, regardless of their religion. They even killed or persecuted other Communists who threatened the regime. But Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims etc were all allowed to practise their faith so long as they didn't criticise the government.

 

1 hour ago, deesidejambo said:

Thanks. 

 

So presumably by doing all this he has intent to convert people from one way of thinking to another.   Which is exactly what lots of religious spuds do.

 

Hence my assertion that atheism and religion are two sides of the same coin.

 

Gervais is trying to control minds just like the Church .

 

Atheists are just as bad as religious nuts if they start to try and influence others, which is exactly what Gervais was doing.

 

i will tell Snorty there is a new religion on the scene - Gervaiseism.

I don't think Ricky Gervais intends to convert anyone, he's a comedian and most of these quotes come from jokes. Besides which you can't call leaving a religion 'conversion', perhaps reversion is a better term. I think mind control is a massive stretch, come on, it's like saying Charles Manson and people who oppose his cult are equally manipulative. The people opposed generally aren't telling you to join another cult, they're just telling you to leave that one and think for yourself.

 

1 hour ago, jake said:

It's worth pointing out that persecution of religious beliefs is on the rise.

And that Christians suffer this more than any other religion.

Care to name some examples?

[deesidejambo]

54 minutes ago, Smithee said:

You're being a patronising welt, the fact that someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they don't understand, no matter how distracting an argument you put forward. I'll waste no more time on you, everyone can see for themselves what's happened here. 

Np problem.  I’d argue that is Gervais who is patronising and I see you can’t refute my argument.

 

please please put me on ignore.

 

thanks

[deesidejambo]

22 minutes ago, LesJambes said:

George Bush? He claimed he was told to go to war by god or jesus iirc. As for contempt, don't you think cutting little girls vaginas is contemptible? Or beheading people, or bombing them etc etc. If religions do harm to people I will criticise them, I don't care if it seems 'a bit much'. If they don't harm people then they can do what they like, no contempt from me whatsoever. Well I do reserve the right to laugh at people dancing naked with tambourines to worship the rising sun, but I won't go out of my way to be rude to them either.

Also Communists didn't kill people for beliefs, they killed everyone who threatened the power of the government, regardless of their religion. They even killed or persecuted other Communists who threatened the regime. But Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims etc were all allowed to practise their faith so long as they didn't criticise the government.

 

I don't think Ricky Gervais intends to convert anyone, he's a comedian and most of these quotes come from jokes. Besides which you can't call leaving a religion 'conversion', perhaps reversion is a better term. I think mind control is a massive stretch, come on, it's like saying Charles Manson and people who oppose his cult are equally manipulative. The people opposed generally aren't telling you to join another cult, they're just telling you to leave that one and think for yourself.

 

Care to name some examples?

I see your points but I don’t equate spiritualism or « belief » with religion.

 

i see them as two very different things

 

spirituality good

 

religion bad

[jake]

36 minutes ago, LesJambes said:

George Bush? He claimed he was told to go to war by god or jesus iirc. As for contempt, don't you think cutting little girls vaginas is contemptible? Or beheading people, or bombing them etc etc. If religions do harm to people I will criticise them, I don't care if it seems 'a bit much'. If they don't harm people then they can do what they like, no contempt from me whatsoever. Well I do reserve the right to laugh at people dancing naked with tambourines to worship the rising sun, but I won't go out of my way to be rude to them either.

Also Communists didn't kill people for beliefs, they killed everyone who threatened the power of the government, regardless of their religion. They even killed or persecuted other Communists who threatened the regime. But Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims etc were all allowed to practise their faith so long as they didn't criticise the government.

 

I don't think Ricky Gervais intends to convert anyone, he's a comedian and most of these quotes come from jokes. Besides which you can't call leaving a religion 'conversion', perhaps reversion is a better term. I think mind control is a massive stretch, come on, it's like saying Charles Manson and people who oppose his cult are equally manipulative. The people opposed generally aren't telling you to join another cult, they're just telling you to leave that one and think for yourself.

 

Care to name some examples?

Already posted a link .

Think I'm right in saying there is 130 odd countries that currently persecute Christians.

 

I am or have not defended violence on behalf of anything .

As already stated I'm agnostic.

 

You are wrong about the Soviet Union.

 

You may have the right to laugh and mock those who view life differently.

But for someone who is an atheist you don't half go on about religion.

 

[LesJambes]

 

1 minute ago, jake said:

Already posted a link .

Think I'm right in saying there is 130 odd countries that currently persecute Christians.

 

I am or have not defended violence on behalf of anything .

As already stated I'm agnostic.

 

You are wrong about the Soviet Union.

 

You may have the right to laugh and mock those who view life differently.

But for someone who is an atheist you don't half go on about religion.

 

It really depends on what they are referring to. Pakistan undoubtedly persecutes Christians for example, they often imprison people or even execute them for 'disrespecting Islam'. Christians have and do persecute others too, ie witchunts (which still happen in some parts btw), persecution of LGBT people, even in the west. All of this just furthers my point, that religion often leads to division and violence.

 

Okay, same.

 

Then how do you explain the continued existence of the Orthodox Church throughout the years of the Soviet Union? It seems hard to imagine it would still exist if they really were as antitheist as people claim.

 

so a few posts on a forum talking about atheism means I 'go on about religion'? The reason this thread has gone on for so long is because inevitably theists have to poke their nose in here to remind us we're all judgemental and doomed to hell.  Go and remind the people who aren't Nazis to stop talking about Nazism, or the people who oppose racism to just stfu about it. Whilst we're about it, people who oppose domestic violence should never talk about that either, you only get to discuss it if you're a wifebeater, right?

[Ray Gin]

[Pennywise]

 

[LesJambes]

Here's a few random images from a series I used to do. I've been neglecting it for a while but I might get back to it soon.

[Ray Gin]

 

 

[Ray Gin]

37 minutes ago, LesJambes said:

Here's a few random images from a series I used to do. I've been neglecting it for a while but I might get back to it soon.

 

 

 

[jake]

2 hours ago, Ray Gin said:

Stalin and Mao Zedong were both anti religious atheists.

 

Although to be fair they did follow an ism.

 

Anyway Ray I don't know why I'm sticking up for religion.

 

To be honest I'm scunnered with humanity as a whole tonight.

There are some vile people going about and I am letting it get me down.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

3 hours ago, Ray Gin said:

 

Gonna work backwards through this thread, but this is a particularly rich one.

 

What does a militant atheist look like? Well, a militant atheist might be one who was so opposed to a particular kind of religion that he vocally supported a war against a sovereign country that had done nothing to attack anyone in the atheist's country of origin, simply on the basis of that country being "backwards" and resistant to Western ideals of rationalism and science. Like, say, Christopher Hitchens.

 

Oh, that's just one example you say? Well, a militant atheist might vocally support a bombing campaign against an occupied region dominated by a religion he didn't like that destroyed hospitals, schools, power, killed nearly 1,500 people, including hundreds of women and children, then childishly scold those who criticized him for doing so as backwards and anti-Western. Like, say, Sam Harris.

 

I can do this all day long with prominent anti-theists. Richard Dawkins thinks charity is wrong because it just makes poor people have kids.

 

At least Gervais is just mostly a tone-deaf, condescending tit at his worst, I'll say that for him.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

1 hour ago, Ray Gin said:

 

 

 

Stupid memes are stupid. Somehow folk are unfamiliar with explicitly anti-theist China occupying Tibet and repressing Tibetan Buddhism there.

 

Come on, y'all.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

On 3/11/2018 at 07:14, Smithee said:

 

You can't dismiss it till you've researched it - that's nonsense mate, your religion is about belief in a deity, a thing that doesn't exist. Saying that it's lazy and silly to reject religion without research just makes it easy for YOU to be dismissive of those who don't share your blind faith. If you ask me, blind faith is lazy and silly. 

