Should atheism be considered a movement?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Nice. Glad we can disagree without one of us being condescending.

It was not meant as condescension. Honestly, if you feel some connexion to others based on a shared lack of belief in deities, good. We all need to connect with someone about something.

Atheism and skepticism, many times, go hand in hand. Maybe it's skepticism, not atheism, that is the movement.

There is a lot of overlap, to be sure, but it is far from complete. I'm not much on being a part of any movement, but I'd feel more sympathy towards a skeptical movement.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Agreed. Atheism is but one possible conclusion. I personally don't care what conclusion you reach, as long as you approach it rationally. I have more in common with skeptics or critical thinkers of any religious affiliation or lack thereof than I do with "atheists" in general.

Personally there are many types of atheists that I can't stand.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Atheism may be a movement as far as some people think. Lots of people get together and believe spreading their view of the world is a good thing to spread.

I would like to see a critical thinking movement. Atheism is only one aspect of critical thinking, but there's no reason it needs to be the dominant aspect.

 

[tmackean]

What the OP may be getting at is that not all atheists are or want to be part of that "movement", and thus it is somewhat misleading to refer to "the atheist movement".

That's exactly what the OP meant. What worries me is the idea, expressed in a few posts here, that to defend against religion we need to become LIKE a religion, organising similarly.

What, personality cult and all?

Am I the only person who sees terms such as "The New Atheism" as an ominous sign of things to come? Hey, for all those UK posters out there, remember 'New Labour', or 'The New Testament', or, umm 'The New Avengers' (RUINED by Gareth Hunt)?

The semantics debate cuts to the heart of this issue for me. Whether I 'don't believe' in theism or 'believe' in something else is an important distinction. Maybe nature abhors a vacuum, but I'm quite happy NOT to replace the void left by religious belief with some other dogma. Some have said 'I believe in the scientific method', but the scientific method is not a belief in itself, it's a means of developing knowledge. Religious people wouldn't say that they "believe in oral storytelling".

 

[Darat]

No, not really. Those people are selling useful things that people wish to use for their rituals.

This is more like what I had in mind as crass commercialism.

Oh I see so if it's for a "ritual" it isn't crass commercialization....

 

[CFLarsen]

I would like to see a critical thinking movement. Atheism is only one aspect of critical thinking, but there's no reason it needs to be the dominant aspect.

So if people aren't atheists, they are not allowed in the critical thinking movement?

 

[Menalitus]

This post makes no sense to me.

Have you made a point of forming a belief with respect to the onion fields growing on the moon? Have you formed a belief with respect to the turtle cities below the earth's crust?

Is there a difference between having "no belief in gurple" and "believing that no gurple exists"?

Hell ya, of course there's a difference. In the 1st case, it's some nonsense that requires no decision to form an opinion at all. In the 2nd case, it's a weird thing to believe since that which you have decided does not exist, has no definition!

For me, as an atheist, it's the same thing. I don't have to decide that I don't believe in God. There is simply no reason whatsover for me to even consider such a ridiculously silly notion. I have not formed a belief because none is necessary at all.

For some people I guess it's a big decision. And for others it is a non-issue that requires no belief whatsover.

How should someone who has never considered the idea of god be categorized? Are they holding onto a belief? Is ignorance of the entire concept the same as a belief? I hope nobody would say it is. And yet, that kind of lumping together is what every non-atheist seems to want to do.

Is it so hard to believe that for some people there is no issue. There is no belief. There is no decision to be made.

The problem with this IMHO is that you can only truly have no belief when you are unaware of the concept, as soon as you are aware that there is an argument for the existence of whatever the concept is there is a subtle change which to me means that you then believe that the concept is incorrect. In this sense, again just in my opinion atheism is a belief that god does not exist even though technically it means a lack of belief, the reality is that this is itself a belief.

An example for you, mr a does not know that a bunch of people believe that gurple exists, he can truly be said to have no opinion on gurple.

However mr b knows that a bunch of nutters insist that gurple is real and provide reams of made up documentation to prove it. Mr b can only believe that gurple does not exist, he cannot have no opinion at all unless he is either lying to himself or has some kind of mental condidtion that allows him to delete information from his mind.

 

[Meadmaker]

Am I the only person who sees terms such as "The New Atheism" as an ominous sign of things to come?

No, you are not. I'm an atheist, and I find those guys a bit scary.

 

[Menalitus]

No, you are not. I'm an atheist, and I find those guys a bit scary.

I agree completely, I am horrifed by any implication of crazy atheist death squads or forcing beliefs on people.

That does not mean though that as an atheist it is dangerous in some way to challenge the view of others. It also does not mean that a campaign for a more critical world view within the general population is in some way wrong headed.

