Should atheism be considered a movement?

[Beth]

It's a mental state. Rationality involves accepting different worldviews. If you don't accept the range of opinion, you can never challenge your own opinion.

OK

When you draw that line, you stop listening to the people who you decide are against you.

??????

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Skeptigirl said she'd posted about the evidence that overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that god beliefs are just made up constructs by ancient people trying to explain what they observed around them.

Rather than expect her to go to the trouble of posting it all again, I was hoping she might be able to point me to the thread where she did this.

I think you are missing the evidence because you are expecting something different than what the evidence is. You don't need a study or a citation to notice the Bible gets the germ theory wrong, cosmology wrong, incorporated other myths such as the Epic of Gilgamesh, and was written as you would expect without an awareness the rest of the world's population of humans existed.

I could go on and on. That evidence points to the fact no gods were involved in the Bible. The same is true for Pele and Zeus and Coyote stealing fire from heaven and Turtles all the way down.

Then you go to the science of anthropology and you can find overwhelming evidence of just how people developed god beliefs. We even have an historical occurrence called the Cargo Cult religion.

What evidence are you expecting? In your mind you seem to think we need a scientific test proving the negative. That isn't needed for god beliefs anymore than it is needed for invisible pink unicorns in my backyard. There is exactly the same evidence for gods and invisible pink unicorns, IE none. There is overwhelming evidence people invented god beliefs. How hard is that concept for you to understand?


Edited to add, thanks arti.

 

[andyandy]

Then you go to the science of anthropology and you can find overwhelming evidence of just how people developed god beliefs. We even have an historical occurrence called the Cargo Cult religion.

Are you saying that Prince Philip isn't a God? Blasphemy! Off with your head

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Just one class on indoctrination? Certainly not. It's a huge part of the school's mission, and it takes up a significant part of the day, and it certainly isn't an elective. Once in a while there are even elements of indoctrination in the math class, but not very often.

Personally, I think any child given evidence and facts can make up his own mind with or without indoctrination. Short of some sort of high intensity brainwashing exercises, I think people have a clue. You can tell people anything you want about God, but no one is forced to believe it.

If that were true you should expect to see just as equally distributed believers and non-believers of all religions or at least some semblance of it. But you don't. You see kids mostly adopting the religion they were taught as children. Doesn't seem as free 'choicey' to me as you seem to think

I also think that your notion of just exactly what constitute "god beliefs" are heavily influenced by Christian teachings.

It is just easier to draw examples from the Christian religion as well as that is the dominant religion in this country. But I typically try to use examples from the Old Testament which while it may differ in some specifics from Judaism and Islam, the core myths are relatively the same. If you think the Torah or the Koran are scientifically more correct than the Bible, let's hear it.

By the way, I said that many of the graduates are agnostic. Some of those agnostics are very religious. For those of you who think that's a contradiction, there might be something you don't understand about religion.

And what religion would that be, Mm?

 

[articulett]

I like piggy's explanation for why he is an atheist; I suspect it's true of most atheists.


I'm not an atheist because I'm ignorant of religion, mysticism, mythology, and spirituality. I'm an atheist because I've studied these things.

They are often the most knowledgable on the subject of religions and why people believe often having been belivers themselves.

Criticism of religion is not hate speech any more than pointing out the Emperor is naked--but believers hear it as such or imagine that you are trying to get them to be atheists, because if they didn't they'd have to admit they've been as deluded as those the believers of the woo they don't believe in.

They don't want the answers to their loaded questions... they want to assume your not answering them means they are "right" about something.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why do you believe this? I'm sorry, but I won't be able to respond much as my broken index finger makes it difficult to type, but I am genuinely curious.

When do you get the splint off?

You've stated this belief more than once, though it's clearly not always the case. For example, consider the evidence in "Amazing Conversions: Why Some Turn to Faith & Others Abandon Religion (Hardcover)" which has the following description

Your source is saying that people find religion for psycho-social reasons. It doesn't say they find religion because they find evidence of gods.

What you probably mean is that you place a significantly higher probability of not becoming religious under those circumstances. If so, I agree with this. But I also find the idea that parents shouldn't be permitted to raise their children with the idea that they will follow their religion to be profoundly abhorant. I'm with Meadmaker on that issue.

What I find interesting is that those who advocate such an approach do not percieve that they are attempting to foster their own religious beliefs in other people's children. I see the insistance that a religious upbringing is somehow harmful to a child, which many people posting here do, as being any different than the religious folks claiming that a non-religious upbringing is harmful to a child, and many religious people do feel that way.

Anyway, back to my main question is for those who feel that raising a child to believe in a religion is morally wrong: Do you believe that a mandatory secular education will result in more atheist and agnostic adults (I do, but I think that there will always be some portion of the population that believes in supernatural gods)

If so, do you have any ethical concerns about the fact that a mandatory secular education would have the effect of fostering converts to your own religious beliefs - i.e. no gods actually exit?

If somebody wanted to make this a poll, that'd be nice. But that's all the typing I can handle today.

We live in a society that values parental rights and that is a separate issue. When values are in conflict such as valuing parental rights and valuing education in critical thinking skills, that also is a separate issue. I do not advocate confronting religious beliefs directly most of the time (exceptions are teaching science) nor in interfering in parental rights in this particular case. I find it annoying that when I post what I value and what I would like to see happen, all manner of false assumptions are made about the means I would advocate in achieving those goals.

What one really needs to consider in this particular case is outcome. What is the harm in god beliefs per se? On the surface, nothing. But what about when god beliefs translate into someone wanting to teach kids that evolution theory is wrong? Then you have a problem because that handicaps the kid and the society. Science is based on evidence and god believers often just ignore the evidence. Science is successful, praying isn't. There are many things like this which are harmful outcomes.

My preference at this time is to just start with critical thinking skills. Kids need to learn how to distinguish between fact and myth. There is only one reality. Kids need to learn how their beliefs are manipulated. This goes well beyond religion into marketing and politics. Media literacy is a critical skill we are not teaching kids enough of.

Those are examples of what I am concerned about. I could write pages more.

 

[CapelDodger]

I like piggy's explanation for why he is an atheist; I suspect it's true of most atheists.


I'm not an atheist because I'm ignorant of religion, mysticism, mythology, and spirituality. I'm an atheist because I've studied these things.

They are often the most knowledgable on the subject of religions and why people believe often having been belivers themselves.

I'm with you there. The truth is that atheists have usually put more thought into the matter than believers, and have a much greater tendency to go back to the evidence. And whereas believers concentrate on reinforcing their peculiar beliefs, atheists develop a general knowledge and (dare I say?) understanding of religion as a phaenomenon.

 

[CapelDodger]

Anyway, back to my main question is for those who feel that raising a child to believe in a religion is morally wrong:

What choice does the child have in this? Here's a moral question : do parents have the right to mould their offspring in ways peculiar to their own beliefs, leaving no choice to the child? Here's another one : is a child merely a chattel of its parents?

The only thing a parent has proved is that they're not the end of their blood-line, and that's no basis for a moral right to indoctrination.

 

[CapelDodger]

Your source is saying that people find religion for psycho-social reasons. It doesn't say they find religion because they find evidence of gods.

Quite. The further and deeper we look into the actual Universe, the same we see no need of a god to explain anything. There's nothing about gods or religion or anything supernatural that didn't originate between one human ear and the opposite one.

Beth may think differently, but "think" is the operative word, don't you think ?

 

[articulett]

Quite. The further and deeper we look into the actual Universe, the same we see no need of a god to explain anything. There's nothing about gods or religion or anything supernatural that didn't originate between one human ear and the opposite one.

Beth may think differently, but "think" is the operative word, don't you think ?

Yes... Beth has a very strong need to believe her brand of belief is not a delusion... she hears words and threats that are not there and negates all information that could threaten her belief. She wants very much to believe that it's rational to believe in whatever god she believes in... more rational than believing in demons or psychic powers... better than believing in Allah or Zeus.... more true than belief in psychic powers or guardian angels...

She pretends to want to converse on the topic, but she wants to tell herself that she's made a rational examination of the evidence by talking with skeptics... and concluded through this rational discussion that god beliefs are not a delusion. She's glimpsed the magical robes of the proverbial Emperor and she wants to silence those who say it's an illusion. She claims atheists are trying to bully others into non-belief when they are doing nothing more than expressing opinions and facts in the very same manner that theists take for granted as they state opinions AS facts. It is faith and the faithful who have a need to convince themselves and others--otherwise the delusion shatters. The truth just keeps being the truth no matter how many people don't like it or don't understand it or don't "believe" it.

She claims that being on the fence about god is the true skeptic position... but it isn't... not any more than being on the fence about astrology or astral travel or demons or rain dances.
We can all change our minds should some evidence for any of these things become available--but until it does... the ever increasing evidence points to man-made delusions passed on via myth and culture coupled with people being encouraged to "noticing" signs of their "faith".

She, like many believers, confuse lack of belief for belief... even though they understand that their lack of belief in Zeus or telekinesis is nothing... it takes no faith; it has no dogma. They lie to themselves about what atheism is, to keep from be affected by it's implications. On some level, they must realize the atheist disbelieves their woo the same way they disbelieve other woo, and it offends them. They have to find fault in the messenger in order not to receive the message. It's egotism disguised as imagined humility, interest, and diplomacy.

The notion that atheism is another faith always makes me laugh... theists will tell any lie to keep believers hanging on-- it reminds me of this cartoon...

 

[HghrSymmetry]

What is the difference in real terms between having "no belief in God" and "believing that no God exists"? Why even bother to try and define one?

It's subtle, yet becomes obvious once illustrated.

