| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Martin Phipps" |
| Date: |
05 Jan 2007 09:17:42 PM |
| Object: |
If atheism is considered a "movement"... |
then it is not enough for people to just stop believing in God: they
have to learn to think for themselves and not rely on stories about
fairies, ghosts or aliens to give them a sense of purpose in life. We
like to think that by teaching science in school we are doing enough
and yet new religions have appeared in the meantime (eg Scientology or
Falonggong). There may be no more need for a comparative religion
class in school if religion were to disappear tomorrow but we should
never forget to teach children about all the wars and murders inspired
by religion throughout history lest history should one day repeat
itself.
Martin
.
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: If atheism is considered a "movement"... |
05 Jan 2007 09:51:56 PM |
|
|
Martin Phipps wrote:
then it is not enough for people to just stop believing in God: they
have to learn to think for themselves and not rely on stories about
fairies, ghosts or aliens to give them a sense of purpose in life.
Congratulations, we're proud of you. ;-)
Seriously, duh!
We
like to think that by teaching science in school we are doing enough
and yet new religions have appeared in the meantime (eg Scientology or
Falonggong). There may be no more need for a comparative religion
class in school if religion were to disappear tomorrow but we should
never forget to teach children about all the wars and murders inspired
by religion throughout history lest history should one day repeat
itself.
Man, you have just realized that atheism is a lack of
theism, not a world view, a religion, a philosophy, the
basis for ethics, or a life strategy. And it will never be,
and should not be. This is like discovering that not being
insane is not all the thought or education you need to live
a full, productive and happy life, any more than not having
hydrocephali is. If you intend to live an atheist life, you
will still have to learn and think and empathize with your
fellow man, besides not being delusional, if you expect life
to be worth living.
Believers keep trying to contrast their religious world view
with atheism, as if atheism is the proposed alternative to
all their religious cultural baggage. And seeing that it is
not a complete alternative, they think this is a good
argument for theism. The actual reality of their god (or
its lack) doesn't seem to really be involved at all.
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: If atheism is considered a "movement"... |
05 Jan 2007 10:55:57 PM |
|
|
John Popelish wrote:
Martin Phipps wrote:
then it is not enough for people to just stop believing in God: they
have to learn to think for themselves and not rely on stories about
fairies, ghosts or aliens to give them a sense of purpose in life.
Congratulations, we're proud of you. ;-)
Seriously, duh!
We
like to think that by teaching science in school we are doing enough
and yet new religions have appeared in the meantime (eg Scientology or
Falonggong). There may be no more need for a comparative religion
class in school if religion were to disappear tomorrow but we should
never forget to teach children about all the wars and murders inspired
by religion throughout history lest history should one day repeat
itself.
Man, you have just realized that atheism is a lack of
theism, not a world view, a religion, a philosophy, the
basis for ethics, or a life strategy. And it will never be,
and should not be.
Actually, I've stated the exact opposite... which means you've probably
been misreading me from the beginning. It was somebody else on this
group who said that atheism was a "movement". I think it was you when
you said that I "didn't get the memo" and "welcome to the 21st
century". If people on this group are going to describe atheism as a
"movement" then they need to think about what that means. What,
ultimately, do we hope to accomplish? Would our problems be over if
everybody woke up tomorrow and disavowed their religion? Hardly.
That's what I've been arguing all along.
This is like discovering that not being
insane is not all the thought or education you need to live
a full, productive and happy life, any more than not having
hydrocephali is. If you intend to live an atheist life, you
will still have to learn and think and empathize with your
fellow man, besides not being delusional, if you expect life
to be worth living.
There you go again. You tell me on one hand that atheism just means
"not theist" which means anybody who does not believe in God is an
atheist but then you tell me "if you intend to live an atheist life,
you will still have to learn and think and empathize with your fellow
man". What do you mean by "an atheist life"? If theism is not a "not
a world view, a religion, a philosophy, the basis for ethics, or a
life strategy" then it isn't a lifestyle either. I have no right to
define how atheists should think (beyond the definition itself that
they believe God doesn't exist) or lead their lives and neither do you.
