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 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?
That's a good point. I suppose I meant "things I like." For example, empathy and compassion, and such. But how does that deflect from the question. I still believe the atheists' greatest mistake will be their openness to anything and spreading of nothing except disbelief in all gods. I simply do not think that disbelief in the existence of gods leads to anything "good." It kind of gets to the point of why anyone could call themselves an atheist but not an apastafarian. Agnosticism is a label of a fundamental undeniable truth of a essential quality of all sentient beings capable of doubt. It leads to people being able to think twice and should lead to the end of the Phobia of being wrong.
Do you disagree that the more "bad" people call themselves Atheist, the less appealing atheism will be to good people (who are perhaps good by nature and not by any want of truth)?
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 02-15-2013 at 09:36 PM..
As you may have gathered from previous posts I am a Humanist. But that's because I have looked into it and found I was a Humanist all along before I even knew what the term meant. I don't see any problem with calling yourself atheist though. I would agree that atheists tend to be smart people at least from my experience. That is usually because they have put a lot of thought into it before declaring themselves 'atheist'. For me at least although I now realise I was always atheist, it took me some time to take the plunge in using the actual word. That's because I never arrive at a decision lightly before weighing everything up. I think this is probably the case for a lot of atheists.
It's true though, as more people 'convert' if that's how you want to put it (they are probably deep down already atheist) it will follow that humans being human, there are bound to be a few bad eggs.
But there are many many bad eggs who are religious. Religious people have no monopoly on morality - in my view it seems to be if anything be quite the opposite. Of course there are many, many good Christians, but there are many bad ones too - just look at the Catholic paedophile scandal cover up to use just one example.
I think there will always be religious people. It requires questioning mind and a lot of thought to truly understand atheism, unlike a belief in god, which requires simply an unquestioning acceptance of what you have been told. Belief in god is an easy way to 'fill in the gaps' of the bits you don't know. Atheists tend to prefer to look to science to help them fill in the gaps. And if they can't find the answer now, they prefer to leave the gap open rather than using god to fill it.
I don't think atheists seek to accomplish anything. If people are searching for a moral code to accompany their atheism, they can either look to Humanism or they can simply apply the Golden Rule "treat others as you expect to be treated". I think most people atheist or religious already live by this anyway.
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.
Hmmm, you like us so well that you took the time to stop by with an unsolicited lecture on our intellectual shortcomings. On behalf of the entire community of the befuddled here, thanks for caring.
Then you tell us that the growth of atheism is "meaningless", and it turns out to be so meaningless that you devote a half dozen paragraphs of commentary to it.
I doubt that anyone here thinks of their absence of religious belief as having anything to do with accomplishing something or not accomplishing something. It is the absence of satisfactory grounds for subscribing to any of the prevailing religious assertions which determines the absence of belief, not whether or not the belief has a particular utility. In short...it appears to be the truth, so why would I believe anything else?
What is your expectation with this lecture? That some of us will conclude that the need for an imagined greater purpose in life is so paramount that we will simply choose to start believing even though there are still no grounds for that belief's validity? And if some of us should conclude that the need for belief mandates a subscription to a faith, would you insist that it be Christianity or can the goal of utility be served by embracing any old faith? Will Scientology do? What about some booga booga level tribal pagan mythology?
I liked Conan the Barbarian, so I've decided to bring that needed meaning into my life by converting to Cromism. Crom is strong in his mountain. He gave us the riddle of steel.
I don't know. I think atheists represent the population in general by percentage, the same as theists. There are some atheists on this board that I think I really like, and surely respect. In fact, I'll name em. I always enjoy reading what Rifleman and Arequipa have to say, and I really have a soft spot for Sizzly.
I won't name their opposites, but there are many atheists on this board who are knee-jerk reactionists, and at least as fundamental as the most stubborn creationists. I think these folks have rejected the idea of any particular religion, but have not put a lot of thought into constructing a solid belief system, a time honored tradition by historical atheism. It seems to be a flavor of the week kind of thinking that probably won't sustain itself.
The main problem that I have with your post is the way in which you characterize theists and atheists, as if the atheists have the intellectual high ground. The most recent numbers that I have seen in the United States regarding people who define themselves as atheist (as opposed to having no religious affiliation) is around 5%. The assumption that these 5% are the most intelligent in the nation is absurd.
As you may have gathered from previous posts I am a Humanist. But that's because I have looked into it and found I was a Humanist all along before I even knew what the term meant. I don't see any problem with calling yourself atheist though. I would agree that atheists tend to be smart people at least from my experience. That is usually because they have put a lot of thought into it before declaring themselves 'atheist'. For me at least although I now realise I was always atheist, it took me some time to take the plunge in using the actual word. That's because I never arrive at a decision lightly before weighing everything up. I think this is probably the case for a lot of atheists.
It's true though, as more people 'convert' if that's how you want to put it (they are probably deep down already atheist) it will follow that humans being human, there are bound to be a few bad eggs.
But there are many many bad eggs who are religious. Religious people have no monopoly on morality - in my view it seems to be if anything be quite the opposite. Of course there are many, many good Christians, but there are many bad ones too - just look at the Catholic paedophile scandal cover up to use just one example.
