Dawkins: I'm a cultural Christian

[m_huber]

I don't agree. Even if you find a culture based on Buddhism (some Asian cultures are, some are not), that doesn't mean that the culture is based on atheism. It's not that atheism is a part of Buddhism, it's just that theism is not a part of Buddhism.

Buddhism is an aleprechaunist belief system, but it doesn't make sense to consider any Asian culture to be based on alprechaunism.

Forgive me, my understanding of Buddhism is rather weak. It just seems, from what I know of it, that Buddhist spirituality is essentially compatible with atheism (though perhaps not always skepticism). I suppose what I really mean is that, if Buddhists don't have a god, then a culture based on Buddhism will be a culture that is not built around any god(s), which is, by definition, atheistic.

Perhaps I don't follow your argument because I don't know what "alprechaunism" is (and neither did my dictionary). I'm really not sure if this is a valid example of an atheistic society or not, I'm just throwing it out in answer to Tai Chi. Nonetheless, it would still be intellectually amusing.

 

[joobz]

Just in case you are reading the posts of people you claim to have on ignore, I would like to ask: What is your point?

I do not see the point either.

What if all past cultures had some religion involved? Does this prove all religions are equally valid or equally parasitic?

 

[Zarathustra]

It's perfectly possible to respect and enjoy traditions without actively practising or even condoning the religion that inspired (or co-opted) it.

Perhaps even more so as we are reminded that the vast majority of common Christmas traditions are unrelated in origin to the religion of Christianity.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Atheism is only important in a cultural sense if embedded within a religious culture.

Then you're admitting that

a) theism came first / we are born theists, and
b) there has been no entirely atheistic culture

I'm not sure fellow atheists would agree with those two things.

Is it so hard to understand that atheism by itself cannot have any cultural elements?

One can see a few atheist organizations in present day. They have books, speeches, buildings, symbols, etc. It is not too fantastic to consider the possibility of such things existing somewhere in the distant past given the thousands of years of atheism, that archeological digs could uncover.

 

[danielk]

Then you're admitting that

a) theism came first / we are born theists, and
b) there has been no entirely atheistic culture

Now, really, this is just lame. In the context of our discussion, "Theists came first" refers to theist culture. "We are born atheists" is the claim that every individual human being is born into this world without a belief in god. The latter is pretty much self-evident. How should a new-born baby be able to believe in something it has no idea of?

As it happens, when these little human beings grow up, many of them begin to ask questions about the world and their place in it. Since the enlightenment would still be a couple thousand years into the future, but the people at that time needed answers anyway, they had to make them up. It was only natural to extent their social knowledge towards nature and assume it works along the same lines, except for being vastly more powerful. In other words, they anthropomorphized natural phenomena to be able to explain them. What we know of human history appears to support this hypothesis pretty well.

I'm not sure fellow atheists would agree with those two things.

Why not? The first humans capable of asking themselves "why" questions simply thought nature works like a human society, with rulers and stronger groups and all that. Can't blame them. They didn't know what we know now.

One can see a few atheist organizations in present day. They have books, speeches, buildings, symbols, etc. It is not too fantastic to consider the possibility of such things existing somewhere in the distant past given the thousands of years of atheism, that archeological digs could uncover.

Have you actually bothered to read what others and I have written in this thread? The answer to your question was explained to you a couple of times already. You are not stupid, so please spare us the dumb acting and read.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

I kind of get the same impression from what I know of Buddhism (which isn't as much as it should be).

If Buddhism is in fact an atheistic belief system, then many Asian cultures could be described as cultures based on atheism.

I'm no great scholar but I'll have a go, Buddhism in it's original sense , if you go back to what the historical Buddha actually said, as far as we know, could be more accurately described as non-theistic rather than atheistic. He didn't answer common relgious questions because so he provided no new creation myths and refused to answer such questions, but he came out of a culture that was religious and his teachings spread and absorbed into a non rational religious culture so semi mythical beings,deities, reincarnation, etc almost inevitably became part of Buddhism - even though the teaching might thrive in some ways the prevaining religious culture couldn't just be swept away. A lot of mythology has undoubtedly been added over time to the Buddha's own life.


There are Buddhist atheists, non theists and Buddhist Christians. Buddha neither denied not affirmed the existence of "god" he simply emphasised that to him, there was the more immediate issue of human suffering..

Like the story told of the arrow that strikes you in the eye while walking in the forest. What's the first thing you do? Find out where the arrow came from or get it out of your eye? It 's this psychological/spiritual first aid that he was concerned with , not banishing demons or deities or asking "How was the universe made"?

 

[linusrichard]

Forgive me, my understanding of Buddhism is rather weak. It just seems, from what I know of it, that Buddhist spirituality is essentially compatible with atheism (though perhaps not always skepticism). I suppose what I really mean is that, if Buddhists don't have a god, then a culture based on Buddhism will be a culture that is not built around any god(s), which is, by definition, atheistic.

Right, I think you're right about that. I'm pointing out what I see as an important difference, which is the difference between "a culture that is not build around any god(s)" and a culture that is built around the absence of any gods.

Perhaps I don't follow your argument because I don't know what "alprechaunism" is (and neither did my dictionary). I'm really not sure if this is a valid example of an atheistic society or not, I'm just throwing it out in answer to Tai Chi. Nonetheless, it would still be intellectually amusing.

"Aleprechaunism" is something I just made up, I think it was this thread, to point out the absurdity of a culture centered on a nonbelief.

 

[andyandy]

Can someone quote this so Arti will get a chance to read it?

If you haven't read Susan Jacoby's Freethinkers yet - do so. She makes an awesome case about how while the Temperance Leagues and Southern black pastors get all the historical press, atheists and secularists were very much active on the front of women's sufferage the Civil Rights era. While her investigation into the issue of slavery is informative, I think the forgotten history of the involvement of secularists (especially atheists and agnostics) in the 20th Century is fascinating compared with the revisionism of D. James Kennedy and web idiots like DOC, etc.

there we go....though i think she might have me on ignore as well

 

[joobz]

Have you actually bothered to read what others and I have written in this thread?

Most likely not.


I find it amusing that he's asserting the fact that almost all cultures having religion as being a good thing. What about the number of cultures that had surfdom/caste systems? Does that make social inequity a good thing?


His logic is so horrificly flawed, I'm starting to believe that T'ai is going for the "Stupidest post on JREF award".


All he needs to do in order to ensure victory is to, in a single post, include randomness of evolution, atheism cause of stalin/mao deaths, people being born theist, use the word stochastic, diss dawkins, and post a like saying interesting.

 

[m_huber]

Right, I think you're right about that. I'm pointing out what I see as an important difference, which is the difference between "a culture that is not build around any god(s)" and a culture that is built around the absence of any gods.

So I guess the real question is how we would define an atheistic culture. If, as was suggested earlier, an atheistic culture would tend to focus on humanity rather than deities, then I think this is a winner. Of course, if atheism means no belief in the supernatural, then it wouldn't do, but if atheism is no belief in a god or pantheon, then it would seem to be.

If we are looking for a culture that worships atheism, then I don't think we could even find an individual to qualify.

"Aleprechaunism" is something I just made up, I think it was this thread, to point out the absurdity of a culture centered on a nonbelief.

Right.. I had read that post, but when I saw it later on, I kept breaking the word up in a funny way..

Well, exams are over now, so perhaps I can have my mind back to do some thinking..

 

[T'ai Chi]

, to point out the absurdity of a culture centered on a nonbelief.

So what you're saying is that it, by definition, has no chance to be mainstream, ever? That it is an idea that loses from the start?

 

[Darat]

So what you're saying is that it, by definition, has no chance to be mainstream, ever? That it is an idea that loses from the start?

Given your tendency to misrepresent and lie please provide a link to the entire post that you have only partly quoted so it can be seen if you are misrepresenting the Member's point or not.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Given your tendency to misrepresent and lie please provide a link to the entire post that you have only partly quoted so it can be seen if you are misrepresenting the Member's point or not.

Wah.

'Don't tell others how you'd like them to post.' comes to mind.

 

[Darat]

Wah.

'Don't tell others how you'd like them to post.' comes to mind.

Since you do not care to provide a link to the quote I will, based on past experience of your lies and misrepresentations of what people have said, assume that this is yet another example of you misrepresenting a Member's point and therefore there is nothing of relevance to the topic under discussion that is worth responding to.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

So what you're saying is...

Given your tendency to misrepresent and lie please provide a link to the entire post that you have only partly quoted so it can be seen if you are misrepresenting the Member's point or not.

His post was a double whammy since he started it with what I quoted which is a sure sign he's getting ready to twist the meaning of what that person said.

You're a great troll T'ai.

 

[brodski]

Wah.

'Don't tell others how you'd like them to post.' comes to mind.

Don't misrepresent other posters posts if you don't want to get called on it.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Don't misrepresent other posters posts if you don't want to get called on it.

No "called" on it here. I simply asked the person some questions.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Originally Posted by danielk

I could have used numbers from former socialist countries to smack you down, if I had wanted to show the highest atheist percentage.

Would these be regimes led under Stalin, Lenin, or Maozidong by any chance?

 

[brodski]

No "called" on it here. I simply asked the person some questions.

So what you're saying is that you deliberately lied about what others had posted and then whined about it when people pointed out your dishonesty?

Just asking questions here...

 

[linusrichard]

So what you're saying is that it, by definition, has no chance to be mainstream, ever? That it is an idea that loses from the start?

I can't really answer your question without knowing what "it" refers to. Does it refer to "a culture centered on nonbelief"? If so, then the question doesn't make sense to me, but I guess the answer is yes. I guess. If "it" refers to nonbelief itself, then no, of course not. Nonbelief is mainstream - nonbelief in leprechauns, in unicorns, in fairies, in Thor, etc. What is absurd is to expect that a culture could be built around aleprechaunism, or athorism, or atheism.

Either you're not reading what I (and some others on this thread) have already written, or you're not reading it carefully. We're going in circles.

Would these be regimes led under Stalin, Lenin, or Maozidong by any chance?

Well, since he referred to "former socialist countries," then obviously not. Didn't you already respond to this already, anyway, with an "I'm sure"? I think you did!