Telling us how to think or lead our lives is what theists do.
But as atheists we should be always on guard against theism, even if
one day it appears to be gone forever. That's been my point all along.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: If atheism is considered a "movement"... |
05 Jan 2007 11:16:15 PM |
|
|
Martin Phipps wrote:
John Popelish wrote:
Martin Phipps wrote:
then it is not enough for people to just stop believing in God: they
have to learn to think for themselves and not rely on stories about
fairies, ghosts or aliens to give them a sense of purpose in life.
Congratulations, we're proud of you. ;-)
Seriously, duh!
We
like to think that by teaching science in school we are doing enough
and yet new religions have appeared in the meantime (eg Scientology or
Falonggong). There may be no more need for a comparative religion
class in school if religion were to disappear tomorrow but we should
never forget to teach children about all the wars and murders inspired
by religion throughout history lest history should one day repeat
itself.
Man, you have just realized that atheism is a lack of
theism, not a world view, a religion, a philosophy, the
basis for ethics, or a life strategy. And it will never be,
and should not be.
Actually, I've stated the exact opposite... which means you've probably
been misreading me from the beginning.
I admit I have been having some fun with you. You seem so
serious.
It was somebody else on this
group who said that atheism was a "movement". I think it was you when
you said that I "didn't get the memo" and "welcome to the 21st
century".
Guilty as charged.
If people on this group are going to describe atheism as a
"movement" then they need to think about what that means.
I told you what it means. It means being recognized as not
one of the crazy people. Thats all.
What,
ultimately, do we hope to accomplish? Would our problems be over if
everybody woke up tomorrow and disavowed their religion? Hardly.
I am agreeing with that.
That's what I've been arguing all along.
But you were taking such pride in not being crazy. I was
just giving you a hard time about that.
This is like discovering that not being
insane is not all the thought or education you need to live
a full, productive and happy life, any more than not having
hydrocephali is. If you intend to live an atheist life, you
will still have to learn and think and empathize with your
fellow man, besides not being delusional, if you expect life
to be worth living.
There you go again. You tell me on one hand that atheism just means
"not theist" which means anybody who does not believe in God is an
atheist but then you tell me "if you intend to live an atheist life,
you will still have to learn and think and empathize with your fellow
man". What do you mean by "an atheist life"?
One not based on the delusion of god beings.
If theism is not a "not
a world view, a religion, a philosophy, the basis for ethics, or a
life strategy" then it isn't a lifestyle either.
But in many cases, theism includes all that baggage, and
that may be its strong points, if the believers could only
live up to their religious dogma.
I have no right to
define how atheists should think (beyond the definition itself that
they believe God doesn't exist) or lead their lives and neither do you.
Telling us how to think or lead our lives is what theists do.
You are certainly free to provide an example how to live,
and to preach your ideas and advice to anyone who will listen.
But as atheists we should be always on guard against theism, even if
one day it appears to be gone forever. That's been my point all along.
I wasn't clear that that was all you were on about.
Sorry, if I hurt your feelings. Good luck with your quest.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: If atheism is considered a "movement"... |
06 Jan 2007 05:39:25 AM |
|
|
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message
news:maydnVmgeMaOrQLYnZ2dnUVZ_qGjnZ2d@comcast.com...
Martin Phipps wrote:
John Popelish wrote:
Martin Phipps wrote:
then it is not enough for people to just stop believing in God: they
have to learn to think for themselves and not rely on stories about
fairies, ghosts or aliens to give them a sense of purpose in life.
Congratulations, we're proud of you. ;-)
Seriously, duh!
We
like to think that by teaching science in school we are doing enough
and yet new religions have appeared in the meantime (eg Scientology or
Falonggong). There may be no more need for a comparative religion
class in school if religion were to disappear tomorrow but we should
never forget to teach children about all the wars and murders inspired
by religion throughout history lest history should one day repeat
itself.
Man, you have just realized that atheism is a lack of
theism, not a world view, a religion, a philosophy, the
basis for ethics, or a life strategy. And it will never be,
and should not be.
