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.
As a life long atheist I have zero interest in reading books about atheism, or written by atheists, that the main subject is atheism.
This. Atheism is the absence of religious belief - not a void, but a space that simply does not exist. Why would I want to read a book about the seven different ways I don't give a damn about pro football? Or seven ways to think about how I don't know a word of Javanese?
The need to scrutinize and analyze and categorize is a religious trait, and I firmly and wholly reject the idea that atheism needs to be so discussed. It just reinforces the Godite view that "it's just another religion."
This. Atheism is the absence of religious belief - not a void, but a space that simply does not exist. Why would I want to read a book about the seven different ways I don't give a damn about pro football? Or seven ways to think about how I don't know a word of Javanese?
The need to scrutinize and analyze and categorize is a religious trait, and I firmly and wholly reject the idea that atheism needs to be so discussed. It just reinforces the Godite view that "it's just another religion."
Great analogies. You've really won me over.
In the absence of religious faith, atheistically informed 'personal philosophy' rules the day, and these can be reliably grouped into certain categories. That is the premise. I knew it'd annoy-if-not-anger people, and it's kind of fun to see a subforum novice such as yourself falling in lockstep with the rest of the minions. The person you quoted is a forum regular who can be bothered to read most every thread that's posted here, mostly on tired, regurgitated topics of the hair-splitting variety, but (s)he can't be bothered to read a book--that's fine, but I think the nature of the protest, that 'there's nothing really to talk about', would also preclude a person from posting 4k times on an atheism forum (although I didn't check his/her (I believe it's a her, but I could be mistaken) profile to see subforum stats, I'm sure the vast majority of his/her overall forum posts are from this subforum).
In the absence of religious faith, atheistically informed 'personal philosophy' rules the day, and these can be reliably grouped into certain categories. That is the premise. I knew it'd annoy-if-not-anger people, and it's kind of fun to see a subforum novice such as yourself falling in lockstep with the rest of the minions. The person you quoted is a forum regular who can be bothered to read most every thread that's posted here, mostly on tired, regurgitated topics of the hair-splitting variety, but (s)he can't be bothered to read a book--that's fine, but I think the nature of the protest, that 'there's nothing really to talk about', would also preclude a person from posting 4k times on an atheism forum (although I didn't check his/her (I believe it's a her, but I could be mistaken) profile to see subforum stats, I'm sure the vast majority of his/her overall forum posts are from this subforum).
Even with religion don't people develop "personal philosophy"? Are we talking about atheism or personality?
edit:
His main thesis here is that atheists tend to have faith in the gradual improvement (if not perfectability) of the species and in 'moral progress', a stance he denigrates time and time again.
This is your quote about people who fall into secular humanist. That seems accurate to me. I'd be interested in the criticism of that.
In the absence of religious faith, atheistically informed 'personal philosophy' rules the day, and these can be reliably grouped into certain categories. That is the premise. I knew it'd annoy-if-not-anger people, and it's kind of fun to see a subforum novice such as yourself falling in lockstep with the rest of the minions. The person you quoted is a forum regular who can be bothered to read most every thread that's posted here, mostly on tired, regurgitated topics of the hair-splitting variety, but (s)he can't be bothered to read a book--that's fine, but I think the nature of the protest, that 'there's nothing really to talk about', would also preclude a person from posting 4k times on an atheism forum (although I didn't check his/her (I believe it's a her, but I could be mistaken) profile to see subforum stats, I'm sure the vast majority of his/her overall forum posts are from this subforum).
I thought Quietude's post was good, too. But there is no need to suggest that it was derived from some other Forum regular preaching their gospel of atheism. While there is a common logically sound rationale of atheism that fits all sizes, though many atheists are not aware of it it doesn't matter too much about confused and conflicting ideas of atheism, so long as they are mentally aligned with it. The problem is with atheists who seem intent on attacking it. There are many views within atheism, from the Dawkins and Sam Harrisses to those who showed up i Tracie Harris' survey who thought that church attendance was 'admirable'. It was incomprehensible except (as she said) that Christianity had 'Stellar PR'. It has convinced so many to believe that it is good for society, true or not. It's part of the job, to lay out the facts - it is not as good for society as it likes to appear.
So I'm sure Quietude can form his or her own opinions without having to be indoctrinated by some Forum poster or other, and atheism still remains the one thing - no god-belief. And it is the individual atheists that are all different. And it still looks like Mr. Gray -like many other atheists - has something to learn about the subject.
Atheism - simply not believing in gods. To think otherwise is a failure in thinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Marcinkiewicz
The single most significant stance that one takes in life is whether or not one is a theist.
If it is the most significant stance for you, that does not say much about you. Far more significant to me are things like how do I feed my family to do I take an active stance when the neo Nazis want to march through my city again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Marcinkiewicz
From there, a lot of other beliefs follow, if not logically, then, yes, from a practical standpoint.
No, there are many atheists who do not believe simply because they instinctively understand that improbable things do not exist. They do not live their lives as atheists, they simply are atheists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Marcinkiewicz
If you believe in some specific god, then religion tends to dictate your thinking on a whole host of social issues. If you don't, then there are some other positions that one is likelier to take given that the burden of religiosity does not exist.
Only if you think about your atheism and what comes from your position. Many people do not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Marcinkiewicz
Gray's overarching point is that many atheists substitute some sort of secular religion for 'traditional' religion--belief in humanity, progress, technology, etc. I think his arguments sometimes lack clarity, and he is at times possibly overly cynical (which, coming from me, says a lot), but he also says a lot of things worth considering.
Except we are not substituting anything. Even if I was religious, I would still be a humanist who uses technology to improve our progress.
And if Gray needs to straw man 'religion', then I have no interest in reading him (not that I need to read about not believing in gods anyway, or the type of people who do not believe in gods).
It sounds to me that Gray is confusing atheism with personality types in exactly the same way Arach does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Marcinkiewicz
I knew there'd be dismissive posters on this board, but I also know that despite being atheists, many of the people who post here aren't exactly the most open-minded of sorts, so I maintain my position from the original post that any single person here would do well to read the book--especially someone such as yourself who'd be inclined to write 30 posts arguing against the book before having read a single sentence of it. John Gray uber alles, IMO.
Yet you yourself have described him as not always being clear, and from what I have read from the Guardian web site, I see no reason in reading this book.
In the absence of religious faith, atheistically informed 'personal philosophy' rules the day, and these can be reliably grouped into certain categories. That is the premise. I knew it'd annoy-if-not-anger people, and it's kind of fun to see a subforum novice such as yourself falling in lockstep with the rest of the minions.
We need a book to tell us that even atheists can be put in certain groups?
But it is kind of fun to see that you fall in step with the minions that agree the sky looks blue. Excuse me, I have to clean up some fallen straw. Not all of it is mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Marcinkiewicz
The person you quoted is a forum regular who can be bothered to read most every thread that's posted here, mostly on tired, regurgitated topics of the hair-splitting variety, but (s)he can't be bothered to read a book--that's fine, but I think the nature of the protest, that 'there's nothing really to talk about', would also preclude a person from posting 4k times on an atheism forum (although I didn't check his/her (I believe it's a her, but I could be mistaken) profile to see subforum stats, I'm sure the vast majority of his/her overall forum posts are from this subforum).
We are not bothered about this book, therefore we should not post on creationism, morality or the history of certain religions?
Very good. I have been reading some reviews of this book, and I won't be buying it. I don't need to be told about atheism by someone who has - as I suspected -confused various types of atheists with various types of atheism. While it is is understandable, that (for example) one can suppose that militant, campaiging atheism is a different sect of the Darwinist religion from the one that just doesn't believe and doesn't bother with religion, they are the same atheism, but people who do different things about it. One might as well say that those who do charitable work, giving out free rice and bibles in Namibia is a different Christianity to those who just go to the megachurch on a Sunday. Different people, same religion. One doesn't need a degree in rocket -science (or Philosophy) to work that out. One suspects that he really knew that all along. I noted that some of the variant sects of atheism are the familiar stereotypes, Hitler -eugenics atheism, and Stalinist -scientific atheism.
There may be an element of pot -kettle projection here: a mind (like most others) infected with religious thinking sees parallels with religions. We have some meetings and conferences. "Why that Bible study and going to Church". We have a few books published. "Why thiose are Holy books". We have some spokesmen. "Why, they have priests and popes." It's obviously wrong as one can do the same with any particular kind of interest, endeavour or campaign, and I'm giving him benefit of the doubt to say that he has made an error of thinking rather than he a smartass with a book to sell.
So, I'm not going to speculate about his motivations or mindset, but I am going to reiterate that he might do well to actually discuss his ideas with some atheists and then write another book. It might be worth a read.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-13-2018 at 04:48 AM..
there is no way there can't be sects in atheism. expression of beliefs will be based on personality types. imagine a manicy person expressing atheism and compare that to a shy, introverted atheist. imagine a person with a personality disorder expressing atheism. list the different beliefs of atheists. no theist god is just a definition, but what do they believe? if we stick to the definition then all we say is that there is no god.
people defending "only one atheism" sound just like theist claiming "only one type of "insert theist belief". Then we see these "fundy-atheist" start tagging people that don't believe what they believe as "not a real atheist".
I didn't read the book, but it is more reasonable to suspect sects of atheism than to expect all people to believe the exact same thing. In fact, the second expression of atheism will do nothing but hold logical thinking back.
In the absence of religious faith, atheistically informed 'personal philosophy' rules the day, and these can be reliably grouped into certain categories. That is the premise. I knew it'd annoy-if-not-anger people, and it's kind of fun to see a subforum novice such as yourself falling in lockstep with the rest of the minions. The person you quoted is a forum regular who can be bothered to read most every thread that's posted here, mostly on tired, regurgitated topics of the hair-splitting variety, but (s)he can't be bothered to read a book--that's fine, but I think the nature of the protest, that 'there's nothing really to talk about', would also preclude a person from posting 4k times on an atheism forum (although I didn't check his/her (I believe it's a her, but I could be mistaken) profile to see subforum stats, I'm sure the vast majority of his/her overall forum posts are from this subforum).
What in the world is "atheistically informed 'personal philosophy'?"
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.
