Should atheism be considered a movement?

[articulett]

I don't feel stalked by Claus. I do think he has an invalid, fixed view of me that colors his interpretations of my posts. I also know I have repeated these same things to him before to no avail. But I'm a nurse. I am conditioned to counsel people even if it might not be effective.

And I debated posting that in a PM but decided that if other people see the communication deficit I observe articulated, maybe it will be useful. Claus is no stranger to public discourse about his personality. I am posting it without intent of malice.

'Just want you to know that like HS, I find you clear.

 

[articulett]

Although I am not one of 'those people', I nevertheless celebrate and/or commemorate significant events (e.g. births, deaths, marriage, birthdays, etc.) in a traditional (if not ritual) manner

Are you implying that I am religious?

If not, why assert that the "need to participate in those rituals is religious"?

Exactly... --What does this mean the "right" thing to do and makes them "better" people-- right according to who? Better according to who? Better in what way?

I participate because family is important and I celebrate to be with family... whatever the excuse is... birthday, Thanksgiving, Christmas, etc. Most celebrations are very secular for the most part... even if originating with religion. It's a "reason" to get together.

I think MM's little speech is an attempt to make atheists feel like they are missing something or don't understand something... when they understand quite well that nothing of substance is really being said while the idea of "faith=good" is being promoted. Believers need to believe that they have something atheists can't understand otherwise they might have to examine whether the what they have is on par with what those who believe they've astrally traveled have. A self-aggrandizing delusion.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There are people who believe that life has a purpose, that people have free will, and that good and evil are meaningful terms. Those are religious beliefs. They are incompatible with pure materialism.

Not so. Biologically my purpose was to reproduce. I have a fine son. Now I see my role as furthering the progress of the species. We need to move past this stage of mythical beliefs and learn how to make proper observations and conclusions (aka critical thinking skills). My son and his offspring, if he has any, will inherit the future. I'd like to shape it and I see a significant benefit in humankind moving past the god myth stage of development.

As for good and evil, it's clear that genetically there are people who are far to the evil side of the continuum and those that are far to the side of good. The bulk of us probably make up one of those bell curves on the continuum. This is simple a fact of life which needs to be taken into consideration in many aspects of how we structure society. Research shows we should be taking more time at the early ages in children's lives.

You may see religious instruction/indoctrination of your child as having a neutral effect or a positive one. Yet how do you feel about Palestinian TV targeted at children encouraging them to murder and die for the cause? I think there is no doubt Micky Mouse characters praising suicide bombers is a harmful thing. Where is the line, is it only when violence is included? How about Zionism? Does that prevent a solution to current conflict? No need to derail the thread. I am speaking of the concepts not the specifics, necessarily.

Among those people, there are people who believe that the systems of religious practice, by which I mean the rituals, myths, and day to day activities associated with religious observance are powerful ways of helping people achieve that purpose, and move toward the good and away from evil. In other words, these people celebrate Christmas or Solstice or Passover not just because they are part of some cultural tradition, but because they believe it is the right thing for them to do. They believe that these rituals and traditions help them become better people. The specific choice of rituals is a matter of culture, but the idea that there is a need to participate in those rituals is religious.

I suspect you'd have a hard time finding someone who fits this model. Tradition, sure, family gatherings, sure, but specifically the god part of the ritual as contributing to the benefits of the "goodness", that I don't buy. You can make Christmas and Thanksgiving holidays of charity and kindness to others. I can't see that in and of itself makes a religion vs a culture.

It's like saying being altruistic isn't a natural biological state. But the evidence is clear that altruism is biological. These are cultural traditions you are describing when good people turn a religious holiday into a celebration of peace and kindness sans the god part. In this country Christmas is a capitalism celebration. If someone chose to view the symbol as less consumerism and more good deeds, that doesn't change the fact they are just acting in the psychosocial way humans act. That's culture.

These people do not know, and largely are not interested in whether or not there is a God who hears their prayers. That's not important. They know that they hear their own prayers, and that's enough.

Such people can be found in every religious tradition.

"They hear their own prayers"? Anytime you perform rituals in the belief or for the purpose of changing some outcome, that is religion. It is also superstition. I see the two as analogous. You rub a rabbits foot, pay homage to a dead ancestor or pray to a magical being in the sky, those are analogous rituals.