Actually, I've stated the exact opposite... which means you've probably
been misreading me from the beginning.
I admit I have been having some fun with you. You seem so serious.
It was somebody else on this
group who said that atheism was a "movement". I think it was you when
you said that I "didn't get the memo" and "welcome to the 21st
century".
Guilty as charged.
If people on this group are going to describe atheism as a
"movement" then they need to think about what that means.
I told you what it means. It means being recognized as not one of the
crazy people. Thats all.
What,
ultimately, do we hope to accomplish? Would our problems be over if
everybody woke up tomorrow and disavowed their religion? Hardly.
I am agreeing with that.
That's what I've been arguing all along.
But you were taking such pride in not being crazy. I was just giving you
a hard time about that.
This is like discovering that not being
insane is not all the thought or education you need to live
a full, productive and happy life, any more than not having
hydrocephali is. If you intend to live an atheist life, you
will still have to learn and think and empathize with your
fellow man, besides not being delusional, if you expect life
to be worth living.
There you go again. You tell me on one hand that atheism just means
"not theist" which means anybody who does not believe in God is an
atheist but then you tell me "if you intend to live an atheist life,
you will still have to learn and think and empathize with your fellow
man". What do you mean by "an atheist life"?
One not based on the delusion of god beings.
If theism is not a "not
a world view, a religion, a philosophy, the basis for ethics, or a
life strategy" then it isn't a lifestyle either.
But in many cases, theism includes all that baggage, and that may be its
strong points, if the believers could only live up to their religious
dogma.
I have no right to
define how atheists should think (beyond the definition itself that
they believe God doesn't exist) or lead their lives and neither do you.
Telling us how to think or lead our lives is what theists do.
You are certainly free to provide an example how to live, and to preach
your ideas and advice to anyone who will listen.
But as atheists we should be always on guard against theism, even if
one day it appears to be gone forever. That's been my point all along.
I wasn't clear that that was all you were on about.
Sorry, if I hurt your feelings. Good luck with your quest.
Good show! Now that is the kind of 'stuff' that makes me proud to be an
atheist.
Greywolf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: If atheism is considered a "movement"... |
06 Jan 2007 06:02:46 AM |
|
|
Greywolf wrote:
Good show! Now that is the kind of 'stuff' that makes me proud to be an
atheist.
"Good show" based on what we both said or because we (figuratively)
kissed and made up?
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: If atheism is considered a "movement"... |
06 Jan 2007 01:14:04 PM |
|
|
"Martin Phipps" <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1168084966.717081.259700@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Greywolf wrote:
Good show! Now that is the kind of 'stuff' that makes me proud to be an
atheist.
"Good show" based on what we both said or because we (figuratively)
kissed and made up?
Martin
Based on several things. This was an 'exchange' where nothing was held back,
a little 'tension' ensues, and after careful consideration, mutual respect
was restored. The fact that we atheists can concede we are 'wrong' on
occasion and give a 'tip of the hat' to the opposition acknowledging we were
wrong -- and be 'gracious' in doing so -- is one of our great strengths, I
believe. One thing we atheists cannot afford to be is divisive (to any large
degree). We're supposed to be fighting 'them', not ourselves. But the
hallmark of 'free-thinkers' is to be just that -- free thinking. We're just
fine as long we remain civil and treat each other with the respect due us.
What a 'bag of wind' am I? Aren't I? (But remember that it's 'atheist' wind
we're talking about here.
Greywolf
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pangur Ban" |
|
| Title: Re: If atheism is considered a "movement"... |
06 Jan 2007 08:22:23 AM |
|
|
John Popelish wrote after much deliberation:
Martin Phipps wrote:
John Popelish wrote:
Martin Phipps wrote:
then it is not enough for people to just stop believing in God: they
have to learn to think for themselves and not rely on stories about
fairies, ghosts or aliens to give them a sense of purpose in life.
Congratulations, we're proud of you. ;-)
Seriously, duh!
We
like to think that by teaching science in school we are doing enough
and yet new religions have appeared in the meantime (eg Scientology or
Falonggong). There may be no more need for a comparative religion
class in school if religion were to disappear tomorrow but we should
never forget to teach children about all the wars and murders inspired
by religion throughout history lest history should one day repeat
itself.
Man, you have just realized that atheism is a lack of
theism, not a world view, a religion, a philosophy, the
basis for ethics, or a life strategy. And it will never be,
and should not be.
Actually, I've stated the exact opposite... which means you've probably
been misreading me from the beginning.
I admit I have been having some fun with you. You seem so serious.
It was somebody else on this
group who said that atheism was a "movement". I think it was you when
you said that I "didn't get the memo" and "welcome to the 21st
century".
Guilty as charged.
If people on this group are going to describe atheism as a
"movement" then they need to think about what that means.
I told you what it means. It means being recognized as not one of the crazy
people. Thats all.
What,
ultimately, do we hope to accomplish? Would our problems be over if
everybody woke up tomorrow and disavowed their religion? Hardly.
I am agreeing with that.
That's what I've been arguing all along.
But you were taking such pride in not being crazy. I was just giving you a
hard time about that.
This is like discovering that not being
insane is not all the thought or education you need to live
a full, productive and happy life, any more than not having
hydrocephali is. If you intend to live an atheist life, you
will still have to learn and think and empathize with your
fellow man, besides not being delusional, if you expect life
to be worth living.
There you go again. You tell me on one hand that atheism just means
"not theist" which means anybody who does not believe in God is an
atheist but then you tell me "if you intend to live an atheist life,
you will still have to learn and think and empathize with your fellow
man". What do you mean by "an atheist life"?
One not based on the delusion of god beings.
If theism is not a "not
a world view, a religion, a philosophy, the basis for ethics, or a
life strategy" then it isn't a lifestyle either.
But in many cases, theism includes all that baggage, and that may be its
strong points, if the believers could only live up to their religious dogma.
Thank you for the qualifying phrase, "in many cases". As a theist, I
appreciate not being lumped into a generalization - just as atheists
should not be lumped either. This theists does not follow a religious
world view nor a formalized religion; I do not see religion as having
a monopoly on ethics nor a life strategy. I agree completely that too
many theists need to live up to the basics of their dogma - but only
the basics.
Sorry for the intrusion into a discussion that was fun to follow. :-)
I have no right to
define how atheists should think (beyond the definition itself that
they believe God doesn't exist) or lead their lives and neither do you.
Telling us how to think or lead our lives is what theists do.
You are certainly free to provide an example how to live, and to preach your
ideas and advice to anyone who will listen.
But as atheists we should be always on guard against theism, even if
one day it appears to be gone forever. That's been my point all along.
I wasn't clear that that was all you were on about.
Sorry, if I hurt your feelings. Good luck with your quest.
--
Pangur Ban - nonchristian theist
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: If atheism is considered a "movement"... |
06 Jan 2007 09:14:14 AM |
|
|
Pangur Ban wrote:
John Popelish wrote after much deliberation:
(snip)
But in many cases, theism includes all that baggage, and that may be
its strong points, if the believers could only live up to their
religious dogma.
Thank you for the qualifying phrase, "in many cases". As a theist, I
appreciate not being lumped into a generalization - just as atheists
should not be lumped either. This theists does not follow a religious
world view nor a formalized religion; I do not see religion as having a
monopoly on ethics nor a life strategy. I agree completely that too
many theists need to live up to the basics of their dogma - but only the
basics.
Sorry for the intrusion into a discussion that was fun to follow. :-)
No apology needed, for me. This is a public discussion,
welcome to all who have thoughts to add, yours included.
I have tried to include you in my thoughts, below, but may
have botched it, so feel free to correct me.
My big point, here, is that there is generally a basic
asymmetry between atheists and theists. Theists are very
often also part of some organized religious and social
group, as well as believing in one or more deities, and that
group often carries a large social and cultural package with
it that includes that guidance, whether or not its members
follow that guidance. Whereas, not believing in deities
does not generally imply any specific replacement for all
the cultural baggage that often accompanies god belief.
