Should atheism be considered a movement?

Prometheus said:
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.
Click to expand...

My point was that since most suicide bombings are politically based (even 9/11 if you look at bin Ladens stated reasons for the attacks), not necessarily religious so your objection wasn't necessarily germane to the "aphilatilist" example.

GreyICE said:
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?
Click to expand...

Ummm, print them in Arabic??? And what makes you assume that most populations are illiterate?

Your second point is really about responding to radical and political Islam and is off topic so I don't want to tangent the thread.
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
My point was that since most suicide bombings are politically based (even 9/11 if you look at bin Ladens stated reasons for the attacks), not necessarily religious so your objection wasn't necessarily germane to the "aphilatilist" example.
Click to expand...

Why bin Laden plans attacks and why individuals carry them out for him are not necessarily the same reason. That said, if you don't like my example, just replace suicide bombing with any other whacko religious practice. The point is that stamp collectors generally do not use their hobby as an excuse for any sort of sociopathic behavior, but theists do. That's why some atheists (not me) are proud of their lack of god beliefs.


ETA: The truth is, I was just trying for a pith nomination, and I thought that version sounded snappier than, "That's because stamp collectors don't often go door to door passing out pamphlets because they don't want anyone to switch to postage meters."
 
Last edited:
GreyICE said:
From Wiki:

Jump to: navigation, searchSounds really woo to me.
Click to expand...

Then you aren't paying attention. Although, to be fair, the Mahayana version cited in the article is woo. I never muched like the Mahayanans, and the Tibetans are very woo.
 
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...

I understand that, but that wasn't the point. The point is that some people say atheism can't be a movement, because it isn't really a set of beliefs anyway.

The atheist movement, to the extent that it exists, is indeed a reaction to the perceived ills of religion. Sure. But it is a movement.
 
Meadmaker said:
Then you aren't paying attention. Although, to be fair, the Mahayana version cited in the article is woo. I never muched like the Mahayanans, and the Tibetans are very woo.
Click to expand...
Oh, okay. The concept that is called Attana is woo, but there really is some other non-woo attana that you just cannot describe. Yup, sure. All those other ghost stories are bunk, but yours really is real. I believe.

A nice start would be describing it accurately. Usually you can tell if something is woo from an accurate description. Because right now it's deep in woo, and nothing you say is pulling it any farther out.
 
Meadmaker said:
I understand that, but that wasn't the point. The point is that some people say atheism can't be a movement, because it isn't really a set of beliefs anyway.

The atheist movement, to the extent that it exists, is indeed a reaction to the perceived ills of religion. Sure. But it is a movement.
Click to expand...

The movement in question is not an atheist movement, per se, but a humanist one. Atheism can not be a movement, because it isn't really a set of beliefs. There are, however certain beliefs which are often held by atheists, and which many people seem to be thinking of when they speak of atheism as if it were an idealogy. Some atheists hold the humanist belief that religion is detrimental to humanity, and should be abolished. Some atheists do not, and are happy to live and let live. The same is true of agnostics. Perhaps we should use the word "anti-theist" to describe those who would deliberately join such a movement. I'm an atheist, and I would not.
 
Prometheus said:
The movement in question is not an atheist movement, per se, but a humanist one. Atheism can not be a movement, because it isn't really a set of beliefs. There are, however certain beliefs which are often held by atheists, and which many people seem to be thinking of when they speak of atheism as if it were an idealogy. Some atheists hold the humanist belief that religion is detrimental to humanity, and should be abolished. Some atheists do not, and are happy to live and let live. The same is true of agnostics. Perhaps we should use the word "anti-theist" to describe those who would deliberately join such a movement. I'm an atheist, and I would not.
Click to expand...

That makes sense, although from experience I know that many anti-theists on JREF get really upset when you call them anti-theists.
 
GreyICE said:
Oh, okay. The concept that is called Attana is woo, but there really is some other non-woo attana that you just cannot describe. Yup, sure. All those other ghost stories are bunk, but yours really is real. I believe.

A nice start would be describing it accurately. Usually you can tell if something is woo from an accurate description. Because right now it's deep in woo, and nothing you say is pulling it any farther out.
Click to expand...

[Digression]
Well, I could describe it, but this isn't the place for it. It isn't woo. Spend some time at a Buddhist meditation center, especially Theravadan, or maybe Zen, and you'll find that it isn't woo, although many people you encounter will be woo. The first person I met was a nun-in-training who warned me that my chi would leak out through my thumbs if I held them wrong. That's pretty woo. However, if you actually listened to the message, there was no woo, an the concept of anatta in particular is positively anti-woo.

If you are truly interested in the topic, start a thread that says "Anatta is woo", and the real Buddhists on the board will be able to correct you. I was dabbling in the religion when I met my Jewish wife, and now I hang out with the People of the Old Book. I was very surprised to see how much similarity there was between Buddhism and Judaism because, on the surface, they appear totally opposite.[/digression]
 
Prometheus said:
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.
Click to expand...

Will you post a link to Dawkins being "abusive" while on a roll. I hear about such things, but I never see the evidence. Is he just seen as "abusive" because the woo he is talking about is "god" and not a woo we've learned to protect -- like astrology?
 
GreyICE said:
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.
Click to expand...


Which are you reffering to?

The self is a fiction, there is the common self, composed of the body, the thoughts, the emotions, the perceptions and the habits.

There is no self beyond that. Annatta is the concept that there is no trancendental self. There is no atman behind anything, there is no reincarnation of rebirth of self.


The mythical critter is the 'thinker behind the thoughts', 'the seer behind the seeing', and the self as anything other than a particular body at a particular time.
 
GreyICE said:
From Wiki:

Jump to: navigation, searchSounds really woo to me.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you don't ever stop to understand what you read, your choice, the alleged historical buddha was clear on that, if you don't like it, don't try it.

But where does a self reside, what is a self, how does it last more than a transitory moment in a transitory structure/

There is a body, there are thoughts, there are emotions, there are perceptions, there are habits.

What is a self made of, where does it live, what does it look like?
 
articulett said:
Will you post a link to Dawkins being "abusive" while on a roll. I hear about such things, but I never see the evidence. Is he just seen as "abusive" because the woo he is talking about is "god" and not a woo we've learned to protect -- like astrology?
Click to expand...

Actually, I was just being facetious. I don't know why he's often labeled as abusive. The closest I've seen to that was in a lecture he gave on his recent U.S. college tour (I don't remember which school--I came across it while flipping channels on TV). Someone in the audience asked about a dinosaur fossil supposedly on display at the school with a sign claiming it had been carbon dated to only 5000 years ago. Dawkins responded that the audience had best transfer to another school because their degrees would be worthless, or something to that effect. :D
 
Yes... I think his "militancy" is mostly in the heads of the apologists.

Non-stamp collectors and non believers in astrology and non-scientologists don't have people hating them and hearing things that aren't there because of their "non belief".

Theists have been propagating atheist bigotry and fear for eons in order to "keep the faith".

If there's anything that will be uniting theists it's this bigotry. I want to be as free to speak my mind as the faithful and their apologist buddies.

And so I shall. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom