Should atheism be considered a movement?

[plumjam]

As we're anecdoting, I went to Anglican comprehensive schools. While there I pretty much resented the religious components (assembly, prayers, singing hymns and suchlike). Looking back I think it's a bit of a mistake to have religion in schools in any compulsory way. Kids up to say 16 or 17 are not capable IMO of really tackling religion to any significant extent. So what happens is that many people leave school with a simplified, bastardised, juvenile view of what religion actually is.
I often find this a feature of this forum.

If you have a real curiosity about philosophy/religion you'll follow it up in later life when your mind is more developed, and come to a much more nuanced, interesting, reasonable and (pun intended) enlightening view of it all.

 

[Hokulele]

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.

Regarding the bolded bit, I do not know and I don't think you know either. There would only be one way to find out, and it may not work out as either of us would hope.

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.

The school I attended taught religion as a fact. Maybe not in the sense you are thinking, but a fact regardless. I absolutely agree that any educational institution should allow a pupil to reach their own conclusions, and they should teach a pupil how to reach their own conclusions. The best way to do this with regards to religious thinking is to include it in the curriculum. This is in agreement with your first sentence in the post I quote here, but is in direct conflict with the last statement in your post I quoted originally.

Religion is for church and the home, not for school unless you are deliberately intending to skew the thinking of the pupils.

You may want to rephrase that last statement.

I think that schools should teach religion as fact, but not as truth. Yes?

 

[Menalitus]

As we're anecdoting, I went to Anglican comprehensive schools. While there I pretty much resented the religious components (assembly, prayers, singing hymns and suchlike). Looking back I think it's a bit of a mistake to have religion in schools in any compulsory way. Kids up to say 16 or 17 are not capable IMO of really tackling religion to any significant extent. So what happens is that many people leave school with a simplified, bastardised, juvenile view of what religion actually is.
I often find this a feature of this forum.

If you have a real curiosity about philosophy/religion you'll follow it up in later life when your mind is more developed, and come to a much more nuanced, interesting, reasonable and (pun intended) enlightening view of it all.

My experience of UK comprehensive education was much the same as yours, I felt the same resentment.

Of course though from my side of the fence I would not anticipate a basically non religious person finding "enlightenment" if they were to critically appraise religion when they get a bit older.

 

[Menalitus]

I think that schools should teach religion as fact, but not as truth. Yes?

Yes.

 

[The Atheist]

Another deja vu thread!

Anyone who tries to stick me in an atheist movement can have a stick and a suggestion of where to put it. I went to my local atheist club on campus when I was in college just to mock them all for being tools (seriously, how do you hang out for 2 hours a week talking about nonreligion? It was mostly a therapy group for people who thought religion had hurt them because their definition of pain laughable). I find most humans' company only moderately tolerable, and actually prefer agnostics and (oddly enough) Jewish and Hindu people if I have to choose who to hang out with. Atheists are often trying to get me to do something, which is annoying.

Are you me?

Well I like big knockers. How close is that? They're definitely the best argument I've seen for the existence of a benevolent deity.

Phew! Definitely not me - I am a confirmed, "more than a mouthful's a waste".

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.

Where were you when their existence was being denied?

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

Where were you when their existence was being denied?

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

Where were you when their existence was being denied?

A critical thinking theist is an oxymoron.

Sadly, it isn't. As plumjam has noted, it doesn't necessarily follow that theists are not critical thinkers. Until every loophole has been covered, they have the "don't know" defence, which trumps the "I'm just atheist about one more god than you" attack.

Not suggesting plumjam falls into that category

... but they do exist.

Oxford compact online dictionary... (My bold)

atheism
/aythi-iz’m/

• noun the belief that God does not exist.

You can bold it all you like, but the dictionary is wrong.

That is strong atheism, certainly, but it no more describes atheism than christianity could be described as a belief in the rapture. This interpretation is using the hyperbole as the generality - round peg/square hole, no game.

Old, old, old hat.