Evidently, (from his response to this post) Martin has been
saying approximately or exactly that, and I have been giving
him a hard time for stating, what to me, seemed to be the
painfully obvious. If a person states that they are
Catholic, Hindu or Muslim, we have a fair shot at guessing
some of the details of their social guidance. But knowing
that someone is atheist gives you no hint at how they see
their place in society or how they might react to various
social situations. I think this is the second worst thing
(after not having god belief) that bothers members of
organized groups of believers so much. They are accustomed
to thinking of people as members of a group and that vacuum
of assumptions for atheists often causes their default
assumptions to be the worst case, in their minds. No
ethics, no morals, no fear of retribution, therefore,
dangerous and unpredictable.
Our society needs more short hand labels that atheists (and
theists who are not members of organized religious groups)
of various philosophical persuasions might adopt, to help
others to feel they are not complete unknowns. Atheists
(and socially like minded theists) who adopt those labels
need to be more demonstrative in public, about what their
social attitudes are, to help organized theists accept
nonbelievers as nonthreatening members of their society.
Perhaps this is what Martin has been getting at.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: If atheism is considered a "movement"... |
06 Jan 2007 01:25:56 PM |
|
|
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message
news:LbGdnWrMnYDHIQLYnZ2dnUVZ_s-rnZ2d@comcast.com...
Pangur Ban wrote:
John Popelish wrote after much deliberation:
(snip)
But in many cases, theism includes all that baggage, and that may be its
strong points, if the believers could only live up to their religious
dogma.
Thank you for the qualifying phrase, "in many cases". As a theist, I
appreciate not being lumped into a generalization - just as atheists
should not be lumped either. This theists does not follow a religious
world view nor a formalized religion; I do not see religion as having a
monopoly on ethics nor a life strategy. I agree completely that too many
theists need to live up to the basics of their dogma - but only the
basics.
Sorry for the intrusion into a discussion that was fun to follow. :-)
No apology needed, for me. This is a public discussion, welcome to all
who have thoughts to add, yours included.
I have tried to include you in my thoughts, below, but may have botched
it, so feel free to correct me.
My big point, here, is that there is generally a basic asymmetry between
atheists and theists. Theists are very often also part of some organized
religious and social group, as well as believing in one or more deities,
and that group often carries a large social and cultural package with it
that includes that guidance, whether or not its members follow that
guidance. Whereas, not believing in deities does not generally imply any
specific replacement for all the cultural baggage that often accompanies
god belief.
Evidently, (from his response to this post) Martin has been saying
approximately or exactly that, and I have been giving him a hard time for
stating, what to me, seemed to be the painfully obvious. If a person
states that they are Catholic, Hindu or Muslim, we have a fair shot at
guessing some of the details of their social guidance. But knowing that
someone is atheist gives you no hint at how they see their place in
society or how they might react to various social situations. I think
this is the second worst thing (after not having god belief) that bothers
members of organized groups of believers so much. They are accustomed to
thinking of people as members of a group and that vacuum of assumptions
for atheists often causes their default assumptions to be the worst case,
in their minds. No ethics, no morals, no fear of retribution, therefore,
dangerous and unpredictable.
Our society needs more short hand labels that atheists (and theists who
are not members of organized religious groups) of various philosophical
persuasions might adopt, to help others to feel they are not complete
unknowns. Atheists (and socially like minded theists) who adopt those
labels need to be more demonstrative in public, about what their social
attitudes are, to help organized theists accept nonbelievers as
nonthreatening members of their society.
That *is* a problem, isn't it? We atheists are woefully misunderstood, nor
appreciated enough, in my view. But then again, centuries worth of
'trashin'' us by a self-serving clergy *will* have that kind of effect,
won't it? And as I once read somewhere, getting atheists 'organized' is like
'herding cats'. We are free-spirits who love our independence and
*especially* our 'freedom' from religious manipulation. Lack of
'organization' (with the exception of the American Atheists and a few other
groups) may someday hurt us, but that's part of the price one 'pays' for
being a 'free-spirit', isn't it?