 

Of course there's good in most religions but that's not enough to justify belief in some bloody deity.

 

Okay, getting to my notifications.

 

The thing is if you tell me about the God that you don't think exists, I probably don't think that God exists either. It probably has something to do with a man in the sky who made the world in 7 days 6,000 years ago and sorts out people for either sitting on clouds with wings or going to a big hole in the ground with lots of fire.

 

Yeah, I don't think that guy exists either.

 

I don't mean to make this super-academic but if folk want to throw around "belief" and "existence" and even what exactly a "deity" is and then drop who's got degrees in philosophy or not, I'm going to make a fuss about being precise with what those terms mean in what contexts.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

On 3/11/2018 at 07:57, LesJambes said:

 

Well tbf atheists aren't going to critique the charity and good deeds of religion, because they don't have any issue with that. It's where religion is harmful that people begin to question it.

 

 

As I said I don't have any problem whatsoever with helpful, pointed, specific critiques about religion that actually engage with what specific people believe, rather than taking on straw men.

 

See Ray Gin's posts on this thread for someone absolutely unloading on facile straw men that mostly demonstrates a poor understanding of not only religion but also a fair bit of history.

[Unknown user]

1 minute ago, Ugly American said:

 

Okay, getting to my notifications.

 

The thing is if you tell me about the God that you don't think exists, I probably don't think that God exists either. It probably has something to do with a man in the sky who made the world in 7 days 6,000 years ago and sorts out people for either sitting on clouds with wings or going to a big hole in the ground with lots of fire.

 

Yeah, I don't think that guy exists either.

 

I don't mean to make this super-academic but if folk want to throw around "belief" and "existence" and even what exactly a "deity" is and then drop who's got degrees in philosophy or not, I'm going to make a fuss about being precise with what those terms mean in what contexts.

Let's be clear - the ONLY reason I pointed out gervais' degree was to show dsj that his post wasn't beyond the guy's ken, not to show that this point of view is better or stronger than anyone else's. 

 

Make it as super academic as you like, make as much of a fuss as you like, it's just muddying some very very simple waters - God doesn't exist. Of course, it suits the religious to debate everything but that point, but that's the nuts and bolts of it right there.

 

 

 

 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

Let's be clear - the ONLY reason I pointed out gervais' degree was to show dsj that his post wasn't beyond the guy's ken, not to show that this point of view is better or stronger than anyone else's. 

 

Make it as super academic as you like, make as much of a fuss as you like, it's just muddying some very very simple waters - God doesn't exist. Of course, it suits the religious to debate everything but that point, but that's the nuts and bolts of it right there.

 

This thread: "God doesn't exist, it's simple"

 

Also this thread: "There have been 3,000 gods, any theists are stupid for insisting on only talking about one."

 

What do you personally think constitutes a god?  To put it another way, would you say that Mother Nature exists?

[Unknown user]

Just now, Ugly American said:

 

This thread: "God doesn't exist, it's simple"

 

Also this thread: "There have been 3,000 gods, any theists are stupid for insisting on only talking about one."

 

What do you personally think constitutes a god?  To put it another way, would you say that Mother Nature exists?

Yeah, I quoted a guy I agree with, as per the OP, Gervais' degree would never have come up if dsj hadn't posted. But again, it wasn't to back up my point of view, it was to display to dsj that the guy would understand just fine. 

 

Your question's an attempt at digression - of course mother nature doesn't exist, neither does God.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

Yeah, I quoted a guy I agree with, as per the OP, Gervais' degree would never have come up if dsj hadn't posted. But again, it wasn't to back up my point of view, it was to display to dsj that the guy would understand just fine. 

 

Your question's an attempt at digression - of course mother nature doesn't exist, neither does God.

 

So nature doesn't exist?  (I am trying to make a point here, not being deliberately dense.)

Edited March 12, 2018 by Ugly American

[Unknown user]

1 minute ago, Ugly American said:

 

So nature doesn't exist?

As a name for the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations, sure. 

As some mysterious force, no, of course not. 

[Ray Gin]

1 hour ago, Ugly American said:

 

Stupid memes are stupid. Somehow folk are unfamiliar with explicitly anti-theist China occupying Tibet and repressing Tibetan Buddhism there.

 

Come on, y'all.

 

Come on now, China occupying Tibet had nothing to do with an atheist state attempting to repress Buddhism. Buddhism is practiced by 15% of Chinese people, and full religious freedom was offered to Tibet in the agreement to become part of the PRC.

[Ray Gin]

2 hours ago, Ugly American said:

 

Gonna work backwards through this thread, but this is a particularly rich one.

 

What does a militant atheist look like? Well, a militant atheist might be one who was so opposed to a particular kind of religion that he vocally supported a war against a sovereign country that had done nothing to attack anyone in the atheist's country of origin, simply on the basis of that country being "backwards" and resistant to Western ideals of rationalism and science. Like, say, Christopher Hitchens.

 

Oh, that's just one example you say? Well, a militant atheist might vocally support a bombing campaign against an occupied region dominated by a religion he didn't like that destroyed hospitals, schools, power, killed nearly 1,500 people, including hundreds of women and children, then childishly scold those who criticized him for doing so as backwards and anti-Western. Like, say, Sam Harris.

 

I can do this all day long with prominent anti-theists. Richard Dawkins thinks charity is wrong because it just makes poor people have kids.

 

At least Gervais is just mostly a tone-deaf, condescending tit at his worst, I'll say that for him.

 

Now, these aren't quite the same as personally plotting and carrying out terrorist attacks are they?  The Dawkins one in particular is desperate straw grasping.

 

Perhaps you may also bear in mind the Christian-led country who carried out the bombing campaigns.

Edited March 12, 2018 by Ray Gin

[Sidelight]

2 hours ago, Ugly American said:

 

As I said I don't have any problem whatsoever with helpful, pointed, specific critiques about religion that actually engage with what specific people believe, rather than taking on straw men.

 

See Ray Gin's posts on this thread for someone absolutely unloading on facile straw men that mostly demonstrates a poor understanding of not only religion but also a fair bit of history.

The facts do not determine the argument, the argument determines the facts.

I would suggest that the typical RG personality, one who raises double digits to the notion of a transcendent creator God, does not disbelieve because he is learned in and has examined all the evidence and then comes to a coherent conclusion that there is no God.  

No, a person’s world view determines how they respond to the evidence. The atheist thinks he knows that there is no spiritual, supernatural realm and that only the physical exists. This assumption determines how they respond to the evidence.

[LesJambes]

2 hours ago, Ugly American said:

 

Gonna work backwards through this thread, but this is a particularly rich one.

 

What does a militant atheist look like? Well, a militant atheist might be one who was so opposed to a particular kind of religion that he vocally supported a war against a sovereign country that had done nothing to attack anyone in the atheist's country of origin, simply on the basis of that country being "backwards" and resistant to Western ideals of rationalism and science. Like, say, Christopher Hitchens.

 

Oh, that's just one example you say? Well, a militant atheist might vocally support a bombing campaign against an occupied region dominated by a religion he didn't like that destroyed hospitals, schools, power, killed nearly 1,500 people, including hundreds of women and children, then childishly scold those who criticized him for doing so as backwards and anti-Western. Like, say, Sam Harris.

 

I can do this all day long with prominent anti-theists. Richard Dawkins thinks charity is wrong because it just makes poor people have kids.

 

At least Gervais is just mostly a tone-deaf, condescending tit at his worst, I'll say that for him.

Hitchens didn't support the Iraq war because of Islam, he did it because Saddam Hussein was an oppressive dictator. The Baathists were known to be commiting genocide against the Kurds, compare that to Germany where we didn't know about the full extent of the Holocaust but still declared war. If he wanted a war with Islam he would've advocated war with Saudi Arabia, home of most of the 911 hijackers and primary exporter of radical Islam. That paragraph bears no relation to what Sam Harris said, and I'm not even particularly a fan of him either. I'll need to see some evidence of Richard Dawkins opposition to charity, I strongly suspect it's as skewed as your paraphrasing of Harris and Hitchens. 

