Atheism: new religion?

[llamatron]

I responded to answer the question.

 

No it clearly is not a religion, the definition of atheist proves that.

 

Sceptics seems to be more religious than an atheist, it you are sceptical it means you are not convinced. Sceptic sounds like a label religious people would give atheists, however having been given that label you could wear it proudly I guess.

 

Mainly throughout this thread though I have been trying to correct you! and refute your odd conclusions about atheists

[llamatron]

Again, see my post above.

 

As it seems to be such a problem, from now on I'll direct my posts to sceptics, who are also atheists, but, who seem to be able to accept that their movement does actually have an aim.

 

To the aimless atheists, just out of interest, why are you posting on this thread if you have no aim?

 

If you do have an aim, why not tell me what it is, so confusion can be avoided?

 

(those atheists who have stated their aim, seem to say that it's about educating people to what scepticism is about and combating the bad effects of religious belief, which is basically the aim I'm talking about, so I'm unclear as to what the problem is).

 

There you go again trying to group atheists together and not getting that they do not have a joint agenda:loopy:

 

The only thing atheism is about is not beliving in a god. That is the only conclusion to be drawn. Atheists have plenty of personal agendas some of them coincide when they are about religion but we do not have a leader. There are groups of atheists that promote humanism, evolution etc but they are groups of atheists not atheists in general.

 

"Aimless atheists":hihi:

[Cyclone]

To the aimless atheists, just out of interest, why are you posting on this thread if you have no aim?

 

The thread was started by a poster making a statement that atheism is akin to a religion.

 

I had an aim within the context of this thread which was to prove that statement to be incorrect. That doesn't mean that I actively wish to convince religious people of their mistake, although if one were to be convinced somehow then I wouldn't be upset.

[onewheeldave]

In my case it was the desire to engage in a bit of intellectual discourse' date=' coupled with the fact I find religious people mildly amusing.[/quote']

 

 

There you go again trying to group atheists together and not getting that they do not have a joint agenda:loopy:

 

The only thing atheism is about is not beliving in a god. That is the only conclusion to be drawn. Atheists have plenty of personal agendas some of them coincide when they are about religion but we do not have a leader. There are groups of atheists that promote humanism, evolution etc but they are groups of atheists not atheists in general.

 

"Aimless atheists":hihi:

 

I responded to answer the question.

 

No it clearly is not a religion, the definition of atheist proves that.

 

Sceptics seems to be more religious than an atheist, it you are sceptical it means you are not convinced. Sceptic sounds like a label religious people would give atheists, however having been given that label you could wear it proudly I guess.

 

Mainly throughout this thread though I have been trying to correct you! and refute your odd conclusions about atheists

 

The thread was started by a poster making a statement that atheism is akin to a religion.

 

I had an aim within the context of this thread which was to prove that statement to be incorrect. That doesn't mean that I actively wish to convince religious people of their mistake, although if one were to be convinced somehow then I wouldn't be upset.

 

 

OK.

 

I think we can all agree the thread is no longer focused on the OP's issue of whether atheism is akin to a religion.

 

So, in the absence of any other pressing matters, I guess it's probably time to wind it down.

 

I must say, in comparison to other similar threads on sheff forum, it's been a lot less heated and antogonistic (one of the few, in fact, that hasn't ended up pulled by the mods), so, that's good.

 

And, I guess I've learned that, in talking of the 'atheist community', that's always going to be seen as a contradiction in terms, so I would perhaps do better to talk of the sceptical community.

 

Just out of interest though, did any of you watch the vid clip posted by six45ive?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixVNtzc5RqI

 

and, if so, what did you think?

 

Especially with reference to the fact that the speaker is a atheist sceptic, who was making pretty much the same points, in regard to how the sceptic community conducts itself in debates, as I have throughout this thread?

 

Do you feel, for example, that he was guilty of generalising in the same way you feel I do?

[sccsux]

You've established nothing.

 

Yes we have.

 

We've established that you lie about a group of people (atheists) in order to further your own propaganda with the comment "Yes, you're right- what I said there is rubbish", which begs the question, if you spout rubbish once (and it is proven that it is rubbish) how do you expect people to take you seriously or believe what you type?

 

The video linked to is a meeting of the sceptical movement.

 

Which is not an atheist group, so your point is null and void.

 

I guarantee

 

And you'd probably be equally as wrong in that environment as you are in this one.

[six45ive]

OK.

 

I think we can all agree the thread is no longer focused on the OP's issue of whether atheism is akin to a religion.

 

So, in the absence of any other pressing matters, I guess it's probably time to wind it down.

 

I must say, in comparison to other similar threads on sheff forum, it's been a lot less heated and antogonistic (one of the few, in fact, that hasn't ended up pulled by the mods), so, that's good.

 

And, I guess I've learned that, in talking of the 'atheist community', that's always going to be seen as a contradiction in terms, so I would perhaps do better to talk of the sceptical community.

 

Just out of interest though, did any of you watch the vid clip posted by six45ive?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixVNtzc5RqI

 

and, if so, what did you think?

 

Especially with reference to the fact that the speaker is a atheist sceptic, who was making pretty much the same points, in regard to how the sceptic community conducts itself in debates, as I have throughout this thread?

