EAC: We're doing a good job!

[Rhea]

Do you seriously believe I need to read another book about atheism in order to really understand the topic?

You need SOMETHING to understand the topic. You keep writing things about atheists that aren’t true, and then when the atheists tell you that it isn’t true, you just repeat it again like bearing false witness isn’t a sin. It’s astonishing to behold.

 

[Lion IRC]

For all you lurkers out there...
Atheism, as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and other philosophy reference works, is the denial of the existence of God.

 

[Lion IRC]

According to a study performed in the United States by researchers Wink and Scott, very religious people fear death the least. Atheists, on the other hand, don't fear that there isn't an afterlife.

They fear that there IS.

Hence they cling to their invented belief that God does not really exist.
...so that they can live like there's no tomorrow.


Disclaimer - No inference is suggested that this is Richard Dawkins' wife

 

[Lion IRC]

The atheist Francois Tremblay wrote in his essay Herding Cats: Why atheism will lose:

"One last problem that undermines any propagation of atheism is inspiration. Let's be honest here, "there is no god!" is not a very motivating call for most people".

Anyone here remember his Graveyard of the Gods forum?
I do. I learned a lot about atheism from that place.

 

[Lion IRC]

I only started visiting PZ Myers blog(s) in 2009.
He gets it. He understands how the man-made religion that is atheism spawns the exact same denominational infighting as theism. Why? Not because skeptics are open-minded about transcendent truths. But because they are just as dogmatic about the presuppositional (default truth) positions of doctrinal atheism as any religious fundy.

"...see, this is why the atheist movement can’t have leaders. The ones we’ve got, informally, all seem to think they’re like gods and popes, infallible and unquestionable, and that normal, healthy, productive criticism within the movement is all a conspiracy to dethrone them."

 

[southernhybrid]

Are you talking to yourself Lion?

I think those of us who have been atheists for all or most of our adult lives are quite familiar with atheism, with the different atheist philosophies, etc. Unlike many Christians, most of us aren't trying to convert others to believe like we are.

When you visit a place like this, you might see some of the more aggressive atheists who honestly believe that all religion is harmful and that all religion will eventually fade away.

I don't feel that way at all. I lean more toward the idea that mythology is and probably always will have significance to a large portion of humanity. Even the Secular Humanist ideals are just that, idealistic, but unrealistic concepts.

I think that religion, just like every other human invented philosophy can be either helpful or harmful. If used for good, I don't care about the unproven supernatural beliefs. But if used to condemn, judge, make excuses for bad behavior under the pretense that just by asking forgiveness from this unknown higher power, all we be forgiven, than religion, like all other flawed human ideologies can be very harmful and destructive. We are all flawed humans regardless of what we might believe.

And sure, atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. But, there is a long history of atheist philosophies, and atheist activism. My favorites are some of the women who worked with Christian abolitionists to end slavery, or the early feminist atheists who joined with other women and helped obtain the vote for American females. Historically female atheists are often overlooked and under rated, but freethinking women have a long history of working toward positive goals in the area of social justice.

Some of my atheist peers might look at me in a derogatory way because I don't judge people by what they belief, although I might sometimes use humor to criticize some of the fantastic claims made by religion. I am far more interested in an individual's character, than I am in their beliefs. Luckily, I am not one who is easily bothered by what others think of me. That is just my nature.

I also have a difficult time even accepting that we have much if any freewill. So, if we are all products of both our genetic and environmental influences, then you have no power to be anything but a Christian and I have no power to be anything but an atheist. We could change if substantial environmental influences were to move us in different directions, but after being an atheist for almost fifty years, and having not yet seen anything that influences me to believe in the supernatural, I doubt I will change. I don't know if anything could influence you, and I honestly don't care. Your rays cannot harm me. ( Okay. I stole that line from a female comedian that I saw many decades ago )

 

[Rhea]

For all you lurkers out there...
Atheism, as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and other philosophy reference works, is the denial of the existence of God.

For all you Bearers of False Witness out there, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says no such thing.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

While identifying atheism with the metaphysical claim that there is no God (or that there are no gods) is particularly useful for doing philosophy, it is important to recognize that the term “atheism” is polysemous—i.e., it has more than one related meaning—even within philosophy.

It says this right at the beginning, so it takes a willful intent to demean and condemn in order to read this entry and think a partial-sentence quote is in any way honest or truthful.

