Dawkins & Religion

[Erebus]

Depends on whose theism, ones own theism or some other theism that one doesn't believe in. Religious wars are not all that uncommon.

That's not quite what antitheism means though. Antitheism is opposition to theism in general. *edit* Well, it can refer to a specific God, but not in this context.

Why would they be?

Just a precaution on my behalf didn't want anybody to get the wrong end of the stick.

 

[Sententia]

then their understanding of fairies is much, much different than the popular usage would dictate, and the fairies would constitute, for them, their idea of "God."

Hey the understandings of god can differ dramatically from religion to religion. Why can't it be the same with fairies? Personally I am a strong a-fairiests. hee hee.

But in any case, that was more than 100 years ago. You think we might have grown up since then. Now, a friend, an intelligent lapsed Jew, who incidentally observed the Sabbath for reasons of cultural solidarity, describes himself as a "tooth fairy agnostic." He won't call himself an atheist because it's, in principle, impossible to prove a negative, but agnostic on its own might suggest that God's existence was therefore on equal terms of likelihood as his non-existence.

So, my friend is strictly agnostic about the tooth fairy, but it isn't very likely, is it? Like God. Hence the phrase, "tooth fairy agnostic," but Bertrand Russell made the same point using a hypothetical teapot in orbit about Mars. You would strictly have to be agnostic about whether there is a teapot in orbit about Mars, but that doesn't mean you treat the likelihood of its existence as on all fours with its non-existence.

The list of things which we strictly have to be agnostic about doesn't stop at tooth fairies and teapots. It's infinite. if you want to believe one particular one of them, unicorns or tooth fairies or teapots or Yahweh, the onus is on you to say why. The onus is not on the rest of us to say why not. We, who are atheists, are also a-fairiests and a-teapotists.

 

[dogsgod]

That's not quite what antitheism means though. Antitheism is opposition to theism in general.

Or opposed to a theism other than ones own. The moral fabric that binds a religious community is the very same fabric that causes divisions.

Just a precaution on my behalf didn't want anybody to get the wrong end of the stick.

OK, but not believing whatever is not the same thing as being anti whatever. There's a lot of beliefs that people don't share in that go without saying.

 

[Kathryn]

I challenge you to come up with one single idea, a concept that only atheists share in common. I know you can't. Aside from a non belief in a deity, you can't come up with a single belief that atheists alone share in common because there are none. Atheism means without theism, and that's all it means.


You can make up nonsense about atheists and what you pretend atheism to be, but until you can back these notions of yours up with even one single example, they are just notions of yours and nothing else.

What on earth are you on about?

You seem to be totally missing my point. And I've made it so many different times and so many different ways that I'm completely disinclined to continue.

I suppose you could be intentionally muddying the water. In either case, I'm done doing this:

 

[Erebus]

Or opposed to a theism other than ones own. The moral fabric that binds a religious community is the very same fabric that causes divisions.

Yeah I edited my previous post. It can mean a specific form of theism or theism in general, in this context I was referring to theism/religion in general.

OK, but not believing whatever is not the same thing as being anti whatever. There's a lot of beliefs that people don't share in that go without saying

Erm... I know.

 

[dogsgod]

What on earth are you on about?

You seem to be totally missing my point. And I've made it so many different times and so many different ways that I'm completely disinclined to continue.

I suppose you could be intentionally muddying the water. In either case, I'm done doing this:

You haven't made a point. I challenged you to come up with a single belief or concept/idea that you claimed atheists alone can share in and this is how you respond. I stated that I know you can't, and you just proved me right.

 

[Kathryn]

No, I just got tired of this pointless endeavor. I honestly don't understand what statements or concepts of mine that you are trying to refute. Until I understand that, I can't give you an answer that has any real meaning.

 

[dogsgod]

No, I just got tired of this pointless endeavor. I honestly don't understand what statements or concepts of mine that you are trying to refute. Until I understand that, I can't give you an answer that has any real meaning.

You didn't provide a concept, you merely claimed that, "The word "atheism" is also a noun. It represents an idea, a concept. People share this idea, this concept and they become ATHEISTS."

I asked you what idea, what concept would that be? Atheism does not represent an idea or a concept.


You also stated, "Some atheists have a very complex and complete personal philosophy which they share with other people."

No they don't.

 

[dogsgod]

So groups of atheists have killed people who didn't agree with them and their philosophy - and groups of theists have killed people who didn't agree with them and their philosophy.

Why is this so hard for you to come to grips with?

There are no groups of atheists that share a common philosophy due to the fact that they are atheists, so no, you are wrong about groups of atheists killing people for not agreeing with this non existent philosophy of yours.

 

[Kathryn]

You didn't provide a concept, you merely claimed that, "The word "atheism" is also a noun. It represents an idea, a concept. People share this idea, this concept and they become ATHEISTS."

I asked you what idea, what concept would that be? Atheism does not represent an idea or a concept.


You also stated, "Some atheists have a very complex and complete personal philosophy which they share with other people."

No they don't.

OMG. Are you kidding me? This is your big question, your big challenge?

Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ist\
Function: noun
Date: 1551
: one who believes that there is no deity

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

I can't believe I am having to be so elementary about this.

Atheism is the doctrine that there is no deity.

Atheists share the doctrine that there is no deity.

The doctrine that there is no deity by it's very nature impacts a person's other beliefs, philosophies, and actions.

Many people - from political leaders artists to movie stars to the postman on my street - share a common belief: atheism.

Some of these people in the past have joined up with other like minded people with similar goals and formed (gasp) GROUPS - groups in which at least one common denominator and motivator is atheism.

These groups have had different goals - some noble and some not so noble. Some of these groups of people, people who share the common denominator of atheism, have committed crimes against humanity - atrocities, genocide, hellish abuses of those who do not share their beliefs and goals.

Of course, groups of theists and deists have done the same thing. I'm not saying one category is more guilty than another. But to try to wiggle out of the truth that groups of people who are atheists - whose disbelief in a deity has shaped their philosophies and goals - have both the history and potential to commit atrocities at least equal to those of other humans , who are theists and deists and agnostics...well, I think the endeavor is not only ridiculous - it's actually pitiful.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

OMG. Are you kidding me? This is your big question, your big challenge?

Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ist\
Function: noun
Date: 1551
: one who believes that there is no deity

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

I can't believe I am having to be so elementary about this.

Atheism is the doctrine that there is no deity.

Atheists share the doctrine that there is no deity.

No, that's just one of the definitions.

Also, there is no such thing as an "atheistic doctrine", and if there were it would simply read "Don't believe in a God", since that is all atheism entails.

The doctrine that there is no deity by it's very nature impacts a person's other beliefs, philosophies, and actions.

It impacts it, sure, but are there any specific positions or beliefs linked to or mutually exclusive to atheism?

Many people - from political leaders artists to movie stars to the postman on my street - share a common belief: atheism.

In the broadest sense, atheism isn't a belief - it's a lack of one. See the definition you provided above.

Some of these people in the past have joined up with other like minded people with similar goals and formed (gasp) GROUPS - groups in which at least one common denominator and motivator is atheism.

Can you name some of these groups?

These groups have had different goals - some noble and some not so noble. Some of these groups of people, people who share the common denominator of atheism, have committed crimes against humanity - atrocities, genocide, hellish abuses of those who do not share their beliefs and goals.

And what does that have to do with atheism?

Of course, groups of theists and deists have done the same thing. I'm not saying one category is more guilty than another. But to try to wiggle out of the truth that groups of people who are atheists - whose disbelief in a deity has shaped their philosophies and goals - have both the history and potential to commit atrocities at least equal to those of other humans , who are theists and deists and agnostics...well, I think the endeavor is not only ridiculous - it's actually pitiful.

Who here claims they haven't? The only argument being made is that such acts are not the direct result of their atheism, whereas the vast number of atrocities commited by religious groups are often a direct result of their particular belief system, so your argument is meaningless.

Also, I think you'll find the tone you're using here is very insulting and condescending.

 

[Kathryn]

I think YOU find it insulting and condescending. Others may agree with you on that point. And others may not.

Those who agree with you may point it out, using my quotes (taken "out of context" but possibly no less insulting and condescending when read "in context"). Those who disagree may say that since I'm right, and it should be obvious, and since I've stated my position clearly and patiently over and over again, my tone at this point is understandable.

Both camps could make a case - and both would probably be able to convince others that they are correct. But the bottom line is, their judgments would be subjective.

So tell me again why you take umbrage with those who don't care for Richard Dawkin's delivery and content?

Seems we've come full circle.

By the way, I'm not responding AGAIN to the same questions in your posts, Flame and Balance, because I'm very, very tired of repeating myself.

 

[McBell]

By the way, I'm not responding AGAIN to the same questions in your posts, Flame and Balance, because I'm very, very tired of repeating myself.

Um...
If you were to actually answer his question instead of repeatedly not answering it...


Just a thought.

 

[Kathryn]

Also, there is no such thing as an "atheistic doctrine", and if there were it would simply read "Don't believe in a God", since that is all atheism entails.

So - atheists share the common belief that there is no God or diety.

It impacts it, sure, but are there any specific positions or beliefs linked to or mutually exclusive to atheism?

Yes - disbelief in a diety. Sheeze.


In the broadest sense, atheism isn't a belief - it's a lack of one. See the definition you provided above.

I'm not speaking broadly - I'm speaking specifically. Specifically, atheists share the common belief that there is no God/diety.


Can you name some of these groups?

I already have - not going to repeat myself.

Who here claims they haven't? The only argument being made is that such acts are not the direct result of their atheism, whereas the vast number of atrocities commited by religious groups are often a direct result of their particular belief system, so your argument is meaningless.

This is not pure logic - this is your opinion. The two are not necessarily the same thing.

I don't agree with this statement and have given my reasons repeatedly, so I am not going to repeat them.

I'm done.

 

[Peacewise]

Seems pretty obvious to me the concept Kathryn means is that atheists share atheism.

Not having met every atheist it's impossible to speak with authority about any single concept other than atheism that atheists share, but I'd reckon many atheists would accept the idea that science holds all the worthwhile answers.

I'm tempted to think that many atheists would agree with each other on the matter of who is the most intelligent species on the planet, but they are often such a disagreeable lot they might choose to deny the obvious choice.

And finally, it seems based upon observation of numerous atheists, that a lack of respect of people who do not share their disbelief is a common trait they share, yet I wouldn't dare to presume that the atheists I've met are representative of all atheists.

As for specific groups that are based upon atheism, do a frigging google for yourself rather than get nit pickity about something that is plainly obvious.

American Atheists | Welcome
Atheist Society, Melbourne, Australia
Atheist News - Atheist Nexus

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I think YOU find it insulting and condescending. Others may agree with you on that point. And others may not.

Those who agree with you may point it out, using my quotes (taken "out of context" but possibly no less insulting and condescending when read "in context"). Those who disagree may say that since I'm right, and it should be obvious, and since I've stated my position clearly and patiently over and over again, my tone at this point is understandable.

Both camps could make a case - and both would probably be able to convince others that they are correct. But the bottom line is, their judgments would be subjective.

So tell me again why you take umbrage with those who don't care for Richard Dawkin's delivery and content?

I can say with all honesty in all the articles and books I have read by him and all the interviews, lectures and speeches he has given, Dawkins has never been as condescending as you were in that post and are now continuing to be.

The reason I don't take umbrage with your view of Dawkins is simple - they are misinformed, ill-guided and based more on your emotional reaction to his stand-point than they are based on anything else. I know this, because I used to think the same things about Richard Dawkins as you do now. Then I actually started reading his work, and listening to his lectures, and realized that people who take that position on him do so out of a combination of ignorance, misinformation and bias.

Nothing you have said in this entire thread has done anything other than convince me even more that that is true - providing out-of-context quotes, constructing childish strawmen of his arguments and repeatedly resorting to the kind of base tactics you repeatedly accuse him of using.

So, there's my reasons laid out in plain English.

By the way, I'm not responding AGAIN to the same questions in your posts, Flame and Balance, because I'm very, very tired of repeating myself.

Because we haven't been repeating ourselves over and over, have we?

 

[Sententia]

By the way, I'm not responding AGAIN to the same questions in your posts, Flame and Balance, because I'm very, very tired of repeating myself.

Thats flattering. I feel included and loved. Thanks. :beach:

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So - atheists share the common belief that there is no God or diety.

Again, atheism is not a belief.

Yes - disbelief in a diety. Sheeze.

And...?

I'm not speaking broadly - I'm speaking specifically. Specifically, atheists share the common belief that there is no God/diety.

Again, atheism is not a belief. And how is that a "specific" statement? It is quite obviously a very broad statement.

I already have - not going to repeat myself.

Fine.

This is not pure logic - this is your opinion. The two are not necessarily the same thing.

No, it is not "my opinion" that religious beliefs can and have been used throughout history to justify and directly inspire all manner of atrocities, and it also not "my opinion" that any such similar atrocities have never, ever in all of human history been justified or inspired by "atheism". Atheism is a singular position on a singular subject - any other ideologies an atheist holds that are not strictly to do with a God or the lack of a God therefore have nothing to do with atheism. Religions, on the other hand, have doctrines, core beliefs and teaching that directly justify or encourage almost any act of hatred.

This does not mean that "all religion is evil". It is a simple logical point. You cannot point to atheists who have committed atrocities when people bring up atrocities committed in the name of religion, because it's not about moral one-upsmanship. It's about the means used to justify, influence or inspire those acts. Religion is responsible for many - though by no means all - of such acts. Atheism is responsible for none. End of story.

I don't agree with this statement and have given my reasons repeatedly, so I am not going to repeat them.

I have to repeat the above argument ad nauseam on practically every forum, chat room or religious discussion group I frequent. Please, do not act as if it is only you whose patience is being tested. This is a religious discussion forum and I'd be surprised if there wasn't a single person who posted here who wasn't sick to death of their own words by now.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Seems pretty obvious to me the concept Kathryn means is that atheists share atheism.

Not having met every atheist it's impossible to speak with authority about any single concept other than atheism that atheists share, but I'd reckon many atheists would accept the idea that science holds all the worthwhile answers.

While I would usually say that's a generalization, my personal experience leads me to believe you're correct. Although it depends on what you mean by "worthwhile answers".

I'm tempted to think that many atheists would agree with each other on the matter of who is the most intelligent species on the planet, but they are often such a disagreeable lot they might choose to deny the obvious choice.

I would say it's cats. If anything, they domesticated us.

And finally, it seems based upon observation of numerous atheists, that a lack of respect of people who do not share their disbelief is a common trait they share, yet I wouldn't dare to presume that the atheists I've met are representative of all atheists.

As for specific groups that are based upon atheism, do a frigging google for yourself rather than get nit pickity about something that is plainly obvious.

Please, don't get rude just because somebody asks for evidence of a persons claim and exactly what kind of "groups" they are referring to.

American Atheists | Welcome
Atheist Society, Melbourne, Australia
Atheist News - Atheist Nexus

These are groups for atheist socialization and discussion. I can find similar websites for My Little Pony if you'd like, so what's your point?

 

[Revoltingest]

Again, atheism is not a belief.

I believe there is no god, which is a belief.
The lack of belief in god would seem to be atheistic too.
What a diverse lot we are!

End of story.

"End of story" is the new "QED".