 

2 hours ago, Ugly American said:

 

Stupid memes are stupid. Somehow folk are unfamiliar with explicitly anti-theist China occupying Tibet and repressing Tibetan Buddhism there.

 

Come on, y'all.

Tibetan Buddhists had a feudal Kingdom where the monks were a ruling class and kept the serfs in virtual slavery. So while I have many disagreements with China let's not pretend that Tibet was some utopian paradise before Chinese rule. And btw Buddhism is as active in Tibet as it's ever been. Again it's not the religion they have an issue with, it's the people who speak against the government. Let's just stop the conflation of atheism and Communism, unless you want to accept responsibility for every single Fascist state which happened to also be Christian? Because that would only be fair.

 

1 hour ago, Ugly American said:

 

As I said I don't have any problem whatsoever with helpful, pointed, specific critiques about religion that actually engage with what specific people believe, rather than taking on straw men.

 

See Ray Gin's posts on this thread for someone absolutely unloading on facile straw men that mostly demonstrates a poor understanding of not only religion but also a fair bit of history.

So we have to take every single individual who believes that jesus is god, and criticise them individually, presumably within some very stringent rules regarding what you personally deem acceptable? How about just critiquing the religion as a whole, and if some cafetria christians feel it doesn't apply to them then more power to them. I'm all for religious revisionism, personally, if you want to pretend Christianity is about gender equality, tolerance of other religions, etc then go ahead, and I wish you luck in your quest to convince other christians like Pat Robertson and the WBC. If you have specific rebuttals to Ray Gin's post I request that you make them, because anyone can just say something like 'see how dense Ugly American is, he doesn't understand anything and he just lies'. It's ultimately meaningless though because it doesn't refer to anythign specific, or make any specific counter argument. It's effectively a Barnum statement.

 

1 hour ago, Ugly American said:

 

This thread: "God doesn't exist, it's simple"

 

Also this thread: "There have been 3,000 gods, any theists are stupid for insisting on only talking about one."

 

What do you personally think constitutes a god?  To put it another way, would you say that Mother Nature exists?

I was sure I called this thread 'Atheism thread' ? ? but anyway atheism doesn't just pertain to your god (I'm assuming the christian god? Or some convenient version of it anyhow). That shows your arrogance, you read atheist and think that can only be in relation to god, your god, not the endless deities, prophets, messiahs, angels, demons etc that we disbelieve in. And nobody used the word stupid, perhaps that's some self-consciousness on your part. But it's not that people only talk of one of these gods, but any at all. Outwith historical and mythical studies that is.

 

The definition of god varies greatly. Some Greek Gods had limited abilities, eg the ability to fly. By that standard you could say we are gods, or at elast we are if we've ever flown in an airplane. Other people claimed to be living gods. The burden is on the one making the claim, but for me I would say if any entity can prove itself to be sufficiently advanced beyond human scientific abilities then it could effectively be classed as a god. But unless it could prove some reason for doing so I wouldn't feel the need to worship it. Learn from it perhaps, maybe even accept it as some form of leader, but unquestioning devotion is irrational. And any significantly advanced being is likely to understand that too.

 

 

[Unknown user]

6 minutes ago, alfajambo said:

The facts do not determine the argument, the argument determines the facts.

I would suggest that the typical RG personality, one who raises double digits to the notion of a transcendent creator God, does not disbelieve because he is learned in and has examined all the evidence and then comes to a coherent conclusion that there is no God.  

No, a person’s world view determines how they respond to the evidence. The atheist thinks he knows that there is no spiritual, supernatural realm and that only the physical exists. This assumption determines how they respond to the evidence.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

 

Can't help having a wee laugh at the concept of Christians being offended that the evidence hasn't been examined thoroughly enough by the way!

 

[LesJambes]

18 minutes ago, alfajambo said:

The facts do not determine the argument, the argument determines the facts.

I would suggest that the typical RG personality, one who raises double digits to the notion of a transcendent creator God, does not disbelieve because he is learned in and has examined all the evidence and then comes to a coherent conclusion that there is no God.  

No, a person’s world view determines how they respond to the evidence. The atheist thinks he knows that there is no spiritual, supernatural realm and that only the physical exists. This assumption determines how they respond to the evidence.

Which evidence, specifically?

[Watt-Zeefuik]

45 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

Come on now, China occupying Tibet had nothing to do with an atheist state attempting to repress Buddhism. Buddhism is practiced by 15% of Chinese people, and full religious freedom was offered to Tibet in the agreement to become part of the PRC.

 

It has everything to do with repressing Buddhism.

 

I distinctly recall folk directly above mentioning that atheism isn't an actual religion, but rather the absence of theism. Folks like Hitchens fall all over themselves to tie every single war that happens in a place where theism is prominent to religious conflict -- it's amazing how many people will swear up and down that Hamas is nothing but an extremist Islamic organization motivated by nothing but religious hatred. (It is of course an Islamic organization but its motivations have far more to do with land, economy, jobs, freedom of movement, health and social care, etc.)

 

China wanted Tibet so it occupied it and annexed it. It saw the traditional Tibetan Buddhist cultural structures as a threat to its Maoist restructuring of society, so explicitly outlawed Tibetan cultural practices, banned the Dalai Lama, dissolved monastic and temple structures that were deep parts of the provision of services, and have continually tried to institute non-religious replacements for all of those in the name of modernization and communism. All of this is expressly motivated in its public documents by seeing traditional Tibetan culture, including Buddhism, as a non-modern structure which needs to be replaced by atheistic communism.

 

Just because China is forcibly disrupting a culture and exiling its leaders in the name of the absence of traditional ritual structure does not make it any less religious repression -- it's a sophistry to try to work around that.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

48 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

Now, these aren't quite the same as personally plotting and carrying out terrorist attacks are they?  The Dawkins one in particular is desperate straw grasping.

 

Perhaps you may also bear in mind the Christian-led country who carried out the bombing campaigns.

 

Of course -- my argument here is that atheism has no moral high ground above religion in regards to supporting war. You all are down in the gutter of broken humanity with the rest of us.

 

Anders Breivik who shot up the camp in Norway was confirmed Lutheran as a young teen but had long since left the church and rebelled against his parents in more ways than one. His motivation seems to be entirely on Nazi ideology with no expression of theism involved.

 

In North Carolina near where I used to live, a man who repeatedly denounced all religions on social media killed three of his neighbors, all of whom were Muslim. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/12/us/muslim-student-shootings-north-carolina.html

 

Atheists want to pretend their shit doesn't stink when it comes to perpetuating violence, religious intolerance, militarism, and all that. Widespread evidence says otherwise.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

2 hours ago, Smithee said:

As a name for the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations, sure. 

As some mysterious force, no, of course not. 

 

So you can understand that folk can walk around referring to "Mother Nature" while simultaneously understanding that there is not a supernatural being shaped like a woman with twigs in her hair who personally sees to the flowers blooming and the birds singing?

 

Good. Then maybe you can understand that when many ancient Greeks talked about Poseidon, they didn't actually think there was a giant man in the ocean pushing and pulling the waves back and forth?

 

That maybe some Christians point to the general concepts of wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth and say that all of those things are connected back to one source of good in the world, and that when we put a name on the "spirit" of all of that, it doesn't mean we're talking about a man in the sky?

[ADAM]

2 hours ago, Ugly American said:

 

Gonna work backwards through this thread, but this is a particularly rich one.

 

What does a militant atheist look like? Well, a militant atheist might be one who was so opposed to a particular kind of religion that he vocally supported a war against a sovereign country that had done nothing to attack anyone in the atheist's country of origin, simply on the basis of that country being "backwards" and resistant to Western ideals of rationalism and science. Like, say, Christopher Hitchens.