Greywolf
Perhaps this is what Martin has been getting at.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: If atheism is considered a "movement"... |
06 Jan 2007 01:43:12 PM |
|
|
Grey wolf wrote:
That *is* a problem, isn't it? We atheists are woefully misunderstood, nor
appreciated enough, in my view. But then again, centuries worth of
'trashin'' us by a self-serving clergy *will* have that kind of effect,
won't it? And as I once read somewhere, getting atheists 'organized' is like
'herding cats'. We are free-spirits who love our independence and
*especially* our 'freedom' from religious manipulation. Lack of
'organization' (with the exception of the American Atheists and a few other
groups) may someday hurt us, but that's part of the price one 'pays' for
being a 'free-spirit', isn't it?
I think it is just a problem that brief and widely
recognized code words have not yet percolated through
society. The labels presently in use are so clumsy prissy
sounding. Tell someone you think of yourself as a secular
humanist, a bright or even one who tries to live by the
Golden Rule, and they act like you are from outer space.
Then they ask you, "What is your religion?", trying for
something they recognize. And if you make the mistake of
starting out by telling them what you are not (not a
believer in gods, that is) they run away (at least mentally)
before you can even get to some clumsy description of what
you are and what is important to you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pangur Ban" |
|
| Title: Re: If atheism is considered a "movement"... |
08 Jan 2007 08:33:46 AM |
|
|
John Popelish explained on 1/6/2007 :
Pangur Ban wrote:
John Popelish wrote after much deliberation:
(snip)
But in many cases, theism includes all that baggage, and that may be its
strong points, if the believers could only live up to their religious
dogma.
Thank you for the qualifying phrase, "in many cases". As a theist, I
appreciate not being lumped into a generalization - just as atheists should
not be lumped either. This theists does not follow a religious world view
nor a formalized religion; I do not see religion as having a monopoly on
ethics nor a life strategy. I agree completely that too many theists need
to live up to the basics of their dogma - but only the basics.
Sorry for the intrusion into a discussion that was fun to follow. :-)
No apology needed, for me. This is a public discussion, welcome to all who
have thoughts to add, yours included.
I have tried to include you in my thoughts, below, but may have botched it,
so feel free to correct me.
My big point, here, is that there is generally a basic asymmetry between
atheists and theists. Theists are very often also part of some organized
religious and social group, as well as believing in one or more deities, and
that group often carries a large social and cultural package with it that
includes that guidance, whether or not its members follow that guidance.
Whereas, not believing in deities does not generally imply any specific
replacement for all the cultural baggage that often accompanies god belief.
Okay.
Evidently, (from his response to this post) Martin has been saying
approximately or exactly that, and I have been giving him a hard time for
stating, what to me, seemed to be the painfully obvious. If a person states
that they are Catholic, Hindu or Muslim, we have a fair shot at guessing some
of the details of their social guidance. But knowing that someone is atheist
gives you no hint at how they see their place in society or how they might
react to various social situations.
One has to evaluate each individual atheist - just as one needs to
evaluate each individual theist, imo.
I think this is the second worst thing
(after not having god belief) that bothers members of organized groups of
believers so much. They are accustomed to thinking of people as members of a
group and that vacuum of assumptions for atheists often causes their default
assumptions to be the worst case, in their minds. No ethics, no morals, no
fear of retribution, therefore, dangerous and unpredictable.
Lack of knowledge - and the assumption that different is automatically
"bad".
Our society needs more short hand labels that atheists (and theists who are
not members of organized religious groups) of various philosophical
persuasions might adopt, to help others to feel they are not complete
unknowns. Atheists (and socially like minded theists) who adopt those labels
need to be more demonstrative in public, about what their social attitudes
are, to help organized theists accept nonbelievers as nonthreatening members
of their society.
Perhaps this is what Martin has been getting at.
I see nothing in your post with which to disagree. I think it a good
idea - as most on the religious groups to which I used to post,
automatically assumed because I was a non-christian theist, then I
could not possibly have the same social attitudes, morals, and ethics
as they.
--
Pangur Ban - nonchristian theist
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