On this view, there would have been atheists even if no theists ever existed—they just wouldn’t have been called “atheists”.

The entry carries on for 30 pages, explaining what is the effect of choosing different definitions on the user's ability to actually understand atheism, and how cutting it short will leave you WRONG about atheism.


We expect this from christians, who regularly choose to bear false witness against atheists in order to demean and judge and condemn them by dishonestly calling atheism willful disobedience. And while we expect this based on centuries of repeated behavior, it does not erase the fact that it is bearing false witness to do it.

It is a wonder to behold christians sinning in order to accuse us of sin, and it conclusively demonstrates the destructive nature of cults.

Meanwhile you, Lion, have been told by real live people that your definition of us is not accurate and not true, yet you continue to repeat it, bearing false witness for Jesus. God sees you, Lion. He never knew you.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It is a wonder to behold christians sinning in order to accuse us of sin, and it conclusively demonstrates the destructive nature of cults.

But as they say, it's not illegal a sin when the President does Faithful do it.
Esoecially when done out if pride, because you just gotta be better than those liberals liberals.

 

[Rhea]

The atheist Francois Tremblay wrote in his essay Herding Cats: Why atheism will lose:

"One last problem that undermines any propagation of atheism is inspiration. Let's be honest here, "there is no god!" is not a very motivating call for most people".

Anyone here remember his Graveyard of the Gods forum?
I do. I learned a lot about atheism from that place.

This is an interesting quote.

It makes a HUGE ASSUMPTION:

That anyone who is an atheist uses their atheism as a rallying cry, or needs anyone else to, or needs to be rallied

It speaks intimately to how lion feels inside. He needs to be rallied. He needs something beyond his friends and family and passions and hobbies and job in order to not fall into an abyss of meaninglessness. He does not, perhaps, understand what it is to be intrinsically HAPPY or even CONTENT. Otherwise why would someone even notice the lack of rallying power. He feels the lack of a motivating call from atheism makes it a "losing" proposition. He NEEDS the motivating call of his faith. He doesn't care whether it's true, he only mentions that it rallies.

I do not notice or care about the lack of rallying power of atheism. It is absolutely unnoticeable in my life except when defending against the oppression of religions.

How fascinating that you find that important, Lion.
What are you going to do with the knowledge that it is NOT TRUE that atheists care about whether it rallies? Are you going to keep repeating it, bearing false witness against us?

 

[Keith&Co.]

How fascinating that you find that important, Lion.
What are you going to do with the knowledge that it is NOT TRUE that atheists care about whether it rallies? Are you going to keep repeating it, bearing false witness against us?

Hahahaha.

I wrote a fanfiction story once that included a scene where they attempted sympathetic magic. That's sort of a ritualistic version of 'monkey see, monkey do.' Pour water on the ground so that rain will fall, stab the drawing of the gazelle so the spear will hit the deer during the hunt.

My only review was a guy saying that was the worst sex scene he had ever read.

It wasn't intended as sex, or described in intimate terms, but that was the only thing this guy wanted from the site. I did not find myself worried by this criticism. Just laughing at yyhe guy who took the time to illustrate his kimitations.

 

[abaddon]

This is an interesting quote.

It makes a HUGE ASSUMPTION:

That anyone who is an atheist uses their atheism as a rallying cry, or needs anyone else to, or needs to be rallied

It speaks intimately to how lion feels inside. He needs to be rallied. He needs something beyond his friends and family and passions and hobbies and job in order to not fall into an abyss of meaninglessness. He does not, perhaps, understand what it is to be intrinsically HAPPY or even CONTENT. Otherwise why would someone even notice the lack of rallying power. He feels the lack of a motivating call from atheism makes it a "losing" proposition. He NEEDS the motivating call of his faith. He doesn't care whether it's true, he only mentions that it rallies.

I do not notice or care about the lack of rallying power of atheism. It is absolutely unnoticeable in my life except when defending against the oppression of religions.

Excellent post. I think addressing the "need for meaning" gets to the heart of what religion is.

Whatever causes it (I suspect an old and false belief), religious and spiritual folk feel a need to pile extra baggage on. It's not enough to have passions -- the intrinsic meaningfulness of whatever it is that one enjoys has to be misattributed to "something beyond". Spouse, kids, friends, goals, happiness... what's the value of that shit if it's not cosmically intended? If meaning is not found coded in some authoritative ancient text (which in turn must be credited to some fantastical universe-making fellow), then it's merely subjective and therefore not really meaningful.