 

[plumjam]

My experience of UK comprehensive education was much the same as yours, I felt the same resentment.

Of course though from my side of the fence I would not anticipate a basically non religious person finding "enlightenment" if they were to critically appraise religion when they get a bit older.

We are all born as non-religious people, really. Some go on to be to one extent or another religiously enlightened. History shows that this very rarely if ever happens before the end of teenagerdom.

 

[Egg]

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’.

Dictionaries attempt to give definitions of words as they are commonly used. I wouldn't necessarily say this dictionary is "wrong", because that is indeed a used definition of "atheist", but perhaps it is out of date or for whatever reason has failed to include the "lack of belief" definition which, clearly, is also used (whatever our opinions of what the "right" definition might be).

Interestingly, the second part of the "sceptic" definition contradicts the "atheist" definition. I don't think it would be common use to say that doubting the truth of various religions was necessarily "atheism". There would seem to me to be a substantial gulf between doubt and disbelief.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sadly, [critical thinking theist is an oxymoron] isn't . As plumjam has noted, it doesn't necessarily follow that theists are not critical thinkers. Until every loophole has been covered, they have the "don't know" defence, which trumps the "I'm just atheist about one more god than you" attack.....

First, critically thinking people can have a blind spot for their god beliefs (of course they recognize other god beliefs are myths) and still be critical thinkers. That doesn't change the fact that a person evaluating the evidence will see there are no magical beings in the sky and there are no nebulous beings in some bizarre existence somewhere outside of the Universe with some kind of magical powers over the beings inside the Universe. Theists cannot see how mythical their personal god beliefs are. That doesn't make their god beliefs any less mythical.

 

[Egg]

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.

Very entertaining!

I'm not sure all of the accusations are justified, but I'd agree with his central argument about Dawkins dressing up an ideology as science. As we've been saying, atheism in itself generally doesn't constitute a "movement", for that you tend to need an ideology.

 

[Menalitus]

Dictionaries attempt to give definitions of words as they are commonly used. I wouldn't necessarily say this dictionary is "wrong", because that is indeed a used definition of "atheist", but perhaps it is out of date or for whatever reason has failed to include the "lack of belief" definition which, clearly, is also used (whatever our opinions of what the "right" definition might be).

Interestingly, the second part of the "sceptic" definition contradicts the "atheist" definition. I don't think it would be common use to say that doubting the truth of various religions was necessarily "atheism". There would seem to me to be a substantial gulf between doubt and disbelief.

I must admit that I was surprised by the second part of the sceptic definition, not what I expected at all. I guess that underlines your point about common usage.

I don't think that there is a right answer to this, I think that the dictionary is correct and that atheism is a belief that "god" does not exist. You think that it means the absence of belief.

I guess it doesn't really matter that much and I am sure there a much more productive things to ague about

 

[Egg]

First, critically thinking people can have a blind spot for their god beliefs (of course they recognize other god beliefs are myths) and still be critical thinkers. That doesn't change the fact that a person evaluating the evidence will see there are no magical beings in the sky and there are no nebulous beings in some bizarre existence somewhere outside of the Universe with some kind of magical powers over the beings inside the Universe. Theists cannot see how mythical their personal god beliefs are. That doesn't make their god beliefs any less mythical.

There's evidence that "there are no nebulous beings in some bizarre existence somewhere outside of the Universe"?

 

[Darat]

I must admit that I was surprised by the second part of the sceptic definition, not what I expected at all. I guess that underlines your point about common usage.

I don't think that there is a right answer to this, I think that the dictionary is correct and that atheism is a belief that "god" does not exist. You think that it means the absence of belief.

I guess it doesn't really matter that much and I am sure there a much more productive things to ague about

dglas made an excellent post regarding this issue in another thread, it's long so I'll not repost it but do suggest anyone interested in the issue have a read of it: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3534203#post3534203

 

[Menalitus]

You can bold it all you like, but the dictionary is wrong.