I think there will always be religious people. It requires questioning mind and a lot of thought to truly understand atheism, unlike a belief in god, which requires simply an unquestioning acceptance of what you have been told. Belief in god is an easy way to 'fill in the gaps' of the bits you don't know. Atheists tend to prefer to look to science to help them fill in the gaps. And if they can't find the answer now, they prefer to leave the gap open rather than using god to fill it.
I don't think atheists seek to accomplish anything. If people are searching for a moral code to accompany their atheism, they can either look to Humanism or they can simply apply the Golden Rule "treat others as you expect to be treated". I think most people atheist or religious already live by this anyway.
Great points that I agree with Cru, but I believe the term *atheist* (not atheist people themselves) is far too meaningless. Yet Atheism is spreading, not *intelligence/inquiry/compassion* Humanism or Brightness, etc.
I think the Catholic pedophiles aren't Christians, but at least secret doubters (unless they are Catholics who think they are fallen, and pedophile is their state), because otherwise God would be Judging and looking and things... I mean, they are supposed to believe that. So if they start accepting atheism, there will be atheist pedophiles who will make the "atheist label" look bad and thus all atheists along with them.
I know a lot of people who are atheist merely because smart people that they know of are atheist and theism is oppressive and atheism is easy and allows you to have more fun. These people start representing what atheism is about and make theism start looking good by comparison (if theists weren't desperate for any pedophile that will preach for them).
I mean, I feel like atheism is spreading and nothing is changing, so the focus should be on spreading and representing Critical thinking and Compassion etc.
Hmmm, you like us so well that you took the time to stop by with an unsolicited lecture on our intellectual shortcomings. On behalf of the entire community of the befuddled here, thanks for caring.
Then you tell us that the growth of atheism is "meaningless", and it turns out to be so meaningless that you devote a half dozen paragraphs of commentary to it.
I doubt that anyone here thinks of their absence of religious belief as having anything to do with accomplishing something or not accomplishing something. It is the absence of satisfactory grounds for subscribing to any of the prevailing religious assertions which determines the absence of belief, not whether or not the belief has a particular utility. In short...it appears to be the truth, so why would I believe anything else?
What is your expectation with this lecture? That some of us will conclude that the need for an imagined greater purpose in life is so paramount that we will simply choose to start believing even though there are still no grounds for that belief's validity? And if some of us should conclude that the need for belief mandates a subscription to a faith, would you insist that it be Christianity or can the goal of utility be served by embracing any old faith? Will Scientology do? What about some booga booga level tribal pagan mythology?
I liked Conan the Barbarian, so I've decided to bring that needed meaning into my life by converting to Cromism. Crom is strong in his mountain. He gave us the riddle of steel.
Good points Grand, but you have me pegged all wrong. Which is my point... about pegging and stereotyping, I mean. What does it matter if atheism is true (which as an agnostic I know it might not be)? it is also true that the sky is not maroon. And although I understand the need to educate the maroon believers about their colors... having everyone understand that the sky is blue will not help them much. What if they really really need the sky to be maroon or else they will rape and pillage? How about we first teach them why, even if they sky is blue, raping and pillaging in wrong?
Do any of you disagree that calling yourself an atheist is a mistake?
Yes, I disagree. I have never believed in any kind of gods, so that makes me a lifelong Atheist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
Do any of you disagree that spreading atheism (without spreading actual good things) is meaningless EVEN if ending (current) theism is not?
No, it is not meaningless to help people become Atheists.
Some people have been taught religious beliefs but later are not comfortable with those beliefs, and this causes them unhappiness. We can help them to understand that not all people need religious beliefs to have happy, fulfilling lives. We may be able to help them find their own best way to live their lives.
I have never said one word to discourage anyone, including my own two children, from believing in a god. Some people like to believe there is a god, and others of us don't. Religious people have never caused me any problems.
I don't know. I think atheists represent the population in general by percentage, the same as theists. There are some atheists on this board that I think I really like, and surely respect. In fact, I'll name em. I always enjoy reading what Rifleman and Arequipa have to say, and I really have a soft spot for Sizzly.
I won't name their opposites, but there are many atheists on this board who are knee-jerk reactionists, and at least as fundamental as the most stubborn creationists. I think these folks have rejected the idea of any particular religion, but have not put a lot of thought into constructing a solid belief system, a time honored tradition by historical atheism. It seems to be a flavor of the week kind of thinking that probably won't sustain itself.
The main problem that I have with your post is the way in which you characterize theists and atheists, as if the atheists have the intellectual high ground. The most recent numbers that I have seen in the United States regarding people who define themselves as atheist (as opposed to having no religious affiliation) is around 5%. The assumption that these 5% are the most intelligent in the nation is absurd.
Thank you Geo, you are a light of sunshine in the "theist" label by what I have run into. The reason I think atheists have the intellectual high ground is because atheism seems more logical to me right now, although agnosticism is true (which means I don't belief human logic is absolute). Sometimes it seems when I run into smart theists I start thinking "they simply aren't theist enough, they would understand agnosticism and probably convert to atheism easily" But I feel like that is from stereotyping and such.
I don't know. Saying these "bad" people are part of the general population doesn't seem to solve the problem for me. although I understand diversity is important, but still, perhaps there is a "good" society that doesn't need the diversity which the presence of bad people brings.
I still think the atheist movement might fall once they get a lot of close-minded authoritarian people into it, and/or just the bad people that make normal agnostics start thinking they need the refuge of religion.
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.