 

Oh, that's just one example you say? Well, a militant atheist might vocally support a bombing campaign against an occupied region dominated by a religion he didn't like that destroyed hospitals, schools, power, killed nearly 1,500 people, including hundreds of women and children, then childishly scold those who criticized him for doing so as backwards and anti-Western. Like, say, Sam Harris.

 

I can do this all day long with prominent anti-theists. Richard Dawkins thinks charity is wrong because it just makes poor people have kids.

 

At least Gervais is just mostly a tone-deaf, condescending tit at his worst, I'll say that for him.

Actually sick to the back teeth of hearing this strawman 'militant atheists' term.

 

For literally centuries religion has exerted a control over society and demended an unquestioning deference to it's views and  theology.

 

That deference and influence still exists today in the UK due to religion being granted huge legal privileges across many areas of society (see examples of privileges below).

 

Fortunately these privileges/influences are now being vigoriously challenged by various non-religious, secularists and democratic groups/individuals and that's what the religious are reacting against.

 

It's the religoius that are 'militants', demanding privileges and legal rights to influence society.

 

List of examples of religoius privilege:

Enforced religious observance in all state schools.

Access of evangelical religious groups in state schools like Scripture Union (see their website for real dogma!).

An official state religion (Church of England) with the unelected Head of State as its leader.

26 unelected Bishops in the House of Lords.

Unelected, with full voting rights, 3 religious representatives on all Scottish local authority education committees.

Enforced prayer at the start of Local Council meetings and at Westminster.

Religious exemptions from UK equality laws.

The refusal of the state to recognise the non-religious (such as the Humanist Society in England) at certain state events e.g. Remembrance Day at the Cenotaph or to conduct marriages.

The ongoing battle in Skye with the religious on the local authority refusing to open the council run sports centre on Sundays despite strong local support to do so.

 

The list of religous privilege allowing them to enforce their views and influence on all sectors of society goes on and on.

 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Apologies for all the consecutive replies. It seems the best way to try to get out of this. 

 

39 minutes ago, LesJambes said:

Hitchens didn't support the Iraq war because of Islam, he did it because Saddam Hussein was an oppressive dictator. The Baathists were known to be commiting genocide against the Kurds, compare that to Germany where we didn't know about the full extent of the Holocaust but still declared war. If he wanted a war with Islam he would've advocated war with Saudi Arabia, home of most of the 911 hijackers and primary exporter of radical Islam. That paragraph bears no relation to what Sam Harris said, and I'm not even particularly a fan of him either. I'll need to see some evidence of Richard Dawkins opposition to charity, I strongly suspect it's as skewed as your paraphrasing of Harris and Hitchens. 

 

Hitchens very explicitly justified his invasion of Iraq and his support for an invasion of Iran in terms of a society which did not meet his modern, Western ideals, which included Islam. This is shot through repeatedly in his work. To his credit he highlighted problems with the repression of women.  As to Harris, look up his defenses of Operation Cast Lead. They are morally repulsive if you can see Palestinians as something other than premodern monsters who deserve collective pulverization until they accept total second class citizenship and no political representation.

 

39 minutes ago, LesJambes said:

Tibetan Buddhists had a feudal Kingdom where the monks were a ruling class and kept the serfs in virtual slavery. So while I have many disagreements with China let's not pretend that Tibet was some utopian paradise before Chinese rule. And btw Buddhism is as active in Tibet as it's ever been. Again it's not the religion they have an issue with, it's the people who speak against the government.

 

I would think folks in Scotland, which did not officially abolish feudal tenure until 2000, would be hesitant to see feudal society used as a justification for invasion. If China invaded Scotland, do you think they would hesitate to use Scotland's worst-in-Europe land inequality and its very, very recent abolition of feudal land tenure as a justification for dismantling pillars of Scottish society?

 

39 minutes ago, LesJambes said:

Let's just stop the conflation of atheism and Communism, unless you want to accept responsibility for every single Fascist state which happened to also be Christian? Because that would only be fair.

 

This is exactly what folk on this thread are doing and which I'm arguing against. I am arguing against an inherent superiority of atheism when it comes to militarism, repression, coloniality, and intolerance. Holding the church or any other religious, spiritual, ritual, or traditional organization accountable for its specific support for those actions is badly needed and I am 100% in favor of it. Both sides of my family come from the pre-merger southern wing of the American Presbyterian church, which supported the Confederacy in the Civil War and was far too reticent in supporting the Civil Rights Movement. That's specific criticism of religion that I absolutely want to see from anyone, not just atheists.

 

39 minutes ago, LesJambes said:

So we have to take every single individual who believes that jesus is god, and criticise them individually, presumably within some very stringent rules regarding what you personally deem acceptable? How about just critiquing the religion as a whole, and if some cafetria christians feel it doesn't apply to them then more power to them. I'm all for religious revisionism, personally, if you want to pretend Christianity is about gender equality, tolerance of other religions, etc then go ahead, and I wish you luck in your quest to convince other christians like Pat Robertson and the WBC. If you have specific rebuttals to Ray Gin's post I request that you make them, because anyone can just say something like 'see how dense Ugly American is, he doesn't understand anything and he just lies'. It's ultimately meaningless though because it doesn't refer to anythign specific, or make any specific counter argument. It's effectively a Barnum statement.

 

How about this -- no one is asking you to judge every single individual. Instead, maybe judge the specific religious organization to which a set of individuals adhere? You want to judge me, here's a place to start. I'm in the Presbyterian Church (USA). In the merger between the southern and northern church to create the merged denomination, we added the Brief Statement of Faith to the Book of Confessions, our most foundational documents other than the Bible. That includes this particular passage (edited for brevity, see the whole thing in the link): "We trust in God the Holy Spirit, everywhere the giver and renewer of life. . . .  The same Spirit calls women and men to all ministries of the church." That was added specifically to address the mistake, as we see it, of prior parts of the church excluding women from ministry. You say you want "religious revisionism?" Are you aware that presbyterianism, as practiced by the Church of Scotland, belongs to a tradition known as the Reformed tradition, because we have as one of our core tenants, Ecclesia semper reformanda est  or "the Church must always be reforming." We literally have an entire Christian tradition built around the fact that our traditions must always be confessing our shortcomings and trying to get better, and that we will never get there, but have to keep trying to be better.

 

Now, if you think we're doing it wrong, again, by all means, you can be specific in your criticisms. That's helpful. That's productive. That's not just smug whining.

 

As to Pat Robertson and the WBC, I think if you were to look at my posting history on JKB (not saying you should, just if you did) or my twitter feed (http://twitter.com/MTBinDurham) you'll find I spend at least 20x as much energy criticizing hypocrisy, bad theology, hate, intolerance, refusal to acknowledge shortcomings, and other things *within Christianity* as I do about atheism. However, as you say....

 

39 minutes ago, LesJambes said:

I was sure I called this thread 'Atheism thread' ? ? but anyway atheism doesn't just pertain to your god (I'm assuming the christian god? Or some convenient version of it anyhow). That shows your arrogance, you read atheist and think that can only be in relation to god, your god, not the endless deities, prophets, messiahs, angels, demons etc that we disbelieve in. And nobody used the word stupid, perhaps that's some self-consciousness on your part. But it's not that people only talk of one of these gods, but any at all. Outwith historical and mythical studies that is.

 

This is a terribly odd comment. What in the post that you quoted made you think I was addressing only Christianity? I of course can only speak personally for the tradition that I'm a part of, but the sum of my posting on this thread has been to defend all forms of religious practice from what I see as the laziest and most useless of attacks on Christianity.