 

[Molinaro]

...he cannot have no opinion at all unless he is either lying to himself or has some kind of mental condidtion that allows him to delete information from his mind.

When we are found to have insufficient evidence upon which to base a belief, should we decide to believe, or to not believe? I say the correct answer is option 3: It is irrational to form an opinon either way. No belief shoud exist on the subject when no real evidence is available.

That is where I see the question of religion. What is put forward as evidence is not what I consider to be real evidence. The only evidence against religion is the overwhelming absence of evidence. Hence, it's a non-issue requiring no decision to be made.

 

[Meadmaker]

I agree completely, I am horrifed by any implication of crazy atheist death squads or forcing beliefs on people.

That does not mean though that as an atheist it is dangerous in some way to challenge the view of others. It also does not mean that a campaign for a more critical world view within the general population is in some way wrong headed.

In my view, it can be wrong headed depending on the means employed. I think it is wrong headed to force things on others except in the most dire need. I have no objection to atheists saying that there is no God, nor of trying to convince others they are right about that. I get a bit more touchy when they start talking about shutting down schools where the opposite is taught.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So if people aren't atheists, they are not allowed in the critical thinking movement?

A critical thinking theist is an oxymoron.

Other than that, I don't control what anyone is or does or considers themselves.

 

[CFLarsen]

A critical thinking theist is an oxymoron.

Other than that, I don't control what anyone is or does or considers themselves.

I didn't ask how you would control what someone is or does or considers themselves.

My question was about how you would control who gets to be in this critical thinking movement. How will you do that? Make it a condition that you are an atheist? Take a test? Pledge, in public, with your hand on...presumably not the Bible, but what, then?...that you are now an Atheist?

I'm genuinely curious. What constitutes a member of this Movement of Critical Thinkers? What do they have to live up to? What are the tenets?

They have to be Atheists. What else?

 

[Egg]

I'm genuinely curious. What constitutes a member of this Movement of Critical Thinkers? What do they have to live up to? What are the tenets?

They have to be Atheists. What else?

It goes without saying...critical thought inevitably leads one to the same conclusions that Skeptigirl reaches, because Skeptigirl is a critical thinker. That should surely be a good enough yardstick to judge whether somebody is a real critical thinker or not.

 

[plumjam]

A critical thinking theist is an oxymoron.

So Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, Gregor Mendel, Pascal, Descartes, Berkeley, Boyle, Leibnitz, Faraday etc.. wouldn't get onto Skeptigirl's Critical Thinkers List. It's a good job they've all bought the farm; they'd likely be devastated at such news.

 

[TheChadd]

Somewhat related: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLIAyOl7Poc

is this guy just crapping on in front of his philosophy textbooks, or is there more to what he's saying then there seems? I'm just rather surprised by the positive response in his comments.

 

[Menalitus]

In my view, it can be wrong headed depending on the means employed. I think it is wrong headed to force things on others except in the most dire need. I have no objection to atheists saying that there is no God, nor of trying to convince others they are right about that. I get a bit more touchy when they start talking about shutting down schools where the opposite is taught.

I know this is aseperate argument but I disagree that it would be necessarily wrong to close church schools, the problem with theistic education seems that an emphasis is placed on the existence of a deity (or whatever). This to me is deeply wrong as an atheist and sceptic, I would of course also feel uncomfortable with an anti-theistic education as this would be wrong for many of the same reasons.

Education should be without bias, it should simply deliver the facts and assist people in learning how to process the information they have learnt, decisions about which religion you should follow should be separated from schools unless they are some additional "lessons" taken outside of the normal education system. Religion is for church and the home, not for school unless you are deliberately intending to skew the thinking of the pupils.

 

[Menalitus]

When we are found to have insufficient evidence upon which to base a belief, should we decide to believe, or to not believe? I say the correct answer is option 3: It is irrational to form an opinon either way. No belief shoud exist on the subject when no real evidence is available.

That is where I see the question of religion. What is put forward as evidence is not what I consider to be real evidence. The only evidence against religion is the overwhelming absence of evidence. Hence, it's a non-issue requiring no decision to be made.

Oxford compact online dictionary... (My bold)

atheism
/aythi-iz’m/

• noun the belief that God does not exist.

— DERIVATIVES atheist noun atheistic adjective atheistical adjective.

sceptic
(US skeptic)

• noun 1 a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions. 2 a person who doubts the truth of Christianity and other religions; an atheist.

— DERIVATIVES scepticism noun.

— ORIGIN Greek skeptikos, from skepsis ‘inquiry, doubt’.


— ORIGIN from Greek a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’.

 

[Hokulele]

I know this is aseperate argument but I disagree that it would be necessarily wrong to close church schools, the problem with theistic education seems that an emphasis is placed on the existence of a deity (or whatever). This to me is deeply wrong as an atheist and sceptic, I would of course also feel uncomfortable with an anti-theistic education as this would be wrong for many of the same reasons.

Education should be without bias, it should simply deliver the facts and assist people in learning how to process the information they have learnt, decisions about which religion you should follow should be separated from schools unless they are some additional "lessons" taken outside of the normal education system. Religion is for church and the home, not for school unless you are deliberately intending to skew the thinking of the pupils.

Well, I am going to have to throw myself on the flames here, as I disagree with your disagreement. Personal anecdote time:

I was raised in a mixed household, with one parent an atheist and the other a theist, and I was never forced to choose a worldview. When I was a teenager, I attended a private boarding school (private in the US sense) for my high school education that was, and is, an Episcopalian venture. For those who aren't familiar with it, the US Episcopal church is very similar to the Church of England. As far as Christianity goes, it is extremely liberal.

The two main reasons I went to this particular school were due to a family legacy there, and the fact that it pretty much was one of the top schools in the region as far as education goes. A large percentage of the graduating class goes on to higher education, generally at what are considered some of the top schools in the world. Not just the country, the world.

To be fair, the emphasis on education has no relationship to the fact that it is, at least on the surface, a religious school. Believe me, they are far more concerned with keeping the scions of a powerful elite as a fund-raising base than with any evangelical agenda (alas, I am not one of those scions). Keeping in line with their educational mandate, we were taught biology as most scientists view it (reading Darwin's Origin of Species and all), basic chemistry and physics, touch typing, as well anything else a young person needs to succeed in college and eventually the real world today.

In spite of that, in order to hold to their original charter, they do require that all of the students be exposed to at least one year of "religious studies". Back when I attended, this meant a class in the Bible, mostly as a literary exercise (reading it front to back, back to front, and sideways), a class on comparative religions (my first exposure to what Judaism and Islam really entail), and a class on classical philosophy. No indoctrination required.

As a result, I can ramble on about the "J" author with the best of them, I have a better understanding of how to approach religious source texts (especially after further studies in comparative religion when I went to college), and I can clearly and easily state that I am an atheist.

Although I would agree in the sense that a religious education requiring indoctrination is a "bad thing", I would hesitate to throw a baby out with the baptismal water based on several examples, including my own, that I know of.

 

[Menalitus]

Well, I am going to have to throw myself on the flames here, as I disagree with your disagreement. Personal anecdote time:

I was raised in a mixed household, with one parent an atheist and the other a theist, and I was never forced to choose a worldview. When I was a teenager, I attended a private boarding school (private in the US sense) for my high school education that was, and is, an Episcopalian venture. For those who aren't familiar with it, the US Episcopal church is very similar to the Church of England. As far as Christianity goes, it is extremely liberal.

The two main reasons I went to this particular school were due to a family legacy there, and the fact that it pretty much was one of the top schools in the region as far as education goes. A large percentage of the graduating class goes on to higher education, generally at what are considered some of the top schools in the world. Not just the country, the world.

To be fair, the emphasis on education has no relationship to the fact that it is, at least on the surface, a religious school. Believe me, they are far more concerned with keeping the scions of a powerful elite as a fund-raising base than with any evangelical agenda (alas, I am not one of those scions). Keeping in line with their educational mandate, we were taught biology as most scientists view it (reading Darwin's Origin of Species and all), basic chemistry and physics, touch typing, as well anything else a young person needs to succeed in college and eventually the real world today.

In spite of that, in order to hold to their original charter, they do require that all of the students be exposed to at least one year of "religious studies". Back when I attended, this meant a class in the Bible, mostly as a literary exercise (reading it front to back, back to front, and sideways), a class on comparative religions (my first exposure to what Judaism and Islam really entail), and a class on classical philosophy. No indoctrination required.

As a result, I can ramble on about the "J" author with the best of them, I have a better understanding of how to approach religious source texts (especially after further studies in comparative religion when I went to college), and I can clearly and easily state that I am an atheist.

Although I would agree in the sense that a religious education requiring indoctrination is a "bad thing", I would hesitate to throw a baby out with the baptismal water based on several examples, including my own, that I know of.

So basically you agree with me. I am very much in favor of educating people in the structure and background to religions, this is relevant to the world we live in and would be part of a balanced education. It seems that the school you went to was good and although technically religious it was really in the whole a non theistic education. If you removed the religious component the school would still have been great.

Let me clarify my position, I am against any school that teaches religion and god as fact, without leaving it up to the pupil to reach their own conclusions.