Meaning's necessarily a side-effect of friends, family, passions, hobbies, job, activity... life. It's there if you don't look specifically for it and, instead, give more total attention to life. Even if it's something I'd consider very goofy ... like "interpreting" some culture's old books (projecting opinions into them) ... the meaning derived is a side-effect of that passion/hobby.

"What's it all for though?" Moments where a question like that comes up mean the person's mentally distant from his friends, family, passions, life. The best answer I know of to a question like that is "You feel 'what it's all for' when you're in the flow of your life" (and living like there's no tomorrow ). The worst answer is "God says ___" and fill in the blank with an opinion that somebody wrote down long ago.

What are you going to do with the knowledge that it is NOT TRUE that atheists care about whether it rallies? Are you going to keep repeating it, bearing false witness against us?

We're not the right source of information about ourselves. Only negative (mis)information about atheists can be true be good for trolling people.

 

[Lion IRC]

YouTube atheist Thunderfoot said about the atheist movement after Reason Rally 2016 had a very low turnout:

"I'm not sure there is anything in this movement worth saving. Hitchens is dead. Dawkins simply doesn't have the energy for this sort of thing anymore. Harris went his own way. And Dennett just kind of blended into the background. So what do you think when the largest gathering of the nonreligious in history pulls in... I don't know. Maybe 2,000 people.
Is there anything worth saving?"

 

[Lion IRC]

What I learned from Stanford Encylopedia about the definition of atheism and the structural linguistic connection to its antonym - theism.

1. Definitions of “Atheism”

“Atheism” is typically defined in terms of “theism”.


Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition—something that is either true or false.


It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”.


It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing.


This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism.


If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists.

 

[bilby]

YouTube atheist Thunderfoot said about the atheist movement after Reason Rally 2016 had a very low turnout:

"I'm not sure there is anything in this movement worth saving. Hitchens is dead. Dawkins simply doesn't have the energy for this sort of thing anymore. Harris went his own way. And Dennett just kind of blended into the background. So what do you think when the largest gathering of the nonreligious in history pulls in... I don't know. Maybe 2,000 people.
Is there anything worth saving?"

Most atheists are completely disinterested in being part of a movement.

If you held a big "people who don't enjoy watching football" rally at your local football stadium, with the guarantee that no football would be played, so that people who don't care for football can share their experiences as non-football fans in a society full of football fans, would you expect a big turnout?

I certainly wouldn't.

I have been an atheist all my life, and have never attended any kind of atheist meetings, unless you count this discussion board - where mostly I don't post about atheism or religion, but rather about politics, humour, current affairs, history, science and technology, etc., etc.

Atheism isn't a movement. It's stupid to compare it to movements and to then declare it a failure because it doesn't attract the devotion and support that a movement would attract.

Atheism is what happens when nobody has provided any compelling evidence for the existence of any deities. What is considered compelling is up to the individual; As yet, none of the world's religions have come even close to providing evidence that I personally don't consider laughable.

I don't need to go to atheism meetings in order to continue to hold this opinion. And my absence at such meetings says exactly nothing about my firm and justified belief that every single deity ever proposed is a work of fiction.

I do vaguely wonder why apparently intelligent people are able to grasp the fictional status of every deity bar one. That's downright baffling to me. Polytheism is less obviously dumb, but it's still clearly just a set of tall tales. Gods are not necessary in order to understand anything about reality. They are just an extension of humanity's natural tendency to animism - we have evolved in an environment where the assumption of agency is selected for, and the assumption of its absence is selected against.

I, like everyone, tend to animistic habits - I will say "That nut doesn't want to budge; It wants some oil before it can be loosened". Of course, a hexagonal steel ring with a threaded central hole doesn't have desires. But it's human nature to talk as if it did.

To mistake this tendency for some kind of insight into the nature of reality - to assign a spirit to the nut, which then becomes amenable to persuasion ("fucking shift you BASTARD") is a common but grave error. Reality doesn't respond to pleas and entreaties. Not even if you refer to them as "prayers"; And not even if you really, really, want it to.

 

[Rhea]

What I learned from Stanford Encylopedia about the definition of atheism and the structural linguistic connection to its antonym - theism.

1. Definitions of “Atheism”

“Atheism” is typically defined in terms of “theism”.


Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition—something that is either true or false.


It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”.


It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing.


This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism.


If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists.