 

But more to the point, as others have pointed out, atheism isn't a thing, it's a lack of a thing. I don't think atheism is a "religion" because religion is a largely Western understanding of spiritual, sacred, and traditional practices.  I have a colleague in my Ph.D. program who studies monuments to Mao in China, and one of the interesting things he brings up is that he sees them as effectively sacred spaces but without the specifics of a religion with a priesthood, organized communal worship, and theology in the same way that we talk about the Judeo-Christian traditions.

 

So if you want to talk about the religion-like thing that most Western atheists have, I would call it "rationalist modernist humanism." I've argued this before on JKB, but I see humanism, or the belief that humans are inherently good and that in general we can trust in human progress to solve our problems, as wholly irrational and completely unsupported by good empirical evidence. But as you say, this is the atheism thread, not the rationalist modernist humanist thread, so by definition you're talking about a point of disagreement with theism, so here we are.

 

39 minutes ago, LesJambes said:

The definition of god varies greatly. Some Greek Gods had limited abilities, eg the ability to fly. By that standard you could say we are gods, or at elast we are if we've ever flown in an airplane. Other people claimed to be living gods. The burden is on the one making the claim, but for me I would say if any entity can prove itself to be sufficiently advanced beyond human scientific abilities then it could effectively be classed as a god. But unless it could prove some reason for doing so I wouldn't feel the need to worship it. Learn from it perhaps, maybe even accept it as some form of leader, but unquestioning devotion is irrational. And any significantly advanced being is likely to understand that too.

 

i find this a terribly interesting question. In a conversation with other academics recently, we were talking about this passage from Aldo Leopold, and I made the case that in this passage "the mountain" amounts to a sort of ad hoc, informal deity. The passage is labeled "Thinking like a mountain" -- now Leopold was fully bright enough to understand that the mountain did not have a brain and did not think in the way that humans do. Instead, he's personifying the mountain to express a certain kind of agency that the mountain has. The mountain has a view, is (at least somewhat) immortal, has preferences for what happens on its slopes, is hurt by certain actions (the killing of the wolf), and so forth.

 

Now granted, it is a long long way between personifying a mountain and establishing an entire priesthood and collective worship practice and almsgiving and so forth around the deity of the mountain, but I absolutely think if we're talking about gods in the lower-case sense, you start with this kind of personification of an abstract concept.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

28 minutes ago, ADAM said:

Actually sick to the back teeth of hearing this strawman 'militant atheists' term.

 

For literally centuries religion has exerted a control over society and demended an unquestioning deference to it's views and  theology.

 

That deference and influence still exists today in the UK due to religion being granted huge legal privileges across many areas of society (see examples of privileges below).

 

Fortunately these privileges/influences are now being vigoriously challenged by various non-religious, secularists and democratic groups/individuals and that's what the religious are reacting against.

 

It's the religoius that are 'militants', demanding privileges and legal rights to influence society.

 

List of examples of religoius privilege:

Enforced religious observance in all state schools.

Access of evangelical religious groups in state schools like Scripture Union (see their website for real dogma!).

An official state religion (Church of England) with the unelected Head of State as its leader.

26 unelected Bishops in the House of Lords.

Unelected, with full voting rights, 3 religious representatives on all Scottish local authority education committees.

Enforced prayer at the start of Local Council meetings and at Westminster.

Religious exemptions from UK equality laws.

The refusal of the state to recognise the non-religious (such as the Humanist Society in England) at certain state events e.g. Remembrance Day at the Cenotaph or to conduct marriages.

The ongoing battle in Skye with the religious on the local authority refusing to open the council run sports centre on Sundays despite strong local support to do so.

 

The list of religous privilege allowing them to enforce their views and influence on all sectors of society goes on and on.

 

 

This entire post is basically taking specific criticisms of the Church of England and applying them to all religions. I absolutely, positively disagree with every single one of your criticisms on the "list of examples of religious privilege." Which is one of the major reasons why devoutly religious people in the United States insisted on the separation of church and state, in a renouncement of the practices in the UK. 

 

Which, again, I am all on board with these critiques, but BE SPECIFIC. Complaints about the Church of England are not indictments of the entirety of religious practice. There is more things about heaven and earth, Horatio, than in the narrow experiences of a little archipelago on the northwest corner of Europe.

[Ulysses]

Funny how discussions about atheism frequently descend into debates about religion.  As if religion was the point.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

1 minute ago, Ulysses said:

Funny how discussions about atheism frequently descend into debates about religion.  As if religion was the point.

 

What should a thread on atheism be about other than "not having a religion?"

 

If you started a thread on "not doing stamp collecting" would it be surprising if it devolved into a discussion on the merits of stamp collecting?

[Ulysses]

Just now, Ugly American said:

 

What should a thread on atheism be about other than "not having a religion?"

 

If you started a thread on "not doing stamp collecting" would it be surprising if it devolved into a discussion on the merits of stamp collecting?

 

But the thread isn't about "not having a religion".

 

Many believers talk about religion rather than gods because, let's face it, there is something much more concrete and tangible about the former than the latter.  Meanwhile, many non-believers have a go at religious institutions as if that somehow buttresses their claims for the non-existence of gods.  Both standpoints are a tad ironic, to say the least.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

4 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

But the thread isn't about "not having a religion".

 

Many believers talk about religion rather than gods because, let's face it, there is something much more concrete and tangible about the former than the latter.  Meanwhile, many non-believers have a go at religious institutions as if that somehow buttresses their claims for the non-existence of gods.  Both standpoints are a tad ironic, to say the least.

 

I suppose this seems like trying to have it both ways to me. "A-theism" is literally "absence of theism."  The thread didn't descend into talking about religion, it was on religion from the first post after the OP.

 

I agree that "atheism is a religion in the same way not stamp collecting is a hobby." From that, a thread about atheism should either be about why you don't have religion (which is inherently about religion) or about what ELSE you believe instead of religion (which gets complicated).

 

On the latter, as I've said above, I think most Western atheists are humanists, and believe that humans are somehow inherently good. I personally find that belief odd and am not sure how people get it.

[Ulysses]

Nope. 

 

If you are an atheist, and you are truly secure and confident in your belief, then religion simply doesn't matter, because there are no deities.

 

If you are a believer, and you are truly secure and confident in your belief, then you do not need religion to moderate your relationship with your deity (and its relationship with you).

 

Religion is not needed at all by true believers, or by true unbelievers.  That being the case, religion can only serve a purpose for those who are neither true believers nor true unbelievers.  What a thought, eh?

 

Gods, faith and religion are not the same as each other at all.

[LesJambes]

3 hours ago, ADAM said:

Actually sick to the back teeth of hearing this strawman 'militant atheists' term.

 

For literally centuries religion has exerted a control over society and demended an unquestioning deference to it's views and  theology.

 

That deference and influence still exists today in the UK due to religion being granted huge legal privileges across many areas of society (see examples of privileges below).

 

Fortunately these privileges/influences are now being vigoriously challenged by various non-religious, secularists and democratic groups/individuals and that's what the religious are reacting against.

 

It's the religoius that are 'militants', demanding privileges and legal rights to influence society.

 

List of examples of religoius privilege:

Enforced religious observance in all state schools.

Access of evangelical religious groups in state schools like Scripture Union (see their website for real dogma!).

An official state religion (Church of England) with the unelected Head of State as its leader.

26 unelected Bishops in the House of Lords.

Unelected, with full voting rights, 3 religious representatives on all Scottish local authority education committees.

Enforced prayer at the start of Local Council meetings and at Westminster.

Religious exemptions from UK equality laws.

The refusal of the state to recognise the non-religious (such as the Humanist Society in England) at certain state events e.g. Remembrance Day at the Cenotaph or to conduct marriages.

The ongoing battle in Skye with the religious on the local authority refusing to open the council run sports centre on Sundays despite strong local support to do so.

 

The list of religous privilege allowing them to enforce their views and influence on all sectors of society goes on and on.

 

 

Only quoting this post because it is an excellent one, highlighting the main issues with theocracy in this nation, and it bears repeating.

