quote:You know, it's kinda weird, but every time some Christian gets into the news, we're told that they don't represent Christians in general. You have to wonder where all these general Christians are, that we never hear of them.
I'm inclined to think most people in the news don't represent people in general.
quote:Again, atheism and theism can't enable violence or hatred. When you add particular philosophical positions to either of those things is when the trouble begins.
The confusion probably surrounds the fact that most atheists do share certain philosophical positions other than simply "God doesn't exist." In that way it becomes a set of shared beliefs - but if we don't call that set of shared beliefs "Atheism" then what should we call it?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Then perhaps a person like that should stop calling themselves a Nazi and throwing their default support behind the murdering Nazis.
Are you really going to seriously examine my very coarse comparison, Javert?
Well, alright. Sure, that guy should stop being a Nazi, but just being a Nazi does not make him actually guilty of murdering Jews. The point is that however satisfying it may be to you to associate murder and violence with religion, you really need to go one step further than that to find the true common factor.
It's not religion.
I don't associate murder and violence with religion. But I associate many writings and beliefs from religions as advocating those things.
Obviously not all members of those religions go by those teachings. That's why I'm against the teachings, because those specific teachings make violence and murder so much easier to justify.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: The confusion probably surrounds the fact that most atheists do share certain philosophical positions other than simply "God doesn't exist." In that way it becomes a set of shared beliefs that is the equivalent of a religion - but if we don't call that set of shared beliefs "Atheism" then what should we call it?
Look around and see for yourself. You have secular humanists, trans-humanists, freethinkers, skeptics, Raelians (who technically are atheists, though really weird), Buddhists (some are atheists), rationalists...and I'm sure there are plenty more.
None of them (with the exception of Raelians and Buddhists) are organized enough to be religions, nor do they really have dogmas (though they do have tenets), but they're certainly philosophies that all have atheism as a common trait.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm inclined to think most people in the news don't represent people in general.
I hear that.
Interestingly enough though, I do feel pretty well represented by the atheists that do get screen-time. I have some disagreements, of course, but for the most part I think they do a better job than I would.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the particular subject of atheism or religion, then yes, Dawkins and company do represent me quite well. I'm not aware of any strong political disagreements, either, although they may exist.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hitchens is pro-Iraq war and, I think, Dawkins and Harris are not.
I like most of what Dawkins and Harris have to say, but Hitchens bugs the hell out of me. It's not just that he's an arrogant ass - that can be fun - it's that he often just doesn't present his arguments very well and when you do that AND you're an arrogant ass, it's just not very helpful to the cause.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The political opinions I've gotten out of Dawkins and Harris tend to jive with mine. I haven't seen as much of Hitchens though, so I might need to amend my statement.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Hitchens is pro-Iraq war and, I think, Dawkins and Harris are not.
I like most of what Dawkins and Harris have to say, but Hitchens bugs the hell out of me. It's not just that he's an arrogant ass - that can be fun - it's that he often just doesn't present his arguments very well and when you do that AND you're an arrogant ass, it's just not very helpful to the cause.
That and he seems to be drunk an awful lot. Or too sober, as I imagine his body might be used to certain amounts and he will function less effectively without the proper level of alcohol in his system.
That being said, I like Dawkins, Harris and Dennett. Though in Harris' case, I think he's a bit too new age-y for my tastes.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: why is there this insistance from both sides on comparing atheism with such a blanket term as "religion" when the comparable equivalent is theism?
I'm not quite sure how to formulate this question, but I think it's an interesting one, and so I'll try and see what happens.
Are there sects within atheism, as there are sects within "religion?" It seems evident from this discussion alone that KoM, Javert, rollainm, threads, MattP, Mucus, and the other atheists writing all have very individualistic viewpoints, while they all identify as "atheists." The same is true of theists, but choices are usually made to belong to one camp or another; from a Western perspective (I understand that Eastern religions are less exclusionary, as far as "belonging" to one group or another), one may choose to follow Christianity, or Judaism, or Islam. Then, within that choice, one may follow Catholicism, or Hasidism, or Sunni Islam. And even where formal lines end, informal divisions continue; I've met many Catholics who fall into what, for shorthand, I'd call the Dagonee camp or the kmboots camp.
So are there different camps, subcamps, etc. with different leaders, different reading materials, different principles, different dogmas within atheism? Or is atheism not large enough, or not structured enough, or inherently non-conducive to that sort of thing?
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The various organizations under the banner of theism seem to be caused by attempts to discover and share the nature of the divine. The primary differentiation between them is one of either authority (prophet A died, was prophet B or prophet C the true successor) or doctrine. (three gods! one god! both!).
As atheism doesn't recognize that there is any divine to disagree about in the first place, there's less need to either organize to discuss its nature, or to branch off into different organizations when disagreements arise.
Some atheists do gather under related philosophies, like humanism, or for political purposes, but they seem to be the minority. I've never personally known an atheist that was part of any sort of atheist organization.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aren't there doctrinal divisions within atheism? Like, for instance, those who are relativists ("my God" may not exist, but that says nothing about "your God") and absolutists (there is no God. Period.) I mean, it's not just religionists; scientists often schism into different camps and fight for years. In my field, Bayesians are still at war with Dempster-Schafer heretics. It seems that any sort of belief system would be prone to schism.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Atheism isn't really a belief system though. It's a lack of belief in deity. Where you go beyond that doesn't really inspire much conflict. You're belief that there is absolutely no possibility that God exists does not materially conflict with my belief that God's existence is merely extremely unlikely. Within atheism people are pretty much free to believe what they will without any eternal or earthly consequences. No one shoots you for disbelieving in the wrong God and you aren't inclined to save the eternal soul of the man who's sinning against the God you don't believe in.
Atheists, as individuals, also spend much less time on their atheism than theists tend to spend on their theism. For most of us it's really a non-issue except when the topic comes up on a forum or when a friend asks about it. The non-existence of God is just as important as the non-existence of unicorns. It's only an issue for the philosophically inclined.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: No one shoots you for disbelieving in the wrong God
But might someone shoot you for disbelieving wrongly in God? I have actually witnessed a significant amount of vituperation by hard core, militant atheists toward agnostics.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: No one shoots you for disbelieving in the wrong God
But might someone shoot you for disbelieving wrongly in God? I have actually witnessed a significant amount of vituperation by hard core, militant atheists toward agnostics.
I have not seen much of this. At some point "you're not like me, so eff you" is going to happen with some members of a group, but I don't think these militant, hardcore types are representative. Just as I haven't known any atheists who have organized, I haven't known any with anything bad to say about agnostics beyond mild rebukes about fence sitting.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