 

Do you feel, for example, that he was guilty of generalising in the same way you feel I do?

 

Nice to see that you've finally accepted that it's the sceptic/secularist/humanist community that you should be talking about rather than the 'atheist community' which is mainly a US movement designed to provide focus on the extreme right wing fundies that are so prevalent in the US.

As for my position on Phil Plait's accommodationism vs Richard Dawkin's more scientific approach, I think both have a place and if used in the right way can be effective as I explained earlier in my 'carrot' and 'stick' post.

As for which is having what effect in society in regards to people becoming less religious, I think they're both having a positive, relatively small but significant effect on turning people away from religion especially in the US as opposed to Europe where we're generally more enlightened anyway and religion doesn't have such a large part to play in everyday life, political or otherwise.

I think without a doubt that the most important thing that's turning people away from religion is the internet itself. Computers, the internet, smart phones etc means that you have virtually unlimited choice at any time of the day to live your life as you wish with no need to turn to a divine sky pixie to tell you how to live your life. You can do this now - for yourself which is incredibly empowering and puts the individual at the centre of his own world, which, in effect, makes every man his own god.

 

BTW.....talking about god, where's Grahame on this thread?

[onewheeldave]

Nice to see that you've finally accepted that it's the sceptic/secularist/humanist community that you should be talking about rather than the 'atheist community' which is mainly a US movement designed to provide focus on the extreme right wing fundies that are so prevalent in the US.

As for my position on Phil Plait's accommodationism vs Richard Dawkin's more scientific approach, I think both have a place and if used in the right way can be effective as I explained earlier in my 'carrot' and 'stick' post.

As for which is having what effect in society in regards to people becoming less religious, I think they're both having a positive, relatively small but significant effect on turning people away from religion especially in the US as opposed to Europe where we're generally more enlightened anyway and religion doesn't have such a large part to play in everyday life, political or otherwise.

I think without a doubt that the most important thing that's turning people away from religion is the internet itself. Computers, the internet, smart phones etc means that you have virtually unlimited choice at any time of the day to live your life as you wish with no need to turn to a divine sky pixie to tell you how to live your life. You can do this now - for yourself which is incredibly empowering and puts the individual at the centre of his own world, which, in effect, makes every man his own god.

 

BTW.....talking about god, where's Grahame on this thread?

 

Yes- fantastic video, thanks once again for the link.

 

I've no idea where Grahame is, but, like I previously noted, there is, as far as I can tell, a total absence of any believers on this one.

[six45ive]

Yes- fantastic video, thanks once again for the link.

 

I've no idea where Grahame is, but, like I previously noted, there is, as far as I can tell, a total absence of any believers on this one.

 

OK, no problem.

Although I'm still wondering why you think that evil (and I assume good) are dictated by a person's genetic make up?

In other words where do you get your info as to where our morals come from if you're an atheist like me?

[onewheeldave]

OK, no problem.

Although I'm still wondering why you think that evil (and I assume good) are dictated by a person's genetic make up?

In other words where do you get your info as to where our morals come from if you're an atheist like me?

 

Well, I said that, IMO, evil came from either genetic factors, extreme environmental factors (e.g. sexual abuse, physical violence, being brought up by sociopaths etc), or, some combination of both.

 

And, by evil, I meant evil as in those who commit atrocites (i.e. they're not just 'bad', but really sick, twisted individuals with serious mental health issues, who like hurting people).

 

I've made no mention of good, and certainly, I wouldn't say good is simply the opposite of that kind of evil.

 

So, I'm not really sure I can say that much about good, without a lot of confusion ensuing- I think you'd have to ask a more specific question about good, whilst bearing in mind what I've said above (about evil), for me to have much chance of saying anything useful.

 

For the second point, I'm not sure what you mean by 'where do you get your info from as to where our morals come from'.

 

Are you asking how we, IMO, make moral choices, or, are you asking where I get my evidence from to back up any theories of morality I may have?

 

I also don't really refer to myself as an atheist, because of the many different ideas of what an atheist is (I know you guys have a very specific definition of the term, but, a lot of the general public use varying different definitions).

[six45ive]

Well, I said that, IMO, evil came from either genetic factors, extreme environmental factors (e.g. sexual abuse, physical violence, being brought up by sociopaths etc), or, some combination of both.

 

And, by evil, I meant evil as in those who commit atrocites (i.e. they're not just 'bad', but really sick, twisted individuals with serious mental health issues, who like hurting people).

 

OK, do you think that just being 'bad' also has a genetic contribution?

 

I've made no mention of good, and certainly, I wouldn't say good is simply the opposite of that kind of evil.

 

So, I'm not really sure I can say that much about good, without a lot of confusion ensuing- I think you'd have to ask a more specific question about good, whilst bearing in mind what I've said above (about evil), for me to have much chance of saying anything useful.

 

It's quite simple, if you think being evil (or bad) has a genetic contribution then why not good as well? I'm wondering about your thought process on this so please feel free to ensue as much confusion as you wish.

 

For the second point, I'm not sure what you mean by 'where do you get your info from as to where our morals come from'.

 

Are you asking how we, IMO, make moral choices, or, are you asking where I get my evidence from to back up any theories of morality I may have?

 

I suppose I'm asking both questions really.