[Bigsmak]

So .. back on topic.. 

 

What led the atheists on this thread to realise that they had been lied to by society and there is no God? 

 

 

[deesidejambo]

Someone earlier asked me to explain my statement that every single human has a spiritual dimension.  They do, although some dont know it yet.

 

Heres the reason -

 

Spirituality is not the same as belief in a deity - people on this thread continually conflate the two.         It can be argued by Maslow again, that spirituality is what elevates humans above the animal kingdom.

 

Heres some examples of non-deity spirituality in action -

 

Chi

Reincarnation

Karma

Ghosts

The Force (yes there are some who believe in this, but it just another manifestation of Chi).

Luck

Faithfulness

Hope

Conscience

 

The last one is interesting - I expect some reading this have experienced a weird moment when their conscience "kicks-in".   For example maybe they have a chance to nick something but their conscience awakens.  Some say "my conscience wouldn't let me do it".

 

The conscience is your spiritual brain - it can lie dormant for years then awaken when required, or in the case of tribes is specifically asked every evening to speak to them about things.

 

Sometimes the spiritual and logical brains fight each other - when faced with a dilemma you hear yourself say "I shouldn't do this but......".  This is simply your logical brain and your spiritual one having a pagger inside your head.

 

The spiritual brain can in some cases start to dominate the logical:   god-botherers, gamblers (hope), psychopaths (I murdered them to protect humanity), and, yes, atheists.

 

But I expect some will just call me a welt again.     It will go in my book.

 

[Unknown user]

8 hours ago, Ugly American said:

 

So you can understand that folk can walk around referring to "Mother Nature" while simultaneously understanding that there is not a supernatural being shaped like a woman with twigs in her hair who personally sees to the flowers blooming and the birds singing?

 

Good. Then maybe you can understand that when many ancient Greeks talked about Poseidon, they didn't actually think there was a giant man in the ocean pushing and pulling the waves back and forth?

 

That maybe some Christians point to the general concepts of wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth and say that all of those things are connected back to one source of good in the world, and that when we put a name on the "spirit" of all of that, it doesn't mean we're talking about a man in the sky?

I understand all of this, but there's still no god, be it man in the sky or mysterious force. Christians can say that all of those things are connected back to one source of good in the world but it isn't true - wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth are human concepts, their source is our little heads.

 

You can say that you're not talking about a man in the sky, but then you're not talking about Christianity, which is a religion based on a man in the sky.

 

I like your style a whole lot more than most of the others and I'm always happy to engage with you, but I can't get away from the fact that religious debates always end up with strawman all over the place - I've often thought this would be a more appropriate basis for Christian iconography myself

 

 

[deesidejambo]

7 hours ago, Ulysses said:

Gods, faith and religion are not the same as each other at all.

Exactly this.     Its the conflation of them that causes the problem as demonstrated on this thread.

 

And I'd add one more - The Church - which is religion turned into mind-control.

[Sidelight]

9 hours ago, Ugly American said:

 

Of course -- my argument here is that atheism has no moral high ground above religion in regards to supporting war. You all are down in the gutter of broken humanity with the rest of us.

 

 

Yeah, you are absolutely correct, and the evidence from 20^th century history confirms this.

The Soviets, Communist China, the Khmer Rouge, Hitler and his mob were all set on controlling and destroying religious observations and practice in an effort to move forward their own political ideologies.

However, and as you have consistently identified in the past, this did not exactly promote peace and the flowering of goodwill towards mankind.

You may have read the ‘The Twilight of Atheism’ by Alister McGrath, this is a much quoted line from that book.

“The 20^th century gave rise to one of the greatest and most distressing paradoxes of human history: that the greatest intolerances and violence of that century were practiced by those who believed that religion caused intolerance and violence.”

Having said this, it is not my intent to down play violent atrocities carried out by evil and misguided people who somehow believe they did so in the name of Christ.

Another misconception that seems to permeate our culture and one to which you touch on here is the brokenness of humanity: Many people in society believe that, those who call themselves Christians somehow have the understanding that they are better, morally superior to their neighbour and go to heaven because they lead a good life. When in fact Christianity teaches the very opposite view.

For the record: Christians believe that, God’s grace does not cover people who simply morally outperform, but rather to those who are broken and admit their failure and fallen state and acknowledge their need for a saviour.

AJ signing out from a hilly domain on a little archipelago on the northwest corner of Europe.

[LesJambes]

Replying to Ugly American:

Quote

Hitchens very explicitly justified his invasion of Iraq and his support for an invasion of Iran in terms of a society which did not meet his modern, Western ideals, which included Islam. This is shot through repeatedly in his work. To his credit he highlighted problems with the repression of women.  As to Harris, look up his defenses of Operation Cast Lead. They are morally repulsive if you can see Palestinians as something other than premodern monsters who deserve collective pulverization until they accept total second class citizenship and no political representation.

Modern, Western ideals like secularism, democracy and human rights? What a monster. I don't agree with everything Sam Harris says, and I'd prefer to avoid an Israel/ Palestine debate, but suffice it to say the Middle East situation exists because of religion; Islamic expansionism and Zionist colonialism respectively. Whilst I object to much of Israeli policy (evil anti-theocrat that I am) it should be noted that Arab Israelis are not second class citizens, they have the same rights as Jewish Israelis. There are even several Arab/ Muslim political parties in Israel, so I don't see where you got the 'no political representation' thing from.

Quote

I would think folks in Scotland, which did not officially abolish feudal tenure until 2000, would be hesitant to see feudal society used as a justification for invasion. If China invaded Scotland, do you think they would hesitate to use Scotland's worst-in-Europe land inequality and its very, very recent abolition of feudal land tenure as a justification for dismantling pillars of Scottish society?

I was not justifying invasion, I just didn't want anyone to have the false impression that Tibet was some utopian paradise before Chinese rule. I know the latter question is facetious, but if I was living in a theocratic dictatorship and we were taken over by a communist dictatorship then yes it would be somewhat of an improvement, assuming it was truly communist and looked after the poorest people.

Quote

This is exactly what folk on this thread are doing and which I'm arguing against. I am arguing against an inherent superiority of atheism when it comes to militarism, repression, coloniality, and intolerance. Holding the church or any other religious, spiritual, ritual, or traditional organization accountable for its specific support for those actions is badly needed and I am 100% in favor of it. Both sides of my family come from the pre-merger southern wing of the American Presbyterian church, which supported the Confederacy in the Civil War and was far too reticent in supporting the Civil Rights Movement. That's specific criticism of religion that I absolutely want to see from anyone, not just atheists.

That sounds like a strawman argument, I don't remember anyone arguing for state atheism. Most atheists in my experience support secularism, not some atheist dictatorship that exists only in the head of Glenn Beck. Secularism goes some way to nullifying the need to even criticise religious organisations or individuals, because you cut the formal ties between church and state so their views don't directly impact government and law. I'm more than happy to criticise churches or organisations when I disagree with them, but if they have direct ties to politicians and government then that condemnation is all the more imperative.

Quote

How about this -- no one is asking you to judge every single individual. Instead, maybe judge the specific religious organization to which a set of individuals adhere?

I'm hearing 'this is what you can say about religion, this is what you can't say'. In that case in the interests of fairness here's what you can't say about atheism:
 - You can't conflate atheism with political movements, eg communism or socialism
 - You can't criticise or disagree with individual atheists, only the larger atheist movement as a whole
 - Actually scratch that, you can't disagree with atheism as a whole, or any atheist books, only specific atheist organisations like American Atheists

That's all I can think of for now, but I'll be sure to change these rules as we go on. Or alternatively we could just say whatever we want to, and don't get to determine parameters in which people can criticise our beliefs? How about that?

