Atheism: new religion?

[Chris_Sleeps]

Also, as to the etymological point made earlier, I was under the impression that the prefix 'a/an' simply means 'not' or 'without', not rejection.

It is the privative alpha, and implies negation. Maybe 'rejection' gives an opening to other ideas but there is an element of it in the prefix.

 

'Aliterate' means someone who is able to read but does not do so. That implies a sense of 'rejection', and not somebody who is 'not-literate'.

[BritPat]

By your logic I am a true believer. I believe in the non existence of seven headed monkeys which dwell on the planet jupiter. There are millions of other such things I am a believer in the non existence of, so I guess (by your yardstick) that makes me something of a fanatical zealot.

 

By your logic you are not a true believer and you appear to be bragging about your natural history tour of Jupiter.

 

Zealots are fanatical therefore the fanatical in your fanatical zealot is redundant.

[pininsho]

I'll happily put my hand up and admit that, usually, I would not watch youtube vids of atheists and their viewpoints, because, personally, I find they usually come across, to me, as arrogant, and tend to set up and demolish large quantities of 'straw men' i.e. atack views which are not actually held by most rational religious believers.

 

Unlike the strawmen that both you and the OP (or is that just you as the OP seems to have disappeared?) are attempting to build against atheists.

Why do you have a problem with somebody talking in what you perceive to be an arrogant way? Are you really going to ignore somebody who's prepared to give you something you've always wanted because they come across as arrogant? I don't think so somehow.

As for your "rational religious believers", that's an oxymoron if ever I've heard one.

 

In this instance, I did watch the vid, and, I'm afraid, found it to be much as i expected.

 

Please explain what you have difficulty in accepting in the videos and why.

 

I won't be watching any more- I'd suggest if you're particualrly impressed by any more such vids, that you simply summarise the relevant arguments and post them here, it is after all a discussion board, and, i'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't want to spend thier valuable time watching these people airing their, IMO, usually badly thought out opinions and views.

 

Except the Hitch explains it so much better than I can. So once again I ask please explain what it is about these views that you have trouble in accepting and your reasons why.

 

You say atheism has nothing to do with Stalinism- in fact the stalinist govt were atheists- not only did they not believe in God themselves, but they considered religious belief to be so wrong that they effectively tried to ban anyone else from having such beliefs. They did this by executing priests and lay believers, in great numbers.

 

No, their motives were political and it was to replace authority figures of all kinds (religious and otherwise) with their own demigod style of authority.

 

Once again, let me remind everyone that, personally, I don't identify atheism as being the cause of those atrocities- the true cause was evil men, who just happened to be atheists.

 

Evil men who happened to worship an ideology of demigods that failed them miserably.

This reminds me of the famous Steven Weinberg quote;

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

[flamingjimmy]

It is the privative alpha, and implies negation. Maybe 'rejection' gives an opening to other ideas but there is an element of it in the prefix.

 

'Aliterate' means someone who is able to read but does not do so. That implies a sense of 'rejection', and not somebody who is 'not-literate'.

 

Interesting I'd never heard that word before. As far as I can gather it seems to have been made up in the 80s so that sociologists would have a fancy word to describe lazy people who'd rather watch the film of the book.

 

Also, if it's negation then surely it can't be a positive belief in absense, that's like the opposite isn't it? Sorry I'm no expert on language, I had to google 'privative alpha'.

[six45ive]

I'll happily put my hand up and admit that, usually, I would not watch youtube vids of atheists and their viewpoints, because, personally, I find they usually come across, to me, as arrogant, and tend to set up and demolish large quantities of 'straw men' i.e. atack views which are not actually held by most rational religious believers.

 

Even when most polls taken find that about 60% of Americans believe the bible to be literally true. (Funny vid making a very serious point.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95hH1H5qK08&feature=player_embedded

Makes your argument of atheists creating strawmen a bit non sensical don't you think?

[onewheeldave]

Surely you can't consider yourself more intelligent and to know better than Hitchens and Dawkins? If so then you'll have to ask yourself why they are big names with big selling books and you are on Sheffield Forum?

 

I consider myself to definitly be intelligent enough to question much of what they say. And, to be honest, when it comes to Dawkins, i consider his rational abilites to be somewhat weak, simply on the basis of some of what I've heard him say.

 

A big name and high books sales are not a function of a persons intelligence, there's plenty of best selling authors with limited intelligence.

 

And I'm on sheffield forum because that's where the thread I'm posting on happens to be

[Mr Prime]

I consider myself to definitly be intelligent enough to question much of what they say. And, to be honest, when it comes to Dawkins, i consider his rational abilites to be somewhat weak, simply on the basis of some of what I've heard him say.

 

A big name and high books sales are not a function of a persons intelligence, there's plenty of best selling authors with limited intelligence.

 

And I'm on sheffield forum because that's where the thread I'm posting on happens to be

 

Big names and high book sales are a sign of the authors intelligence in the area of science and current affairs. Maybe not in the area of airport novels, there is a difference as well you know.

 

Dawkins rational abilities are perfectly sensible e.g. waiting for evidence before believing in something irrational. Those that berate him believe in a fantasy because mummy and daddy told them to or because a book written by men tells them to.

[onewheeldave]

This isn't about arrogance, its not a case of 'that's what the word means and you're just wrong'.

 

It's that the second definition doesn't describe anyone, so there's no point in using it, it exists purely so that fools like the OP can make a strawman and say 'look atheism is a religion too!'

 

Also, as to the etymological point made earlier, I was under the impression that the prefix 'a/an' simply means 'not' or 'without', not rejection.

 

Here are some examples:

 

anaerobic - without oxygen (not rejection of oxygen)

atypical - not typical (not a rejection of typical things)

absense - not being there (not a rejection of being there)

 

Can you think of any counter examples?

 

Again, you can refer to Greek origins and etymological issues- the fact remains I would probably agree with you on much of it.

 

However, what I actually said was that some current dictionaries carry the 2nd definition and, thus, there is going to be some confusion.

 

No amount of reference to Greek origins or etymoligy is going to be relevant to that point.

 

And, going beyond that, words as they are actually used in our culture do not necessarily remain true to their origins- language is in a constant state of change.

 

For one example, out of many possibilities- almost everyone uses the word 'hoover' to refer to... well.. Hoovers: yet, originally, hoover refered only to one particualr brand of hoover. nowadays it's considered entirely appropriate to use it to refer to hoovers in general. Right or wrong, that's now the common usage.

[Stamen]

I contend that we are all atheists. I simply believe in one fewer God than some do. When they understand why they dismiss all the other possible Gods, they will understand why I dismiss theirs!

[onewheeldave]

Unlike the strawmen that both you and the OP (or is that just you as the OP seems to have disappeared?) are attempting to build against atheists.

Why do you have a problem with somebody talking in what you perceive to be an arrogant way? Are you really going to ignore somebody who's prepared to give you something you've always wanted because they come across as arrogant? I don't think so somehow.

As for your "rational religious believers", that's an oxymoron if ever I've heard one.

 

 

Yes, i admit that, given the choice, I'm disinclined to listen to the words of arrogant people. If I'm going to debate/discuss deep issues, I'll do so with people who can conduct themselves in a respectful manner and who will stick to straight rational arguments, rather than boosting their egos with veiled insults and sophistry.

 

 

 

Please explain what you have difficulty in accepting in the videos and why.

 

 

 

Except the Hitch explains it so much better than I can. So once again I ask please explain what it is about these views that you have trouble in accepting and your reasons why.

 

If you're going to hold those views then you need to understand them- if you do understand them then you should be able to present them in your own words.

 

My personal expereince is that when people are unable to present a view, or explain it in their own words, it is because they don't really understand it.

 

There are several reasons why, in a debate, i'm not going to be spending valuable time pandering to those whose approach is to simpy post links to one youtube video after another.

 

If you understand it, then say it here, and I'll respond as necessary.