Should atheism be considered a movement?

skeptigirl said:
Claus, you are still arguing a point I already said all I am going to say on. Sorry. There is nothing to argue. You have some bizarre notion your interpretation of something I posted is correct no matter how many times I explain to you that you did not interpret it correctly. Since I am the authority on what my thoughts are, you have no case.

As far as what posts of yours led me to particular conclusions about your intended meaning, I'll see if I have time, but no promises. It would only be so you could clarify what led to some misunderstanding of your intended meaning and I'm not sure I care to take the time. You don't seem too interested in a reciprocal effort.
Click to expand...

Incredible.

You are so quick to claim that I misunderstand you, over and over again. And when I quote you to show that I haven't, you change it to something else and then claim that I originally misunderstood you.

Be that as it may. But when you repeatedly misunderstand me, you are not able to show what made you think what my stance (falsely) is. You can't even find time to explain why, because you claim I am not really interested.

Well, I am. I am also the authority on what my thoughts are.

So find those quotes.

Can you name one person who is a skeptic, but refer to his/her theist beliefs as being specifically excluded from his/her scientific view of everything else?

You must know the names of at least some.
 
Last edited:
ParanoidAndroid said:
If atheism is a movement, count me out...next stop: groupthink followed by some form of mob mentality.

I think atheism should be considered The Great Awakening. I hate to go all pop-culture amidst all this furrowed brow stuff, but:

Morpheus: "You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe...You take the red pill and you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes...Remember -- all I am offering is the truth, nothing more."

...Red pill, table for one.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I like to think of Atheism, Agnosticism, etc. as words that happen to describe a viewpoint, not that identifies them as a member of something. The latter is quite dangerous.
 
atheism is a nothing... it's a lack of belief in gods... it's about as much of a "something" as a lack of belief in astrology or other woo. The movement, if anything is critical and rational thinking. Yes, that often leads to atheism, and atheists are often marginalized and so band together-- but it's more about asking for the same rights that theists have long felt entitled too.
 
articulett said:
atheism is a nothing... it's a lack of belief in gods... it's about as much of a "something" as a lack of belief in astrology or other woo. The movement, if anything is critical and rational thinking. Yes, that often leads to atheism, and atheists are often marginalized and so band together-- but it's more about asking for the same rights that theists have long felt entitled too.
Click to expand...

Perhaps in a vacuum, atheism is nothing. In the real world, there is a lot of gray. I'm simply trying to express my fear that when people band together, regardless of motive, shifts take place and otherwise benign beliefs (or lack thereof) become warped. I see this as a very real potential outcome for atheism, and therefore, guard against groupthink.

For clarity: I define groupthink as the phenomenon of thoughts, opinions, and beliefs becoming more alike between members of a group by virtue of exposure to one another; often resulting in an eventual perversion of the exact thought, opinion, or belief that brought the group together in the first place. Synonym: mob mentality. Example: Communism
 
HghrSymmetry said:
It's subtle, yet becomes obvious once illustrated.

Quote:
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
Click to expand...


I would argue that you can only have "no belief" before you are aware of the (alleged) existence of that which you have no belief in, as soon as you are aware that someone believes in that thing you as a skeptic/atheist/whatever then become someone who believes it doesn't exist.

The moment you become aware of it you are by definition placed in the B circle, am I talking ◊◊◊◊ or does that make sense?
 
Last edited:
Menalitus said:
The moment you become aware of it you are by definition placed in the B circle, am I talking ◊◊◊◊ or does that make sense?
Click to expand...


Well, I can understand your viewpoint. However, when the subject doesn't have a rigours definition and is riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions...then I personally put it in the "lack of" category on the outside of the circle. I can be aware of the term, but awareness alone doesn't help define or solve the inconsistency and contradiction problems.

In other words, if someones asks do you believe in *1`M-h+(>,z~f|^w?

I neither beleive nor disbelieve. It's simply a meaningless question.
If the subject has a clear/agreed upon definition and is free from inconsistencies & contradictions, then I could make a decision of belief or disbelief.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
Actually, more like the Buddhist anatta (I hope I spelled that right.), translated as "no soul" or "no self".
Click to expand...