Quote

You want to judge me, here's a place to start. I'm in the Presbyterian Church (USA). In the merger between the southern and northern church to create the merged denomination, we added the Brief Statement of Faith to the Book of Confessions, our most foundational documents other than the Bible. That includes this particular passage (edited for brevity, see the whole thing in the link): "We trust in God the Holy Spirit, everywhere the giver and renewer of life. . . .  The same Spirit calls women and men to all ministries of the church." That was added specifically to address the mistake, as we see it, of prior parts of the church excluding women from ministry. You say you want "religious revisionism?" Are you aware that presbyterianism, as practiced by the Church of Scotland, belongs to a tradition known as the Reformed tradition, because we have as one of our core tenants, Ecclesia semper reformanda est  or "the Church must always be reforming." We literally have an entire Christian tradition built around the fact that our traditions must always be confessing our shortcomings and trying to get better, and that we will never get there, but have to keep trying to be better.

I'm sorry but I couldn't care less about any of that. But one thing I can't let slide, it's tenets, not tenants. Just a personal annoyance. Carry on

Quote

Now, if you think we're doing it wrong, again, by all means, you can be specific in your criticisms. That's helpful. That's productive. That's not just smug whining.

You demand respect for your fairy stories, then accuse others of 'smug whining'? That's neither helpful nor productive. Just so you know.

Quote

As to Pat Robertson and the WBC, I think if you were to look at my posting history on JKB (not saying you should, just if you did) or my twitter feed (http://twitter.com/MTBinDurham) you'll find I spend at least 20x as much energy criticizing hypocrisy, bad theology, hate, intolerance, refusal to acknowledge shortcomings, and other things *within Christianity* as I do about atheism. However, as you say....

Good, but why is it you're allowed to criticise religion and atheism alike, but for some reason atheists are not? Unless they do so in some very limited scope which you've set for us of course. It seems somewhat hypocritical.

Quote

This is a terribly odd comment. What in the post that you quoted made you think I was addressing only Christianity? I of course can only speak personally for the tradition that I'm a part of, but the sum of my posting on this thread has been to defend all forms of religious practice from what I see as the laziest and most useless of attacks on Christianity.

You said:

Quote

This thread: "God doesn't exist, it's simple"

I assumed from the singular you were referring to a monotheistic tradition, which somewhat narrows the field. And from the capitalised 'G' I thought it safe to assume you were referring to the Christian God, which is generally referred to in that manner. I accept I may have been wrong however. Just bear in mind that atheists are not just atheist in regards to YOUR god, but all deities, gods, prophets, messiahs. Anyway if you really want to defend all forms of religious practise let's start with infant circumcision, male and female, child marriages, human sacrifice, ritual cannibalism, forced marriages, stonings, beheadings, domestic abuse, subjugation of women and slavery. Or would you prefer to retreat back to your one specific form of theism?

Quote

But more to the point, as others have pointed out, atheism isn't a thing, it's a lack of a thing.

Thank you for not bringing out the tired 'atheism is a religion' mantra. You may have to discuss that with some of your fellow theists here however..

Quote

I don't think atheism is a "religion" because religion is a largely Western understanding of spiritual, sacred, and traditional practices.

I'm not even sure where to begin with this. I'm sure you're aware all the major western religions have their roots in the middle east? And while atheism is not unique to the west, many of the best known and most influential atheists are from the west. Being western may not be the best criteria to judge a religion's validity, however I do accept the conclusion that atheism is not a religion.
 

Quote

 

I have a colleague in my Ph.D. program who studies monuments to Mao in China, and one of the interesting things he brings up is that he sees them as effectively sacred spaces but without the specifics of a religion with a priesthood, organized communal worship, and theology in the same way that we talk about the Judeo-Christian traditions.

 

I can agree to an extent. I wouldn't have brought it up but since you did I would say a significant amount of the repression of religion in countries like the USSR, North Korea, and China under Mao were symptomatic of their having a state religion, and other religions being a threat to the spiritual authority of the dear leader. And any religion needs to suppress others to corner the market.
 

Quote

So if you want to talk about the religion-like thing that most Western atheists have, I would call it "rationalist modernist humanism." I've argued this before on JKB, but I see humanism, or the belief that humans are inherently good

Woah let me stop you there! That really is not what humanism is! Humanism acknowledges human weakness, vice, cruelty etc, but advocates pysically helping people, instead of just praying to a fictional character, or dismissing tragedy as 'god works in mysterious ways', 'all part of gods plan' etc. Actually that's not really fair either, you can be religious and humanist, and many are. But the point is to actually help people, without doing it to proselytize or earn Heaven points.

Quote

 

and that in general we can trust in human progress to solve our problems, as wholly irrational and completely unsupported by good empirical evidence. But as you say, this is the atheism thread, not the rationalist modernist humanist thread, so by definition you're talking about a point of disagreement with theism, so here we are.

 

I don't agree with the premise there either, but fine let's not get distracted by side arguments, this debate is running on long enough as it is.
 

Quote

 

i find this a terribly interesting question. In a conversation with other academics recently, we were talking about this passage from Aldo Leopold, and I made the case that in this passage "the mountain" amounts to a sort of ad hoc, informal deity. The passage is labeled "Thinking like a mountain" -- now Leopold was fully bright enough to understand that the mountain did not have a brain and did not think in the way that humans do. Instead, he's personifying the mountain to express a certain kind of agency that the mountain has. The mountain has a view, is (at least somewhat) immortal, has preferences for what happens on its slopes, is hurt by certain actions (the killing of the wolf), and so forth.

Now granted, it is a long long way between personifying a mountain and establishing an entire priesthood and collective worship practice and almsgiving and so forth around the deity of the mountain, but I absolutely think if we're talking about gods in the lower-case sense, you start with this kind of personification of an abstract concept.

 

Well that's exactly how religion starts. Our cave dwelling ancestors hear rumbling in the sky, and explain it with some personification of a man in the sky with a mighty rumbling voice. People embellish these traditions over centuries like Chinese whispers, and entire religious cultural traditions evolve. Move forward a few hundred years and you have penis gourds and lip plates. Now of course we understand what creates thunder and lightning, which has evolved in a completely different way by examining evidence, looking for repeatability, in short applying a more rational and scientific approach to knowledge.

[deesidejambo]

16 minutes ago, LesJambes said:

Replying to Ugly American:

Modern, Western ideals like secularism, democracy and human rights? What a monster. I don't agree with everything Sam Harris says, and I'd prefer to avoid an Israel/ Palestine debate, but suffice it to say the Middle East situation exists because of religion; Islamic expansionism and Zionist colonialism respectively. Whilst I object to much of Israeli policy (evil anti-theocrat that I am) it should be noted that Arab Israelis are not second class citizens, they have the same rights as Jewish Israelis. There are even several Arab/ Muslim political parties in Israel, so I don't see where you got the 'no political representation' thing from.

I was not justifying invasion, I just didn't want anyone to have the false impression that Tibet was some utopian paradise before Chinese rule. I know the latter question is facetious, but if I was living in a theocratic dictatorship and we were taken over by a communist dictatorship then yes it would be somewhat of an improvement, assuming it was truly communist and looked after the poorest people.

That sounds like a strawman argument, I don't remember anyone arguing for state atheism. Most atheists in my experience support secularism, not some atheist dictatorship that exists only in the head of Glenn Beck. Secularism goes some way to nullifying the need to even criticise religious organisations or individuals, because you cut the formal ties between church and state so their views don't directly impact government and law. I'm more than happy to criticise churches or organisations when I disagree with them, but if they have direct ties to politicians and government then that condemnation is all the more imperative.

I'm hearing 'this is what you can say about religion, this is what you can't say'. In that case in the interests of fairness here's what you can't say about atheism:
 - You can't conflate atheism with political movements, eg communism or socialism
 - You can't criticise or disagree with individual atheists, only the larger atheist movement as a whole
 - Actually scratch that, you can't disagree with atheism as a whole, or any atheist books, only specific atheist organisations like American Atheists

That's all I can think of for now, but I'll be sure to change these rules as we go on. Or alternatively we could just say whatever we want to, and don't get to determine parameters in which people can criticise our beliefs? How about that?