An Euler-Venn diagram can clear things up. Start with a blank leaf of paper; make a large circle with a “B” (belief) in the middle of the circle. Within the large circle of “belief” you can make two smaller circles, “BG” (believe there is a god) and “BNG” (believe there is no god). This is an accurate representation of inclusion. Both “BG” and “BNG” fall under the larger category of “B” (belief). Now make a separate circle beside the “B” (belief) circle titled “NB” (non-belief). Now the diagram accurately portrays both inclusion and exclusion. You would like to think that non-belief should be within category of belief, as if it were merely a subset of belief, but its not. No overlap, no inclusion: non-belief is not a belief-system.

Author: Flash

 

[Meadmaker]

And what religion would that be, Mm?

The ones I know are Jews, but it could be lots of them:

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/p/AtheistReligion.htm


A more thoughtful answer to this and other good, recent, questions will have to wait until after I've had some sleep.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The ones I know are Jews, but it could be lots of them:

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/p/AtheistReligion.htm


A more thoughtful answer to this and other good, recent, questions will have to wait until after I've had some sleep.

Most of those are not religions without god beliefs. Hindus have all sorts of gods. Buddhists worship Buddha statues in temples and so on. Just because they don't consider their rituals as worshiping a creator god doesn't mean they don't have beliefs in some kind of outcome for their ritual worshiping behaviors.

As for

Is There a Jewish Atheism? Examples of Atheism among Jews:
Judaism is a religion founded upon belief in a single creator god; it's one of the oldest and earliest forms of monotheism known. Today, however, there are Jews who have rejected belief in this god while retaining attributes of Judaism as possible. In some cases people have retained very little and call themselves Jews for ethnic reasons. Others retain a great deal of Jewish traditions and call themselves Jews not just from a cultural, but also from a religious perspective. They consider themselves every bit as religious as the Jews who continue to believe in God.

this merely describes retaining cultural traditions but rejecting the religion. You can label that religion if you want to. That doesn't make it some concept I don't understand or get. Culture and tradition is not religion.

Christmas, Halloween and Easter are my favorite holidays. Big deal, I'm certainly not an atheist Christian or atheist Pagan because I like candy and gift giving traditions complete with lots of fun decorating.

 

[CFLarsen]

Skeptigirl,

One has to be an atheist to join this critical movement of yours.

What other requirements are there? Give a full list.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If you have something to discuss, Claus, I'll be happy to reply to your posts. If you want to make your usual straw man side track of what I've posted, there is nothing to reply to. I have posted what I value about critical thinking and why. I have not posted that I have "a movement" nor that I am active in anyone else's movement. A movement implies organization, agendas, plans and so on. I merely expressed values and supporting rationale.

 

[CFLarsen]

If you have something to discuss, Claus, I'll be happy to reply to your posts. If you want to make your usual straw man side track of what I've posted, there is nothing to reply to. I have posted what I value about critical thinking and why. I have not posted that I have "a movement" nor that I am active in anyone else's movement. A movement implies organization, agendas, plans and so on. I merely expressed values and supporting rationale.

I want to discuss this critical thinking movement that you suggested:

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.

You have said that one requirement for joining is that one is an atheist.

What other requirements do you think there should be?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

"Like to see", is a statement of my values, Claus. It is not a statement that I have requirements for one to join a movement.

 

[CFLarsen]

"Like to see", is a statement of my values, Claus. It is not a statement that I have requirements for one to join a movement.

Yes, you did: You said that one requirement is that one has to be an atheist.

I am asking you what the other requirements are, if any.

 

[articulett]

"Like to see", is a statement of my values, Claus. It is not a statement that I have requirements for one to join a movement.

Say, can I join your non-movement? --We won't allow straw men, okay?

 

[Egg]

I think you are missing the evidence because you are expecting something different than what the evidence is. You don't need a study or a citation to notice the Bible gets the germ theory wrong, cosmology wrong, incorporated other myths such as the Epic of Gilgamesh, and was written as you would expect without an awareness the rest of the world's population of humans existed.

I could go on and on. That evidence points to the fact no gods were involved in the Bible. The same is true for Pele and Zeus and Coyote stealing fire from heaven and Turtles all the way down.

Then you go to the science of anthropology and you can find overwhelming evidence of just how people developed god beliefs. We even have an historical occurrence called the Cargo Cult religion.

What evidence are you expecting? In your mind you seem to think we need a scientific test proving the negative. That isn't needed for god beliefs anymore than it is needed for invisible pink unicorns in my backyard. There is exactly the same evidence for gods and invisible pink unicorns, IE none. There is overwhelming evidence people invented god beliefs. How hard is that concept for you to understand?

You made a the negative claim and said there was evidence to back up that claim. Is there some reason I shouldn't be skeptical of such a claim? The way you spoke about it made me think that you'd already laid out the argument somewhere and I was interested to read it. I wasn't expecting any particular evidence.

I do understand what you're saying. It's a process of inductive reasoning based on evidence from multiple sources and disciplines. I think to say that such evidence is "overwhelming" in that case is to be speaking subjectively (as in "I find it overwhelming"). There's nothing to suggest another person might find it so. In fact, some (certain deists for example) use the same kind of methods of taking evidence from different disciplines and reach the opposite conclusion. Your first sentence in this post could also be a reply to your "zero evidence" for God assertion.