 

[HghrSymmetry]

I don't feel stalked by Claus.

Noted.

I do think he has an invalid, fixed view of me that colors his interpretations of my posts. I also know I have repeated these same things to him before to no avail. But I'm a nurse. I am conditioned to counsel people even if it might not be effective.

Understood.

And I debated posting that in a PM but decided that if other people see the communication deficit I observe articulated, maybe it will be useful. Claus is no stranger to public discourse about his personality. I am posting it without intent of malice.

I didn't detect any malice, so let's hope the target didn't either.

[on the "bright" side, perhaps predators get so busy that they can't take on new clients, without spreading themselves too thin]

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I am glad to hear that feedback, HS. I worry about my own lack of social skills.

 

[six7s]

It's a "reason" to get together.

This reminds me of the expression 'the reason for the season', implying (erroneously) that in order to connect with our friends and family we need to acknowledge some mythical super-natural entity

Instead of needing a 'reason for the season', I have a hunch that we simply need frequent (or 'seasonal') reasons to get together

 

[articulett]

This reminds me of the expression 'the reason for the season', implying (erroneously) that in order to connect with our friends and family we need to acknowledge some mythical super-natural entity

Instead of needing a 'reason for the season', I have a hunch that we simply need frequent (or 'seasonal') reasons to get together

The Freedom from Religion Foundation prints winter solstice cards that say Reasons Greetings.

 

[six7s]

​

Noted

 

[Meadmaker]

Not so. Biologically my purpose was to reproduce. I have a fine son. Now I see my role as furthering the progress of the species.

And if you don't, who cares? There will be another species to take your place.

Some people think that there is a different purpose to life. Some people think they know what it is. Others don't, but feel confident there is one.

As for good and evil, it's clear that genetically there are people who are far to the evil side of the continuum and those that are far to the side of good.

Genetically, the terms "good" and "evil" have no meaning.

I suspect you'd have a hard time finding someone who fits this model.

I suspect I know many people who do.

I also suspect you've never heard of Reconstructionist Judaism. It's the closest organized group that comes close to the model I have described. You would find more people who fit that model within their ranks than in any other congregation of which I am aware. You could meet others like that within the UUs. Probably a fair number among Unity Church, United Church of Christ, and some other liberal churchse. Of course, you could meet people like that in almost any congregation, but they wouldn't be all that welcome within a lot of congregations.

"They hear their own prayers"? Anytime you perform rituals in the belief or for the purpose of changing some outcome, that is religion. It is also superstition.

What if the desired outcome is to make me a better person? Is that superstition?

 

[CFLarsen]

Here is my feedback to you, take it or leave it, this is the last reply I have on this matter. I ask that you first read the entire post before replying to it. Trying to reply paragraph by paragraph rather than to the entire post only deepens the failure to communicate here.

You have a frequent tendency to interpret what is said in a unique way. That would not be so bad per se. But when you post your unique interpretation of what was said, and the person who wrote the post says to you, you are misinterpreting what was said, this is where communication breaks down with you. Instead of taking into consideration that you have indeed not understood the connotation of the post, you insist that your interpretation could not possibly have been incorrect and you proceed to badger people, insisting you know what they said despite their trying to correct your misinterpretation.

Even if a person wrote an unclear thought or made some literal error that could be argued on a pedantic basis, most people recognize that this is a common problem when trying to communicate. And it is made even worse when communicating on a forum where extra cues such as body language and intonation are absent, replaced by smilies sometimes added to overcome the limitation of communicating only verbally.

Most people understand this communication difficulty and when it occurs most people try to understand what the person was saying by the correction or clarification. In addition, we've probably 'all' been guilty of using absolute terms like "all" and "every" on occasions when such a term was inappropriately applied. When called on these kind of pedantic errors, it is duly noted but hardly ever would become some bone of contention in the post as opposed to being recognized as just a casual poor choice of words.

You seem unwilling to consider that what the person was trying to communicate is more important that what you at first concluded they were saying.

And I can even tell you what you are going to say to this post that is trying to help you communicate better with people. You are going to put up a mental block to the possibility you do not interpret posts as the message is written. You will not allow yourself to consider the possibility you don't get what people mean when you apply your unique interpretation to what they say. You will brush this off as some personal attack when in reality it is a sincere attempt to share with you an observation about the constant arguments you get into with people when a discussion would be so much more productive.

And then if you are true to form, you will repeat your question that is based on your unique interpretation of what I posted and ignore my attempt to clarify what I intended to communicate. Despite how what I posted may or may not have communicated that thought, it should be clear by my follow up reply to your misinterpretation what I intended to communicate. I'll repeat that again just for the record.

A movement as you are using the word implies organization, maybe plans, maybe rules, some structure. The OP used the language "a movement". I used the language, "a movement" because it was used in the OP. But I also used the language, "would like". "Would" in my sentence is a future subjunctive verb. A future subjunctive verb is used to communicate feelings such as wishfulness or imagination, not things that are currently real or true. "Like" obviously denotes a preference, again, it is not a statement declaring that a critical thinking movement exists or what the specifics of such a movement 'would' be.

And in addition, your question implies all sorts of things not communicated at all in my post. That is where you slip into straw men. You are attributing things to my statement based on your unique interpretation of what I said. Repeating what I said does not change the meaning of what I intended to communicate. It merely reflects on your inability or unwillingness to consider you are not interpreting the statement in a typical way.

You are adding things to my statement which are not there. You are ignoring the future subjunctive verb and interpreting only my use of the OP language in my post. But that future subjunctive verb, "would like", changes the meaning of the sentence. It negates the literal meaning of the language of the OP and instead changes the meaning of the sentence to one of imagining something more nebulous in this case.

Did you not propose a movement for critical thinking?

Yes, you did.

Did you not state that one requirement for joining this movement was that people were atheists?

Yes, you did.

There is no misunderstanding on my part. I did not erect any strawmen. I went with what you said. So, stop placing blame on other people and answer the question:

What are the other requirements - if any?

While I do wonder what it is that makes Claus defend god beliefs

I do no such thing. I challenge you to point out where I do.

 

[articulett]

[qimg]http://ffrf.org/shop/solstice/images/reasons_tn.jpg[/qimg]​

Noted

Borders gave out a Christmas cards reading “O come all ye faithless”with the purchase of the "The God Delusion" this past Christmas causing an uproar from the folks who think freedom of speech should only be for the faithful.

tee-hee

 

[qayak]

I also suspect you've never heard of Reconstructionist Judaism. It's the closest organized group that comes close to the model I have described. You would find more people who fit that model within their ranks than in any other congregation of which I am aware. You could meet others like that within the UUs. Probably a fair number among Unity Church, United Church of Christ, and some other liberal churchse. Of course, you could meet people like that in almost any congregation, but they wouldn't be all that welcome within a lot of congregations.

So basically, these people knew that what they had been taught as children, which had been passed down from their ancestors for generations, did not line up with what we know about the universe today and so they changed the ideas to kind of fit the new evidence and still keep some contact with the old lies. They did no actual investigation to see if their new beliefs were correct as truth still isn't the objective. Neither did they open the ideas up for scrutiny before telling their followers that this new religion was "the" religion.

When the old lie believers wouldn't accept the new lies, they made up a new name for their new system of lies in an attempt to add some legitimacy.

Wouldn't it have made a lot more sense just to adopt what is known to be true and discard all the old rubbish?

The lies of this "new" religion are not better than the old, they are just different.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Skeptigirl,

Start the movement. I'll be there with bells on. Jingle, jingle.

 

[HghrSymmetry]

I am glad to hear that feedback, HS. I worry about my own lack of social skills.

I'd say they're quite adequate. As for others,...well, let's just say they vary.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This reminds me of the expression 'the reason for the season', implying (erroneously) that in order to connect with our friends and family we need to acknowledge some mythical super-natural entity

Instead of needing a 'reason for the season', I have a hunch that we simply need frequent (or 'seasonal') reasons to get together

The reason for the season is the tilt of the Earth's rotational axis in relation to its orbital path.

(Not an original idea, BTW)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And if you don't, who cares? There will be another species to take your place.

Some people think that there is a different purpose to life. Some people think they know what it is. Others don't, but feel confident there is one.

Yet there are those who believe god worship is an ideal and satisfying purpose for their lives.

I said my purpose included having a child. I didn't say it was required for everyone to have the same purpose. The group may pass on its genes as well as the individual. This has led to an unresolved debate about how self sacrifice could be naturally selected because technically the person who dies for the group does not pass on their genes. But there is group selection as well, a concept sometimes overlooked, not necessarily agreed on by all and not a topic for this thread.

Genetically, the terms "good" and "evil" have no meaning.

A semantics argument. Genetically, murder and violence among members of the group are not conducive to survival of a gregarious species. Such behavior patterns are not desirable and while good and evil have no absolute meaning in science, once you identify the objective measures for good and evil (for example, pleasant life within the group) then you can indeed use objective measures for determining good and evil.

I suspect I know many people who do.

I also suspect you've never heard of Reconstructionist Judaism. It's the closest organized group that comes close to the model I have described. You would find more people who fit that model within their ranks than in any other congregation of which I am aware. Y...

Jewish cultural identity is no doubt a very strong force in Jewish society and figuring out god beliefs were incompatable with the evidence would create a dilemma in a person who felt strong cultural ties which included strong religious beliefs. This is just as description of a strong cultural heritage being maintained while religious beliefs are discarded.

I think why you see this as religion and not culture is because there is such an intermingling of religion and cultural heritage within the ethnic Jewish populations. But again, you are only making a semantic argument and trying for some reason to claim that certain values come from religion and not culture. Values come from our cultural evolution within groups. Take the god beliefs out and you have lost nothing. Add god beliefs to cultural traditions and you gain nothing either.

There is nothing 'special' here that you are attributing to religion without the god belief part. Without the god beliefs, you have culture. If you want to label culture religion, it doesn't meet my definition, but I don't think we need belabor that point further. There is sufficient overlap as to make it a moot argument. There is nothing special you are describing that the rest of us don't get or are missing because we call it culture.

What if the desired outcome is to make me a better person? Is that superstition?

Are you claiming that fantasy prayer to a being that doesn't exist (ancestor, god, gaia, Buddha, etc) makes one a better person? You'll have to describe a mechanism for that to occur, I'm having a hard time picturing it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Did you not propose a movement for critical thinking?

Yes, you did.

Did you not state that one requirement for joining this movement was that people were atheists?

Yes, you did.

There is no misunderstanding on my part. I did not erect any strawmen. I went with what you said. So, stop placing blame on other people and answer the question:

What are the other requirements - if any?

Earth to Claus, you incorrectly interpreted the words I wrote. Who would know better what I intended to communicate than I? Why would you want to argue about this?

I do no such thing. I challenge you to point out where I do.

I can only go by what you post but if you say you are not defending god beliefs I will take your word for it.

You do, however, challenge the conviction I and others here have that the principle in science of not being able to prove the negative is not all that relevant to god beliefs. Could you address why one must always discuss god myths with the caveat, "but you can't prove gods don't exist"? I don't discuss other scientific consensuses with constant reminders of the same caveat.

I don't say, 'evolution theory isn't certain', because I don't seek to prove a theory in science. I don't say gravity exists but I can't prove the theory because I cannot test gravity in every location within the Universe.

 

[CFLarsen]

Earth to Claus, you incorrectly interpreted the words I wrote. Who would know better what I intended to communicate than I? Why would you want to argue about this?

You said:

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.

What did I incorrectly interpret? Please point it out.

When I asked you:

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

you said:

A critical thinking theist is an oxymoron.

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

You went on:

I guess it's hard for you to put the pieces together Claus but I can't see what the problem is.

If you use critical thinking skills you will conclude all god beliefs are equally mythical.

If anyone is responsible for you being "misunderstood", you can only blame yourself.

I can only go by what you post but if you say you are not defending god beliefs I will take your word for it.

Then, go with what I post: Provide examples of where you think I defend god beliefs.

You do, however, challenge the conviction I and others here have that the principle in science of not being able to prove the negative is not all that relevant to god beliefs.

No, I don't. Provide examples of where you think I do.

Could you address why one must always discuss god myths with the caveat, "but you can't prove gods don't exist"?

I don't.

I don't discuss other scientific consensuses with constant reminders of the same caveat.

Neither do I.

I don't say, 'evolution theory isn't certain', because I don't seek to prove a theory in science.

Neither do I.

I don't say gravity exists

I do. All the evidence points to it existing.

Think about what you are saying here (and, no, I didn't misunderstand you).

You are saying that one of the four fundamental forces does not exist. Do you realize what that means? The whole field of physics collapses.

You want to rethink that one? Or did I "misunderstand" you, yet again?

but I can't prove the theory because I cannot test gravity in every location within the Universe.

Oh dear.

What gave you the idea that we can't prove the theory of gravity because we cannot test gravity in every location within the universe?

 

[Meadmaker]

I said my purpose included having a child. I didn't say it was required for everyone to have the same purpose. The group may pass on its genes as well as the individual.

This suggests that the purpose of life is to pass on genes, to perpetuate itself. That's an idea put forward and accepted by a lot of people these days. I'm not going to say that it's wrong, but I will say that it is basically asserting that the purpose of life is to obey the laws of physics. If that's correct, then we are all doing a fine job of it, but no one is doing any better job than anyone else.

Some people think there is a different purpose, whether or not they know what it is.

More to come...must go to work.

 

[Meadmaker]

I think why you see this as religion and not culture is because there is such an intermingling of religion and cultural heritage within the ethnic Jewish populations. But again, you are only making a semantic argument and trying for some reason to claim that certain values come from religion and not culture.

I'm confident that's not it.

Values come from our cultural evolution within groups.

What you are talking about is moral relativism, that morality is defined with respect to the values of a culture. A lot of people reject that notion, saying that there are certain things that are inherently evil, whether or not a given society recognizes them as evil. This idea, of absolute good or evil is not a scientific notion. I'm calling it a religious idea, because it must be accepted on faith, or simply because it "feels right".

To the people I'm talking about, who feel that there is good and evil, whether or not there is any God, the specific patterns of religious practice, whether it's counting beads or sacrificing goats are not absolute moral imperatives, but these traditional frameworks that have developed in specific cultures are a way of focusing an individual's private quest to lead a good life, and sharing that quest with a community.


To put it a different way, there are people who genuinely believe that God commands them to avoid eating pork. There are others who aren't sure whether or not there is a God, but they are certain that there is a good way to live and an evil way to live. Among the latter types, there are people who avoid eating pork, not because they think that God commanded it, and not because they think it is inherently wrong to eat pork, but because it is a system of practice that helps them maintain awareness of the desire to do good. It's about their own awareness, and not anything inherent about eating pork. I know agnostics who keep kosher because it helps remind them that in everything they do, they must maintain an awareness of how they live. The specific practice of keeping kosher comes from a cultural background. For the people I'm describing, there's nothing religious about it. However, they keep the practices of that culture because they think it is important to have a ritual practice, and the one that came from their ancestors is a good as any. The specific practice, then, does not come from a religious belief, but the idea that one ought to have a practice does come from a religious belief.

Are you claiming that fantasy prayer to a being that doesn't exist (ancestor, god, gaia, Buddha, etc) makes one a better person? You'll have to describe a mechanism for that to occur, I'm having a hard time picturing it.

I'm claiming it can. It can focus awareness on a problem. Suppose I am overweight, and I ask Jesus for help in getting thinner. I am so interested in that, that every day I pray a rosary asking Jesus to give me the strength to stay thin. After finishing my rosary, I see a box of Twinkies.

I'm willing to bet that the person who prayed the rosary is less likely to grab the Twinkie, and it doesn't matter if there is a God, and it doesn't even matter whether or not the person believes in God. They just spent an hour using ritual to focus on their desire to stay thin. That will help them say no to the Twinkie, God or no God, faith or no faith.

The same can be true of any activity that you think you ought to avoid. Rituals, such as prayer to non-existent fantasy beings, can help remind you of the way you want to be, and thus help you become that way.


It's interesting you mentioned Buddha in there. He's dead. Every Buddhist knows that. There's no point in any prayer to him or any of the other entities you might be inclined to ask for favors, because they won't hear, but you will. The point of all Buddhist ritual is to focus self awareness. I hesitated to use Buddhism as an example of religious agnostics, because they are very specific about being agnostic. They're all agnostic, at least if they follow Buddha's recorded teachings. I preferred to point out that even in God-believing traditions, you will find a fair number of people who don't think that belief in God is the important part.