I'm sorry but I couldn't care less about any of that. But one thing I can't let slide, it's tenets, not tenants. Just a personal annoyance. Carry on

You demand respect for your fairy stories, then accuse others of 'smug whining'? That's neither helpful nor productive. Just so you know.

Good, but why is it you're allowed to criticise religion and atheism alike, but for some reason atheists are not? Unless they do so in some very limited scope which you've set for us of course. It seems somewhat hypocritical.

You said:

I assumed from the singular you were referring to a monotheistic tradition, which somewhat narrows the field. And from the capitalised 'G' I thought it safe to assume you were referring to the Christian God, which is generally referred to in that manner. I accept I may have been wrong however. Just bear in mind that atheists are not just atheist in regards to YOUR god, but all deities, gods, prophets, messiahs. Anyway if you really want to defend all forms of religious practise let's start with infant circumcision, male and female, child marriages, human sacrifice, ritual cannibalism, forced marriages, stonings, beheadings, domestic abuse, subjugation of women and slavery. Or would you prefer to retreat back to your one specific form of theism?

Thank you for not bringing out the tired 'atheism is a religion' mantra. You may have to discuss that with some of your fellow theists here however..

I'm not even sure where to begin with this. I'm sure you're aware all the major western religions have their roots in the middle east? And while atheism is not unique to the west, many of the best known and most influential atheists are from the west. Being western may not be the best criteria to judge a religion's validity, however I do accept the conclusion that atheism is not a religion.
 

I can agree to an extent. I wouldn't have brought it up but since you did I would say a significant amount of the repression of religion in countries like the USSR, North Korea, and China under Mao were symptomatic of their having a state religion, and other religions being a threat to the spiritual authority of the dear leader. And any religion needs to suppress others to corner the market.
 

Woah let me stop you there! That really is not what humanism is! Humanism acknowledges human weakness, vice, cruelty etc, but advocates pysically helping people, instead of just praying to a fictional character, or dismissing tragedy as 'god works in mysterious ways', 'all part of gods plan' etc. Actually that's not really fair either, you can be religious and humanist, and many are. But the point is to actually help people, without doing it to proselytize or earn Heaven points.

I don't agree with the premise there either, but fine let's not get distracted by side arguments, this debate is running on long enough as it is.
 

Well that's exactly how religion starts. Our cave dwelling ancestors hear rumbling in the sky, and explain it with some personification of a man in the sky with a mighty rumbling voice. People embellish these traditions over centuries like Chinese whispers, and entire religious cultural traditions evolve. Move forward a few hundred years and you have penis gourds and lip plates. Now of course we understand what creates thunder and lightning, which has evolved in a completely different way by examining evidence, looking for repeatability, in short applying a more rational and scientific approach to knowledge.

How do you differentiate between a religion and a cult?

[@VladMagic]

There is only one god in this world and that is the Beer God.

 

 

[LesJambes]

6 hours ago, Bigsmak said:

So .. back on topic.. 

 

What led the atheists on this thread to realise that they had been lied to by society and there is no God? 

 

 

For me the thing that first made me question the whole thing was in RE in my Catholic high school. They were talking about hell, and how if you commit worse sins then you get tortured more (paraphrasing obviously). Anyway I asked why would the devil torture people for sins, the response was that he is just innately evil and tortures everyone. But why would he torture the greater sinners more? If anything he should be encouraging it. I don't remember getting a satisfactory answer and I was on the verge of getting in trouble, or branded a satanist, so I shut up. But that was the seed of doubt that made me look into other religions, then I went through a phase of experimenting with agnosticism before finally coming out as a fully fledged and (then) somewhat radical anti-theist atheist.

 

6 hours ago, deesidejambo said:

Someone earlier asked me to explain my statement that every single human has a spiritual dimension.  They do, although some dont know it yet.

 

Heres the reason -

 

Spirituality is not the same as belief in a deity - people on this thread continually conflate the two.         It can be argued by Maslow again, that spirituality is what elevates humans above the animal kingdom.

 

Heres some examples of non-deity spirituality in action -

 

Chi

Reincarnation

Karma

Ghosts

The Force (yes there are some who believe in this, but it just another manifestation of Chi).

Luck

Faithfulness

Hope

Conscience

 

The last one is interesting - I expect some reading this have experienced a weird moment when their conscience "kicks-in".   For example maybe they have a chance to nick something but their conscience awakens.  Some say "my conscience wouldn't let me do it".

 

The conscience is your spiritual brain - it can lie dormant for years then awaken when required, or in the case of tribes is specifically asked every evening to speak to them about things.

 

Sometimes the spiritual and logical brains fight each other - when faced with a dilemma you hear yourself say "I shouldn't do this but......".  This is simply your logical brain and your spiritual one having a pagger inside your head.

 

The spiritual brain can in some cases start to dominate the logical:   god-botherers, gamblers (hope), psychopaths (I murdered them to protect humanity), and, yes, atheists.

 

But I expect some will just call me a welt again.     It will go in my book.

 

That list of things makes no sense, it's just a combination of some pseudo philosophical or religious ideas with no scientific evidence, and some human emotions or categorisations of behaviour. Something like reincarnation can't be measured, can't be quantified or proven (or disproven) so what actual use is it? Does belief in reincarnation really actually help anything objectively? All I see are people like Dalits ('untouchables') condemned to a life of misery because of the belief in karma and reincarnation, the idea  that their hardship is a punishment for some unknown sin in a past life they can't even remember. This is the very real danger that can come from such ideas, even if on the surface they may just seem like some harmless woo.

 

5 hours ago, alfajambo said:

 

Yeah, you are absolutely correct, and the evidence from 20^th century history confirms this.

The Soviets, Communist China, the Khmer Rouge, Hitler and his mob were all set on controlling and destroying religious observations and practice in an effort to move forward their own political ideologies.

However, and as you have consistently identified in the past, this did not exactly promote peace and the flowering of goodwill towards mankind.

You may have read the ‘The Twilight of Atheism’ by Alister McGrath, this is a much quoted line from that book.

“The 20^th century gave rise to one of the greatest and most distressing paradoxes of human history: that the greatest intolerances and violence of that century were practiced by those who believed that religion caused intolerance and violence.”

Having said this, it is not my intent to down play violent atrocities carried out by evil and misguided people who somehow believe they did so in the name of Christ.

Another misconception that seems to permeate our culture and one to which you touch on here is the brokenness of humanity: Many people in society believe that, those who call themselves Christians somehow have the understanding that they are better, morally superior to their neighbour and go to heaven because they lead a good life. When in fact Christianity teaches the very opposite view.

For the record: Christians believe that, God’s grace does not cover people who simply morally outperform, but rather to those who are broken and admit their failure and fallen state and acknowledge their need for a saviour.

AJ signing out from a hilly domain on a little archipelago on the northwest corner of Europe.

Oh please, Hitler was a Christian, he is quoted early in his life and near the end saying he is a Catholic, and he believes that he is acting on God's will. However I won't hold Christianity responsible for every Christian Fascist regime, and I ask you don't do the same for atheism and Communism.

[deesidejambo]

Just now, VladMagic said:

There is only one god in this world and that is the Beer God.

 

 

And her name shall be Stella

[@VladMagic]

1 minute ago, deesidejambo said:

And her name shall be Stella

 

A ****ing MEN

[deesidejambo]

2 minutes ago, VladMagic said:

 

A ****ing MEN

I think I'll form a new religion - Stellaism.   

 

Thou shalt only drink Stella

Thou shalt only eat crisps

And kebabs.

The odd pint of Belhaven is OK, as long as its followed by another Stella.

If thou is caught drinking Tennents thou can gtf.