Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, I was thinking. The Christians would barge into pagan temples and actively try to convert the populace. It would be easy to do that and deconvert them. All in the name of being a kind neighbor and trying to help them, of course. They would have events on the festivals about why the older religion was wrong, and harmful, and its mythologies grotesque etc etc. Then they would integrate the older customs into the new belief systems. If they didn't' want it then they wouldn't have tax free houses open to the public. It seems people like having a sense of community and Sunday meeting and being lectured and singing on Sunday mornings.
Indeed. It would be easy to go on a great atheist crusade, luting non -religious festivals onto religious ones. Replacing Easter with Resurrection -debunking - day and Christmas with Nativity-nonsense-day. But that isn't really necessary. The Christian complaint that Jesus is sidelined for the festivity of Christmas may show that the good work is being done without any help from us, and the face of Santa as reinvented by the Coca -cola company is more to be seen than the nativity scene.
Indeed, there need be no special effort to even debunk the nativity at that time of the year and atheists need do no more by way of response to Christian complaints that Jesus is the reason for the season than 'So what' and run a TV showing of the heart-rendingly beautiful Bethlehem Nativity at the start of 'Life of Brian'.
The bottom line is - people must make up their own minds and allthat we need to do is present the case for atheism. If I did not believe in the essential soundness of my fellow Yumans and the evident rational correctness of the atheist non -belief position, I would no tbe spending my time here, doing what I do.
So as you all might have realized, I like atheists (the ones on here are usually smart) as much as I like theists. But I was thinking about the growth in atheism... and about how meaningless it is. What is atheism going to accomplish? Nothing. It is simply piggy backing on increased intelligence, etc, which are the actual good things. So the more the atheists deconvert the bad people in religion, the more bad people there will be in Atheism.
I think this is the atheist's grand mistake. I think some people have some natural inclinations, and that as atheists convert bad people with their arguments and growing power, they will invite more degradation of Enlightenment and Ethical values into their fold. Instead of focusing on the growth in criticism of the God question, atheists should be focusing on intelligence and critical thinking, etc, especially for their children (which they seem to often do, not wanted to "push" atheism into their children).
This is the problem I have with the atheist label, and why I prefer people to label themselves by things that matter a little bit more than whether or not deities exist, which is what the whole atheist/theist argument ultimately boils down to. The label of "Brights" denotes a certain "inquiry, visibility, and intelligence" and the label "Humanist" denotes a certain "goal, respect, and focus." The word "Agnostic" denotes a certain "understanding, limitation, and broader inquiry."
The first people to be labeled "atheist" were the ancient Christians, often called the Nazarenes. They (after they took over Rome), along with the Islamists in the Arab lands, destroyed Enlightenment/progressive values and plunged their civilizations into dark ages. The Atheists in Russia were no better, after shredding their constitution and focusing only on economic equality and national security, they denied Enlightenment values and freedom, plunging their societies into dark eras. All of these people accepted a form of authoritarian conservatism which wanted nothing to do with inquiry and counter-arguments. But these possible consequences of such a theist-centered focus are only one possible outcome of the mistake.
Another outcome of atheists' spreading of unmonitored atheism and their acceptance of inferior deconverts would likely be that the pious religious would point to the atheists and say "look at their degradation, we are better" and so have an incentive for the good people to turn to religion where it is organized and clean.
There could be no inferior converts in a strongly monitored Humanist or Bright movement. However, any organization might succumb to corruption, so there would still be work and inquiry that would need to be done. Still why would anyone want to spread disbelief in gods? Spread how you got there, not the short cut to it (accepting atheism).
Do any of you disagree that calling yourself an atheist is a mistake? Do any of you disagree that spreading atheism (without spreading actual good things) is meaningless EVEN if ending (current) theism is not?
I rarely call myself an atheist because I do in part think it is a mistake to call myself an atheist, because by doing so I dignify "theists" to the extent that I define myself by my opposition to them. So I refrain from stating my religion; if pressed, I have no religion. Best world IMO is a world of loving fatalists that has entirely forgotten our utopian past(s). In order to achieve this (a new sort of utopia, admittedly), we must entirely relinquish the mythical notion of god. I've done it. Can you?
The training video I received clearly stated I don't have to attend meetings or do any conversions. If that changes I'm definitely asking for my money back.
I hope there will be no more of the "dumb/naive guy" secularism thing, where religions in the shadows profit from their Ivory Towers and are protected from free-discourse and property taxes.
Well, I don't know or care much about that. I do know that I agree with Matt on his views on what atheism should be, do and especially agree with his rejection of the idea that we should find another name for ourselves, as though atheism was something to be ashamed of.
For example, why should it bother us that "a-theism" might dignify theism? Even if that were true, we have no real beef with theism, only with organized religion.
Do any of you disagree that calling yourself an atheist is a mistake? Do any of you disagree that spreading atheism (without spreading actual good things) is meaningless EVEN if ending (current) theism is not?
Disagree strongly as to both. I'm not interested in "spreading" atheism. I'm interested in "spreading" tolerance; you can believe and practice whatever religion you want, so long as you don't force it, formally or otherwise, on me.
That may be too much to ask of pious, rabid, and/or insecure religionists, especially those who embrace the argument that their "religious liberty" is being infringed upon if they're dumb enough to live in a state that prohibits their "god-given right" to refuse to serve queers. but they can always move to Alabama, Arkansas, or Iran.
I no more have "religious" beliefs than I have "banana" beliefs.
Well, I don't know or care much about that. I do know that I agree with Matt on his views on what atheism should be, do and especially agree with his rejection of the idea that we should find another name for ourselves, as though atheism was something to be ashamed of.
For example, why should it bother us that "a-theism" might dignify theism? Even if that were true, we have no real beef with theism, only with organized religion.
I think Nozz says it best, he happens to be unbelieving in deities because he doesn't afford belief to unsubstantiated things. As such, going all the way back in time to the OP in 2013, I agree that the "really important" thing going on is not atheism, but empiricism, rationalism, adhering to a sound as opposed to a failed epistemology, actual as opposed to faux morality and ethics, things of that nature. Atheism is just one facet of those things, not the main event.
I think Nozz says it best, he happens to be unbelieving in deities because he doesn't afford belief to unsubstantiated things. As such, going all the way back in time to the OP in 2013, I agree that the "really important" thing going on is not atheism, but empiricism, rationalism, adhering to a sound as opposed to a failed epistemology, actual as opposed to faux morality and ethics, things of that nature. Atheism is just one facet of those things, not the main event.
The collective quality of these boards rises significantly when you post here, mordant...
The collective quality of these boards rises significantly when you post here, mordant...
Thanks. Been having more fun, honestly, at TTA, but it was down earlier today, which made me think of C-D. This is no longer my preferred hangout (only so many hours in a day) after the moderation changes on R&S but I do plan to dip in here and there. You can always visit me at TTA, same handle there ;-)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