That is strong atheism, certainly, but it no more describes atheism than christianity could be described as a belief in the rapture. This interpretation is using the hyperbole as the generality - round peg/square hole, no game.

Old, old, old hat.

And I suppose that when the various dictionaries backup YOUR position you won't quote them in your defense...

 

[Darat]

There's evidence that "there are no nebulous beings in some bizarre existence somewhere outside of the Universe"?

Your question is meaningless unless you wish to redefine the word "universe".

 

[Egg]

I don't think that there is a right answer to this, I think that the dictionary is correct and that atheism is a belief that "god" does not exist. You think that it means the absence of belief.

I guess it doesn't really matter that much and I am sure there a much more productive things to ague about

Well, it matters in regard to establishing what definition one is using in a particular argument. Many disagreements can be pinned down to two people having different understandings of what a certain word or phrase might mean.

I think this particular one can lead to a lot of misunderstandings and confusion. "I don't believe", "I disbelieve", "I believe that it is not" can often be inter-changeable in common language. Different people can have different concepts in mind when they describe themselves as an atheist.

 

[Egg]

Your question is meaningless unless you wish to redefine the word "universe".

I was thinking in terms of "the universe" carrying the same meaning as "the cosmos"; all of space and time, the big bang and all that. I agree that using the "everything that exists" definition makes "outside" a meaningless preposition in relation to "universe".

 

[Menalitus]

I think this particular one can lead to a lot of misunderstandings and confusion. "I don't believe", "I disbelieve", "I believe that it is not" can often be inter-changeable in common language. Different people can have different concepts in mind when they describe themselves as an atheist.

Agreed.

In that case I am right and I am backed up by every reputable online dictionary!

 

[Meadmaker]

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

My son attends a religious school, and a much more conservative one than the Church of England. (His school is based on Conservative Judaism.)

So much of what you said (including the bit about maintaining the fundraising base) of your school could be said of his, despite the fact that they don't take just one year of religious studies, but are immersed in it. (Starting next year, they won't speak English for four hours a day. Pure Hebrew.)

I know graduates of that school, and I would trade their critical thinking skills with public school kids any day of the week. (Hmmm...unless it was forbidden on Saturday ) Also, they take the same standardized tests as the public school kids, and they do extremely well.



There are people who are absolutely certain that there must be something wrong with that school, because they spend so much time rambling on about God. Some of those people are making noises about how the government ought not to allow that school to exist. Of course, those people have no power today, but they exist, and they are a good deal more vocal than they once were. Indeed, you could call those people part of a "movement".

In my humble opinion, this is evidence that an atheist majority would be no more respectful of minority rights than the Christian majority they will replace. It appears to be human nature.

 

[Menalitus]

My son attends a religious school, and a much more conservative one than the Church of England. (His school is based on Conservative Judaism.)

So much of what you said (including the bit about maintaining the fundraising base) of your school could be said of his, despite the fact that they don't take just one year of religious studies, but are immersed in it. (Starting next year, they won't speak English for four hours a day. Pure Hebrew.)

I know graduates of that school, and I would trade their critical thinking skills with public school kids any day of the week. (Hmmm...unless it was forbidden on Saturday ) Also, they take the same standardized tests as the public school kids, and they do extremely well.



There are people who are absolutely certain that there must be something wrong with that school, because they spend so much time rambling on about God. Some of those people are making noises about how the government ought not to allow that school to exist. Of course, those people have no power today, but they exist, and they are a good deal more vocal than they once were. Indeed, you could call those people part of a "movement".

In my humble opinion, this is evidence that an atheist majority would be no more respectful of minority rights than the Christian majority they will replace. It appears to be human nature.

I would suggest that it is not the religion that makes this a good school but might be the level of discipline and the general intensity of the place, I would assume (please correct me if wrong) that the school maintains a better standard of discipline that the other schools locally and therefore produces better results.

I cannot conclude that somehow religious teaching produces cleverer kids, maybe god helps them to learn .

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Where were you when their existence was being denied?

And the antecedent of their is...?