That’ what you got out of that? You read all those “IF” statements and decided it was definitive?

“IF” you look a it this way, then...

But seriously, dude, it then spends THIRTY TIMES AS MAY WORDS to go on to say, “but if you don’t, it’ll mean something altogether different.”

And I even pointed that OUT to you, tha it goes on for 30 pages with a lot more meaning to the word, and look what you post, bearing false witness against the article. And thumbs-upping yourself for it.

Jesus must be so proud of you for bearing false witness for him, so we can all see what Jesus’ followers think is okay to do.

 

[PyramidHead]

But there's actually no God, so who cares what the word means?

 

[bilby]

But there's actually no God, so who cares what the word means?

There are actually no gods. Plural.

Monotheists have a sly habit of referring to "God", as though theirs was somehow special or different from all the thousands of others. But they're all just fictional characters. Yahweh is no different from Thor in regards to his fictionality.

Oddly, it's very clear that the Old Testament God is Himself a polytheist - he spends a lot of time threatening his followers with doom if they worship any of his competitors, which is utterly nonsensical if those competitors aren't just as real as He is. Somewhere along the line, He transitioned from being the best god, and the only one worthy of praise, to being the only God, period.

It's almost as though the story isn't a recounting of the truth, but rather a tale that has evolved over time to suit its audience. That's a characteristic of fictional works with great longevity.

 

[skepticalbip]

What I learned from Stanford Encylopedia about the definition of atheism and the structural linguistic connection to its antonym - theism.

1. Definitions of “Atheism”

“Atheism” is typically defined in terms of “theism”.


Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition—something that is either true or false.


It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”.


It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing.


This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism.


If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists.

That’ what you got out of that? You read all those “IF” statements and decided it was definitive?

“IF” you look a it this way, then...

But seriously, dude, it then spends THIRTY TIMES AS MAY WORDS to go on to say, “but if you don’t, it’ll mean something altogether different.”

And I even pointed that OUT to you, tha it goes on for 30 pages with a lot more meaning to the word, and look what you post, bearing false witness against the article. And thumbs-upping yourself for it.

Jesus must be so proud of you for bearing false witness for him, so we can all see what Jesus’ followers think is okay to do.

"Lying for Jesus" is a growing movement among Christians. Maybe some revered Christian leader has told them that the ten commandments no longer apply to Christians.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

For all you Bearers of False Witness out there, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says no such thing.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/



It says this right at the beginning, so it takes a willful intent to demean and condemn in order to read this entry and think a partial-sentence quote is in any way honest or truthful.

On this view, there would have been atheists even if no theists ever existed—they just wouldn’t have been called “atheists”.

The entry carries on for 30 pages, explaining what is the effect of choosing different definitions on the user's ability to actually understand atheism, and how cutting it short will leave you WRONG about atheism.


We expect this from christians, who regularly choose to bear false witness against atheists in order to demean and judge and condemn them by dishonestly calling atheism willful disobedience. And while we expect this based on centuries of repeated behavior, it does not erase the fact that it is bearing false witness to do it.

It is a wonder to behold christians sinning in order to accuse us of sin, and it conclusively demonstrates the destructive nature of cults.

Meanwhile you, Lion, have been told by real live people that your definition of us is not accurate and not true, yet you continue to repeat it, bearing false witness for Jesus. God sees you, Lion. He never knew you.

Atheism means simply, having no belief in God or gods. It does not matter if that atheist has bad reasons for not believing in god(s), very good reasons for not believing in god(s) or offers no reasons at all for not believing in god(s). It is that simple. Anything else is bullshit.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

But there's actually no God, so who cares what the word means?

There are actually no gods. Plural.

Monotheists have a sly habit of referring to "God", as though theirs was somehow special or different from all the thousands of others. But they're all just fictional characters. Yahweh is no different from Thor in regards to his fictionality.

Oddly, it's very clear that the Old Testament God is Himself a polytheist - he spends a lot of time threatening his followers with doom if they worship any of his competitors, which is utterly nonsensical if those competitors aren't just as real as He is. Somewhere along the line, He transitioned from being the best god, and the only one worthy of praise, to being the only God, period.

It's almost as though the story isn't a recounting of the truth, but rather a tale that has evolved over time to suit its audience. That's a characteristic of fictional works with great longevity.

Sons of God. Genesis 1, Job 1 and Job 2, plus other verses, hosts of heaven et al.

There are lots of gods in the OT.