As I said, Santa Claus. Santa Claus doesn't become any more serious if you decide to label him Santus Clauseus Mythicus. The entire concept is completely woo.
 
Last edited:
There's only one thing wrong with the discussion about whether atheism is a belief, or a nonbelief, or a lack of belief, or whatever you want to call it, and its relationship to whether or not there is an atheist movement.

I don't ever recall seeing conventions of People who Don't Collect Stamps.

I don't ever here anyone say that he is proud to call himself an aphilatelist.

There are no best selling books about not collecting stamps. I can't see "The Postage Delusion" appearing on the NYT bestseller list anytime soon.


I'm not saying that it is a worthless exercise to determine whether atheism is a belief or a lack of belief, but that question isn't related to whether or not there is a movement.
 
Meadmaker said:
There's nothing woo about anatta.
Click to expand...

From Wiki:

Jump to: navigation, search
In Buddhist philosophy, anatta (Pāli) or anātman (Sanskrit) refers to "non-self" or "absence of separate self".[1] One scholar describes it as "meaning non-selfhood, the absence of limiting self-identity in people and things."[2] Its opposite is Atta (Pāli) or ātman (Sanskrit), the idea of a subjective Soul or Self which survives rebirth and which the Buddha explicitly rejects.

What is normally thought of as the "self" is in fact an agglomeration of constantly changing physical and mental constituents ("skandhas"). This concept has, from early times, been controversial amongst Buddhists and non-Buddhists alike and remains so to this day[3]. In the Pali suttas and the related āgamas (referred to collectively below the nikayas) the Buddha repeatedly emphasizes not only that the five skandhas of living being are "not-self", but that clinging to them as if they were an immutable self or soul (ātman) gives rise to unhappiness.

Another understanding of anatta (as enunciated by the Buddha in the Mahayana "Tathagatagarbha" scriptures) insists that the five "skandhas" (impermanent constituent elements of the mundane body and mind of each being) are indeed "not the Self", since they inevitably mutate, but that, in contrast, the eternal buddha nature deep within each being is the supramundane True Self—although this realisation is only fully gained on reaching awakening ("bodhi").

Anatta, along with dukkha (suffering/unease) and anicca (impermanence), is one of the three dharma seals, which, according to Buddhism, characterise all phenomena.
Click to expand...
Sounds really woo to me.
 
Meadmaker said:
....I don't ever here anyone say that he is proud to call himself an aphilatelist....There are no best selling books about not collecting stamps. I can't see "The Postage Delusion" appearing on the NYT bestseller list anytime soon....
Click to expand...

That's because stamp collectors don't often blow themselves up in the public square because they don't want anyone to switch to postage meters.
 
Prometheus said:
That's because stamp collectors don't often blow themselves up in the public square because they don't want anyone to switch to postage meters.
Click to expand...

Then why, if religion is the ultimate motivation behind them, do we deploy the military in response to suicide attacks instead of mass drops of leaflets with quotes from Ingersoll, Hitchens and Dawkins?
 
Last edited:
UnrepentantSinner said:
Then why, if religion is the ultimate motivation behind them, do we deploy the military in response to suicide attacks instead of mass drops of leaflets with quotes from Ingersoll, Hitchens and Dawkins?
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong; I don't see anything wrong with doing that too. However, as abusive as those guys (especiall Dawkins) can be when they get on a roll, they just don't ruin your day like the a rocket up the behind.
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
Then why, if religion is the ultimate motivation behind them, do we deploy the military in response to suicide attacks instead of mass drops of leaflets with quotes from Ingersoll, Hitchens and Dawkins?
Click to expand...
Two things:
A) What makes you think they could read them? What makes you think they would read them even if they were educated enough to?

B) You may or may not have noticed, but our overall strategy is deeply stupid. We're putting out fires instead of finding the source of the blaze. There have been some good programs to eliminate the cultural woo (loan programs to women to give them financial independence and undermine a lynchpin of the oppressive culture, for instance) but Islam has largely fought anything like that being established in its turf.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom